Home Affairs Committee

Our Work

1. Positive Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers (PAFRAS) is a registered charity working with refugees and asylum seekers in Leeds and the surrounding area. We were founded as a welcome and integration project in 2003 as “Positive Action for Refugees” but from 2005 refocused our efforts and attention on destitution amongst asylum seekers. PAFRAS is a member of the Still Human, Still Here Coalition and fully endorses all of its objectives.

2. We run a twice weekly drop-in at a community hall in Harehills, Leeds, to which in the past seven years we have received a total of 41,271 visits, and through which we have provided 35,232 meals and distributed 20,683 food parcels and 4,068 sanitary packs.

3. In addition to providing basic humanitarian support of the sort described above, we employ two part-time caseworkers and a part-time mental health worker who provide practical support, advice and advocacy and counselling services to our service users. Caseworkers are not legal advisors and instead focus their attention on supporting (mainly) destitute clients to gain access to legal advice, to deal with the various bureaucracies with which they must deal and access the full range of services to which they are entitled (which is, it should be noted highly circumscribed).

4. While the focus of our project is on supporting refuges and asylum seekers and particularly those who are destitute we are non-exclusive of others in need. Table 1, below, indicates the relative populations in the drop-in of individuals of diverse immigration statuses.

Table 1
SERVICE USERS’ IMMIGRATION STATUSES (2012-2013 DATA)172

Refused Asylum Seeker	59.4%
Refugee (ILR, DLR, LLR)	16.8%
E.U. Migrant	12.8%
Asylum Seeker	5.6%
UK National	2.8%
Visa Overstayer	2.0%
3rd Country Case1	0.6%

Table 2
SERVICE USERS’ SUPPORT STATUSES (2012 DATA)

No Support	68.6%
UKBA Support	12.1%
Mainstream Benefits	19.2%

5. In 2012 we received a total of 8,128 visits to this drop-in; 4,728 of which were by refused asylum seekers173 and 416 from asylum seekers with on-going claims. We received 5,582 visits from destitute individuals without any form of support from the UKBA (or other government agencies). In the same year we had a total of 261 destitute refused asylum seekers attend the drop-in for the very first time.

6. Over the past six years of operating we have seen a steadily increasing number of people attending our drop-in. Not doubt, this is in part because a result of our name becoming more well known amongst affected communities, nonetheless it is striking given the decreasing numbers of asylum claims over the same period.

7. Table 3 summarises from of the key data from our drop-in for 2012

Table 3
KEY PAFRAS SERVICE STATISTICS (2006-2012)

	Visits	New Service Users	New, destitute service users	Advice/advocacy Sessions	Meals provided	Food parcels	Toiletry packs
2006	2,184	277	–	1,081	1,847	774	158
2007	3,276	294	–	1,237	3,081	1,405	452
2008	6,112	514	–	1,346	5,610	2,840	655
2009	6,466	315	–	1,819	5,587	3,849	566
2010	6,889	295	–	2,122	6,104	3,359	569
2011	8,216	339	–	2,160	6,533	4,443	686
2012	8,128	542	261	1,707	6,470	4,013	864
Total	41,271	2,576	261	11,472	35,232	20,683	3,950

8. As our main experience and expertise is in destitution it is towards this area of your inquiry that we focus our submission.

Destitution amongst Asylum Seekers and Refused Asylum Seekers

9. We define a destitute asylum seeker similarly to the Home Secretary; this is to say that we consider someone who lacks adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it or who cannot meet their “other essential living needs”, such as for food or clothing or to maintain their personal hygiene.

10. We note that there are two strands to arguments about destitution amongst asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers.

(a) Firstly there is the issue of those who are made destitute because NASS support is withdrawn 21 days after their appeal rights are exhausted; they are no permitted to work and they have no recourse to public funds.

(b) A secondly category includes those who are supported to a degree by the UKBA, but who can be considered destitute by dint of their not having sufficient support to meet their essential needs.

11. Due to the scarcity of resources and the volume of need, it is the plight of the former category of people with which we are normally concerned and this submission focuses on that plight, nevertheless we concur with the rest of the Still Human Still Here Coalition that current levels of asylum support are inadequate to meet the needs of a dignified human life.

