Home Affairs Committee
I have been working with asylum seekers since 1999, initially through The Mustard Tree charity, which my wife and I set up in 1993. Through encounters with hundreds of asylum seekers and refugees, hearing their stories, reading judgments on their claims and witnessing the deprivation that they faced, I became aware of many failings in the asylum system. In 2003f I and many others became alarmed at the potential effects of the proposed Section 55 of the asylum act before parliament, and with the British Red Cross set up the first Destitution Project in the UK.
Within 6 months of setting up the project, which provided a basic food parcel and a small amount of cash support, the numbers attending had risen from 15 to 85 each week. Many had been refused asylum and had no recourse to public funds. Most were reduced to ‘sofa-surfing’, and some had become street homeless. I and others began to offer accommodation in spare rooms, and in 2004 I set up the Boaz Trust with the specific remit of tackling the problem of destitution amongst asylum seekers.
The Boaz Trust is a registered charity serving destitute asylum seekers and refugees in the Manchester area. It currently accommodates on average 60 refused asylum seekers who have not been returned to their country of origin and have no recourse to public funds, and 10 refugees. The accommodation is a mix of 11 houses loaned by their owners, an empty vicarage, a winter night shelter and 12–15 spare rooms in private houses. We employ 7 staff and have around 200 active volunteers.
Executive Summary of the Main Points
I will address 3 areas where I believe that I have considerable expertise or knowledge, particularly the first:
(1) The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers
(i) There are large numbers of refused, destitute asylum seekers in the Manchester area.
(ii) Many of these become street homeless and are extremely vulnerable.
(iii) Those who acquire refugee status are now also in danger of being made temporarily destitute.
(iv) Destitution causes health problems, especially mental health issues, and forces people to make bad choices.
(v) The success of fresh claims after refusal proves that many original decisions are wrong.
(2) Section 4 support
(i) The length of time it takes to make a decision prolongs destitution unnecessarily.
(ii) Moving dates are frequently changed at the last minute.
(iii) Inappropriate locations lead to isolation from communities and support agencies.
(iv) Cashlessness causes considerable unnecessary stress and hardship.
(3) The lack of balance in media reporting
(i) Tabloids tend to focus on negative stories and ignore positive ones.
(ii) Headlines sensationalise and often warp the facts.
(iii) Asylum Seekers have no voice and therefore no way of suing over incorrect stories.
(iv) Some stories published are true but nevertheless biased.
(v) The media is largely responsible for an untrue perception of asylum seekers.
(vi) Politicians do not tackle the subject of asylum because they fear losing votes at elections.
Submission of Information
(1) The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers
(i) There are large numbers of refused, destitute asylum seekers in the Manchester area.
(i) The following statistics should take into account the severe cuts in funding which have decimated the availability of advice to asylum seekers. The Refugee Action drop-in has been cut from 3 days to one. Manchester Refugee Support Network has also reduced its advice service considerably. This means that many who are destitute no longer access these services, and the numbers quoted below therefore do not reflect the true size of the problem. The Boaz trust had planned research into the numbers but has had to postpone it due to lack of resources.
(ii) At the time of writing the Boaz Trust accommodates 45 previously destitute asylum seekers in social housing or hosted accommodation, 12 refugees, many of whom were referred as destitute, and 12 destitute asylum seeking men in our night shelter.
(iii) The total number of destitute asylum seeker men referred to our night shelter between 1/11/12 and 31/3/13 = 78
(iv) The total number of destitute men who had been granted refugee status referred to our night shelter between 1/11/12 and 31/3/13 = 38
(v) The total number of destitute female asylum seekers referred in 2012 = 37
(vi) Estimated number of clients previously accommodated = 250 (some early clients were not recorded: there are 201 on the database, not including previous night shelter clients)
(vii) Total number of referrals from hospitals/statutory services (from all current previous referrals on our database) = 21
(ii) Many of these become street homeless and are extremely vulnerable.
