Home Affairs Committee

Please find enclosed Destitution Concern Bradford’s evidence on the prevalence of destitution amongst refused asylum seekers in the Bradford area. We also attach the empirical research we conducted over a five week period in June and July 2012 so you are able to see the methodology behind the figures contained in our memorandum.97

We complement these findings with more recent data from member organisations about the prevalence of destitution amongst their service users in the past quarter.

It is hoped that you take time to read our evidence and place it in the wider context of growing research about the treatment and prevalence of refused asylum seekers in the UK.

Will Sutcliffe
Destitution Concern Bradford

Executive Summary

Destitution Concern Bradford was formed in 2009 by a variety of partners from the statutory sector and the third sector in response to the alarming presentation to organisations by destitute migrants. The group have been monitoring destitution in the city of Bradford since 2009 and in 2012 released a research report into the numbers of people living with destitution which sits alongside a growing number of reports on destitution across the UK. This memo will demonstrate: 1.) Who Destitution Concern Bradford are 2.) The prevalence of destitution in the city 3.) Challenges in Bradford 4.) Policy Contradictions and 5.) Our recommendations. We will be responded to the following terms of reference:

• — Whether the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements.
• — The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.

1. Destitution Concern Bradford

1.1 Destitution Concern Bradford (hereby referred to as DCB) was established in 2009 out of concern for the plight of asylum seekers, refugees, and other migrants suffering destitution in the district. The DCB group advocates on behalf of those experiencing destitution and improves the co-ordination and provision of support between organisations in order to foster change to the very policies which create destitution.

1.2 Membership is comprised of those from the third sector and the local authority. Our members come from the following organisations: British Red Cross, Hope Housing, BEACON, Inn Churches, Bradford Action for Refugees, Bradford Refugee Forum, Bevan House Primary Care Centre and City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council .

1.3 DCB are committed to presenting evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the issue of the prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers. DCB recently contracted Dr. John Lever to complete an empirical investigation on the incidence of destitution in Bradford. The data collection period for this research was a five week period in June and July 2012. Much of the evidence below is from this report98. This will be complemented by more recent administrative data from each organisation to highlight that the issue of destitution has not decreased since the release of the report.

2. Destitution in Bradford

2.1 The report identified a ‘definite minimum’99 of 66 destitute individuals were found in the district. People in all stages of the asylum system experience destitution; asylum seekers awaiting a decision experience destitution (7.2%), refused asylum seekers (90.9%) and those who have received a positive decision (1.8%).It is not an issue confined to those who have been refused but is found with a greater prevalence amongst this group.

2.2 50% of destitute asylum seekers came from Iran, Eritrea, Malawi, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo which reflect national data on the countries of origin of those who experience destitution, highlighting the concern that is no viable return for many and thus these asylum seekers should not be forced to endure destitution. The remaining 50% of people surveyed came from 17 other countries.

2.3 In Bradford destitution is not confined to adults and shockingly it was found that 10 children also experienced destitution in the city. Instances discovered in the data were:

• — One adult with three dependent children and one dependent adult.
• — One woman with three dependent children.
• — One woman with two dependent children.
• — Two women with one dependent child each.

2.4 44% of people in the report relied on sofa surfing100 as a means of shelter, 13% had turned to their faith community for shelter, 16% had stated at a hosting project and 7% had stayed with a local housing organisation offering support to refused asylum seekers and 3% were street homeless. This represents 83% of all asylum seekers who had experienced destitution also being homeless.

2.5 32% of respondents had been destitute for over one year of which 11% had been destitute for between 5–10 years, again highlighting issues of returning home. Two families were included in this; one woman and one child had been destitute for 8 years and another woman with three children and one dependent adult had been destitute for 10 years.

2.6 In mid-March 2013 Destitution Concern Bradford contacted the agencies that had participated in the research we had carried out in summer 2012, requesting details of the number of destitute asylum seekers that each had had referred to them since 1st August. This is clearly just a snapshot, and there will be significant overlap between the agencies. It does however indicate that destitution is still a very significant issue amongst asylum seekers in Bradford.

Table 1

Organisation	Incidence of contact with destitute individuals
Abigail Housing	41 male and 22 female referrals
Bevan House Primary Care Centre	19 individuals coded as destitute as of 19.3.2013
BEACON Hosting Project	21 referrals
Bradford Action for Refugees	14 clients identified as destitute
Red Cross	249 attended destitution drop in since August, 75% destitute (estimate) (187)
Hope Housing	6 referrals
Inn Churches	2 individuals

3. Challenges in Bradford

3.1 Good quality legal advice is scarce due to recent government cuts and this impacts on the likelihood of someone experiencing destitution and the length of time someone may be destitute.

3.2 Cuts to the third sector find frontline workers having limited resources with which to work. This means that charities, such as the Red Cross, implement policies which allow only six food vouchers to an individual in a year. Once a service user has exhausted this, where are they going to turn to? Service users turn to statutory bodies thus making for expensive interventions in terms of physical, or more usually, mental health services.

3.3 Cuts to services that work with people who have a positive decision have also rendered some individuals destitute. End-to-end support is now more difficult with services such as Refugee Council’s one-stop service and Horton Housing Association’s Refugee Development Service forced to close because of government and local authority cuts. This means that help applying for and dealing with delays in benefit claims is no longer available.

4. Working With Policy Contradictions

4.1 When an individual’s asylum claim is refused and their support is withdrawn, travel expenses for regular attendance at UKBA reporting centres are no longer provided, forcing them to walk. The return distance from the centre of Bradford to Waterside Court is over 20 miles. If the government is insistent upon Orwellian practices for asylum seekers, refused or otherwise, then resources need to be provided for this to be done.

4.2 The UK is a cash based economy. Not allowing migrants to work whilst their asylum claim is being processed has the effect of ‘othering’ migrants from their entrance into the UK, does not allow them to contribute to the UK’s economy and means UKBA has to provide expensive support. Those on Section 4 receive their inadequate weekly payments via a payment card which can only be used at a limited number of large chain stores. They are therefore unable to visit charity and other low-price outlets, nor ethnic food shops more suited to their cultural and religious needs. Allowing asylum seekers participation in the UK economy could also generate the money required to report at Waterside Court, assist with paying for their subsistence and increase tax paid to HMRC.

4.3 The present government wishes to devolve power to local authorities and has made this explicit through The Localism Act 2011. To not allow local authorities the power to assist destitute asylum seekers and rely on government policy to work though these issues is to contradict the very notion of devolved power. For instance, local authorities have a duty to reduce homelessness; how can an authority reduce the number of street homeless destitute asylum seekers if the national policy does not allow for this?

5. DCB Recommendations

In light of the evidence the following are recommendations based on data collected via a rigorous methodology last June and on organizational data since the release of the call of evidence:

(a) Section 95 cash-based support and accommodation should be provided until safe return can be negotiated, a positive decision is given or an individual leave the UK in another way.

(b) The government must allow local authorities to help asylum seekers who face destitution regardless of whether or not their asylum case has been refused.

(c) UKBA should provide travel costs to those who are forced to report.

(d) Permission to work should be granted if a case is not resolved within six months or if a refused asylum seeker is unable to return home via a safe route.

(e) Quality legal advice should be available and provided to asylum seekers at all stages of the asylum process.

(f) Practical support and funding should be provided to organisations working with refused asylum seekers.

(g) Cash based support is raised inline with income support rates.

5.1 It is our strongest belief that destitution should not be used as a policy tool with which to force asylum seekers to leave the UK.

Destitution Concern Bradford

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013