12. PAFRAS views the problem of destitution amongst refused asylum seekers who are not supported by the UKBA to be the direct result of the policy of successive UK governments to use destitution as a tool to (a) force those who have been refused protection in the United Kingdom to return to their countries of origin, and (b) deter others from following them to this country.

13. This is a policy to which we strongly object for reasons of justice and ethnics as well as for reasons of efficacy. It is a policy which we have seen destroy the physical and mental health of many of the people with whom we work; which reduces all affected to begging for their survival and which places a disproportionate amount of the burden of supporting them on fragile multiply deprived refugee communities. It is a policy which forces some into crime to support themselves and still more into exploitative illegal work in appalling conditions.174

14. In addition, we agree with the conclusion of the Rt. Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP that enforced destitution “is a failed policy” (see Centre for Social Justice, Asylum Matters (2008) p.5) that has not achieved its aims. We are sorry therefore to say that Mr Duncan Smith’s observation that “UK policy is still driven by the thesis, clearly falsified, that we can encourage people to leave by being nasty” (Op.cit) is as true today as it was in 2008.

“Voluntary” Return, an alternative to destitution?

15. Despite the harshness of this policy of enforced destitution and its impact on the long-term physical and mental health of its victims, our experience shows that many refused asylum seekers would rather experience prolonged periods of destitution than risk return to their countries of origin.

16. Sixty-five% of respondents to a survey of service users undertaken in the autumn of 2012 said they were destitute.175 On average these respondents had been without support for 33 months and while the majority (52%) stayed with friends, acquaintances or members of their community most nights, a majority (56%) had spent at least some time (an average of 1.8 nights per week) sleeping on the streets.

17. As the committee will be aware, when they are refused, asylum applicants are issued with a letter, available in English only, giving the reasons for their refusal and indicating that they should seek to return to their country of origin. The letter suggests that they consider contacting Refugee Action, the charity contracted to deliver the Home Office’s Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme for assistance in doing so.

18. Our experience (as well as the survey results discussed above) suggests that, for many, the prospect of “voluntary” return is less attractive than the reality of destitution on the streets of Britain. The refusal of so many destitute refused asylum seekers to even contemplate return to their countries of origin suggests that there is something deeply flawed in the process of decision-making around asylum claims.

Case study 1: AG

AG (aged 42) arrived in the UK in the back of a lorry into Dover in 2008. An Eritrean national, AG had fled from the prospect of indefinite military conscription and forced labour. He left behind a wife and three children. Prior to fleeing AG had been imprisoned on two separate occasions, for a total of years five years, by the Eritrean authorities. He was released on the second occasion in April 2008 and fled Eritrea at the first opportunity.

AG claimed asylum the day after arriving in the UK but was refused. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal upheld this refusal in December 2009 and AG was made destitute. The Home Office and the courts found that AG had failed to show that he was at risk if returned to Eritrea. Instead they concluded that he was probably one of a very small minority of privileged Eritreans granted exit visas and able to travel abroad legitimately.

When he first contacted PAFRAS in June of 2011 AG had already submitted two fresh claims and been in and out of Section 4 accommodation twice. He had recently found a new lawyer willing to take on his case and he was dividing his nights between sleeping on the sofas of community members and in the doorway of Morrisons’ supermarket. He was being prescribed anti-depressants, but had trouble sleeping.

An educated older man with a family which he had not seen for three years; AG was nearing the end of his tether as experiences of destitution and the increasing rejection of former friends and community members, who had started to cross the road if they saw him coming down the street, wore down his resilience.

From November 2011 PAFRAS began referring AG on a nightly basis to a local voluntary project through which individuals open their houses to destitute asylum seekers and refugees. At about the same time AG began to experience paranoid delusions claiming that his sleep was being disturbed by “electrical interference”, which he attributed to equipment in his hosts’ homes.

In January 2012, in a bid to provide him with some stability, and because it was rapidly becoming impossible to ask volunteers to look after him PAFRAS rented AG a room, but his mental state only worsened. AG began to attribute the phenomenon alternately to the police (he accepted the state’s right to monitor his activities but wished they would not stop him from sleeping) or his neighbours (towards whom he became quite hostile). On more than on occasion he abandoned his room in favour of the street in an attempt to escape his tormentors. As he would later say, “I had lost my mind.”

