Immigration Bill

Written evidence from the Boaz Trust and NACCOM (IB 52)

My name is Dave Smith, and I am the founder and director of the Boaz Trust, a registered charity based in Manchester. The trust supports and accommodates around 55 refused asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, as well as 15 refugees. I am also the coordinator of NACCOM, the National ‘No Accommodation’ Network of 31 organisations in 22 towns and cities across the UK, all of whom offer accommodation to asylum seekers whose claims have been refused and who have not been deported. Currently there are 374 asylum seekers and refugees in NACCOM accommodation.

Summary

1. General Comment

2. Cuts to Legal Aid

3. Appeals

4. Residency Test

5. Health Entitlements and charging

6. Bail

1. General Comment

The Boaz Trust has been in existence nearly 10 years. During that time we have accommodated well over 300 refused asylum seekers. Although we cannot keep track of everyone once they have moved on from our accommodation, and therefore the figures are likely to be much higher, we know that in the last 5 years alone we have seen over 50 clients and former clients granted leave to remain in the UK.

Given that these are all people whose claims have been rejected by the Home Office, and that, as a small charity, our resources are extremely limited, it is of grave concern to us that this clearly demonstrates that the UK asylum system is consistently and systematically refusing the claims of genuine refugees.

With this in mind, we believe that the Immigration Bill, in its current form, will significantly deny justice to those who, like those fifty plus, were able, with some support, to eventually prove the genuineness of their asylum claim.

2. Cuts to Legal Aid

The most worrying aspect of the proposed legislation is the intent to further cut legal aid. This has already been cut to the bone. Ten years ago there were over 30 firms offering legal aid to immigrants and asylum seekers in Manchester. Now there are no more than half a dozen. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit drop-in sees long queues forming from 6am until it opens at 10am, and most are turned away when the full quota has been reached. Many refused asylum seekers are therefore unable to find a legal aid solicitor to take on their case, even if they have fresh evidence.

The Bill claims that legal aid cuts will not affect asylum seekers, but this does not extend to those whose claims have been rejected. This means that, even if they are able to find compelling fresh evidence – as our clients frequently do – they will not be eligible for legal aid, and will have to pay for a solicitor. This will encourage people with no right to work to find illicit ways of paying for their fresh claim, either through illegal work or even prostitution. That surely cannot be right.

Just two weeks ago a former Boaz client from Ethiopia was granted Leave to Remain. He had been in the UK over 6 years, and refused for more than 5. Without legal aid he could not have put in the fresh claim. Within two weeks of being granted he has found a job at the Trafford Centre, and will be contributing to the UK economy.

3. Appeals

We are dismayed at the government intention to cut the number of appeals from 17 to 4. Often solicitors have to resort to appeals, and especially JR, in order to slow down a deportation whilst a fresh claim is put together. The fact that many of the subsequent claims are successful indicates that, until such time as the Home Office gets its decisions right, these appeals are essential and save genuine refugees from being sent back to persecution.

We have no problem with a reduction in appeals, provided the Home Office improves its rate of correct decisions. Given that over 25% of initial decisions are overturned at the first appeal, there is a long way to go before we can be confident of that. Over the past few years we have seen several clients within a few hours of deportation. Thanks to the intervention of their solicitor, either through a fresh claim or Judicial review, the deportation has been stopped – and they have subsequently been granted leave to remain. If the proposed reduction in appeal rights goes ahead, people like these are more likely to be deported, often to severe discrimination.

4. Residency Test

We believe that the proposed residency test is inherently discriminatory, as it will lead, however well-intentioned it may be, to landlords refusing tenancies to people who they suspect may be unlawfully resident. Some landlords will undoubtedly take the easy option of not accommodating people who look foreign, rather than run the risk of getting it wrong when trying to assess someone’s status, and thus incurring a hefty fine.

We also believe that it will discriminate against refugees who gain speedy positive decisions, as they will not have been in country for 12 months before being granted status. Since most local authorities are now telling refugees to use private landlords, that will increase destitution amongst refugees with a right to be here. Last year the Boaz Trust winter night shelter took 38 referrals for those with leave to remain, whose benefits had not come before they had to leave NASS accommodation. Twelve actually used the shelter, some for several weeks before their benefits arrived. In previous years there had been just two or three referrals for refugees.

5. Health entitlements and charging.

It is vital that Primary Healthcare remains free for refused asylum seekers. At Boaz we have already had several cases of women being charged, although they have no means of paying. One received a bill for £2,000+ after having an abortion – which was recommended by her doctor on the grounds that the foetus was severely abnormal. This lady now has leave to remain, but her credit rating will still be affected by the non-payment.

Another client recently received a bill for over £2,000, despite never having been told that the consultations she was having were chargeable.

Incidents like this are extremely upsetting to very vulnerable people, and cause undue stress likely to lead to further medical problems. We estimate that over 50% of our clients are on some form of medication for depression.

6. Bail

Whilst fully understanding that it is not cost-effective to allow bail for someone who is liable for deportation, I have attended several bail hearings, and in virtually none of them was the Home Office able to gain travel documents within the time they predicted. On at least two occasions the judge warned the Home Office respondent that unless they got a move on, he would grant bail, and encouraged the applicant to apply again within two weeks if no documents had been produced. If the proposal to refuse further applications within 28 days is accepted, it will result in even longer periods in detention, with a resultant increased cost to the taxpayer. It may even require the building of a new detention centre.

On a wider note, any time limits imposed by the Home Office will restrict the ability of judges to apply the principle of proportionality to a case, as they are now able to do.

November 2013