In April 2012 AG submitted a third set of further submissions, which were subsequently rejected without appeal rights. When his lawyer threatened Judicial Review however the UKBA withdraw their decision—later reissuing it but granting a right of appeal. In June 2012, before his case went to Tribunal, the UKBA finally saw reason and AG was granted refugee status.

19. After nearly four years in the UK, almost three of which were spent destitute, AG’s need for protection had finally been recognised. He had suffered enormously, and unjustly. Without the tenacious support of his legal aid lawyer, who undoubtedly put in many more hours work on his case than her firm was paid for, we have absolutely no doubt that he would be destitute, or worse, to this day.

Destitution and Access to Justice

20. In some respects AG was lucky. His own strength, the commitment of his lawyer and the support he was able to secure from PAFRAS saw him through and despite having suffered greatly he is, one year on, in recovery. For others the experience of destitution acts as a highly effective barrier to their ability to pursue their asylum cases and access the justice they need.

21. This aspect of the impact of prolonged periods of destitution should come as no surprise Finding food and a place to sleep (and worrying about these things continuously) consumes an individual’s time, energy and attention to the point at which those who are destitute are unable to think constructively about what they must do to address their longer term problems. While resolving their immigration status by progressing their asylum claims are the ultimate solution to their problems, those who are destitute face more immediate concerns.

Destitution and Health

22. Compounding the problems discusses in paragraphs 20-1 above, the longer that someone is destitute the more their health deteriorates. Poor diet, unsanitary and over crowded living conditions, anxiety about their futures and fear of detention and refoulement mean that refused asylum seekers frequently suffer from depression, insomnia and panic attacks.

23. In a survey of PAFRAS service users conducted in 2010,176 67% of destitute service users complained for experiencing some form of mental health problems, the most common being depression, anxiety, stress and insomnia. In the same survey 63% of destitute service users complained of experiencing physical health problems, common complaints included chronic condition like diabetes, gastric problems, problems with joints and hernias. 79% of all of those were between the ages of 20 and 39 making the prevalence of such problems more concerning.

24. Medical professionals interview by PAFRAS as part of the same study noted that destitution and commonly associated problems like insomnia and malnutrition mean that those who experience it suffer from problems with their memories and with their capacities to organise themselves. Inevitably this also impacts on their ability to progress their asylum claims (or even to think, rationally, about options such voluntary return).

Case Study: Mr Saleh

Mr Saleh177 is a 62 years old gentleman from Iran who arrived in the UK and claimed asylum in March 2012. His application for Asylum was refused in April of the same year, with all appeal rights being exhausted in July. Mr Salah presented at PAFRAS the same month after being that his support would be terminated, leaving him destitute.

Mr Saleh who had a history of heart problems; was extremely distressed and anxious by the news. He had a complex medication regime to follow daily, which consisted of taking 20 tablets at different parts of the day and evening, in addition he had to attend the LGI for various procedures relating to his heart. These included a coronary angioplasty, Pacemaker procedure and a coronary angiograph.

Initially “section 4 support” was granted to Mr Saleh in light of his medical condition and his unfitness to travel. Support was only available to Mr Saleh on these terms because, despite the closure of the Iranian embassy to the UK and the practical impossibility of return Mr Saleh was not willing to sign for “voluntary” return—which would entail renouncing any claim to need protection by the UK.

In February 2013 Mr Saleh’s support was terminated, and he went on to loose an appeal at the asylum support tribunal. The Home Office had a presenting officer and a doctor in attendance, Mr Saleh was unrepresented.

The Appeal was dismissed on the grounds that there was no longer any physical or medical impediment to his travelling. The day following his hearing Mr Saleh attended the PAFRAS drop-in, where he collapsed. Arterial fibrillation was carried out for 45 minutes by the ambulance service before they thought him stable enough to be driven to hospital.

For most, the implications of a man with acute medical needs such as Mr Saleh being forced to live on the streets are quite obvious. Nevertheless, the very narrowly proscribed circumstances in which section 4 support is made available to refused asylum seekers mean that without the support of charities Mr Saleh could quite easily die.

Conclusion

25. In conclusion, we submit to the committee that the policy of enforcing destitution amongst refused asylum seekers is unethical, unjust and ineffective.

26. We comment the report Asylum Matters, published in 2008 by the Centre for Social Justice to the committee and an excellent starting point for your thinking about a more humane, more just asylum system.

Positive Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013