(i) The number of referrals for street homeless individuals (referred over the last year or currently accommodated) = 65
(ii) Amongst those we have accommodated were 3 males who slept in a park for several months, a lady who slept in a phone booth, a young man who broke a police car front light in order to be arrested so he could be out of the cold, a man who slept in a car wash last winter when the temperatures were sub-zero and a man who was evicted from Piccadilly Station where he was seated because he did not have a valid train ticket.
(iii) Those who acquire refugee status are now also in danger of being made temporarily destitute.
(i) In previous years we have had relatively few referrals for those with status who were destitute. In the five months of the 2012/13 night shelter we received 38 referrals for male refugees who were evicted from their Asylum Support accommodation either before they were able to access benefits or before they had been offered accommodation.
(ii) From our own experience of clients who are granted leave to remain it is taking on average 6–8 weeks before benefits come through. Sometimes this can be considerably longer.
(iii) The local authority now refers single refugees to the private rented sector. As few private landlords take Housing Benefit and no refugee will get a job immediately, the options are extremely limited. In addition it is highly unlikely that a refugee will have been able to save up enough money from their £36 benefits to put down a deposit.
(iv) Most refugees are educated and few have drug or alcohol problems. The accommodation now initially offered by the local authority will be in a hostel, or B&B, often sharing with people who do have these problems. Some refugees are fearful and reluctant to take up these options. If they refuse the accommodation offered they will be deemed ‘intentionally homeless’ and therefore no longer the responsibility of the local authority.
(v) All of these factors have led to a substantial increase in homelessness amongst refugees.
1. Destitution causes health problems, especially mental health issues, and forces people to make bad choices.
(i) Quite a number of clients (mainly but not exclusively women) had been in relationships that they had entered into in order to have accommodation. Some were thrown out by their partner when they became pregnant, but were not eligible for Section 4 support, which is only available from 34 weeks. At least one female client we know was involved in prostitution: considering the pressure that destitute women are under the numbers involved in this are relatively small.
(ii) A very large number of our clients are on anti-depressants and/or sleeping tablets. Depression is the number one health issue. H, from Ethiopia, who slept rough in a phone box, contemplated suicide. H, from Iran, made several attempts to get out of a moving car, swallowed handfuls of painkillers and lay down in the middle of the main Oldham Road. He subsequently spent several months in a psychiatric unit. Some of the depression is caused by the feeling of helplessness at their asylum claim being refused: in men it is often linked to not being allowed to work, which is for many culturally unacceptable.
(iii) HIV is exacerbated by a life of destitution: street homelessness often leads to deterioration of health for those who are HIV+, as access to a GP is problematic, storage of drugs difficult and other diseases common with rough sleepers attack the immune system. C from Zimbabwe spent several weeks in hospital having an abcess drained. If she had not been in Boaz Trust accommodation it could have proved fatal.
(iv) We also see a high proportion of men in the night shelter who have difficulties with legs and feet due to the amount of walking they have to do and the poor condition of footwear.
2. The success of fresh claims after refusal proves that many original decisions are wrong.
1. Despite the lengthy delays in UKBA deciding a fresh asylum claim (G from Ethiopia has been waiting for a decision for about 18 months now), and the great difficulty that clients have finding fresh evidence that is substantially different from what has already been rejected, nevertheless 16 Boaz Trust clients were granted some form of Leave To Remain during 2012 after making further submissions. This is clear proof that the current system leads to many genuine refugees being refused asylum.
2. Many initial decisions—and appeals—hinge on the perceived credibility of the applicant. It is my opinion that case-owners and asylum judges place far too much emphasis on logical and consistent accounts being given by claimants, whereas academic research has proven beyond doubt that those fleeing traumatic situations are highly unlikely to give such accounts. The Centre for the Study of Emotion and Law194 has published numerous excellent studies on related issues. One such study, which appeared in a periodical called TORTURE as long ago as 2006195, is entitled “Should discrepant accounts given by asylum seekers be taken as proof of deceit?” The study examined the Home Office assumption “that an account which is inconsistent is probably fabricated for the purposes of deceitfully gaining asylum status”. To do that it interviewed 43 Kosovan and Bosnian refugees—people who had been granted leave to remain in the UK as part of a UNHCR refugee programme. They were interviewed twice, with interpreters. Significantly, reseachers found that “ (my italics) participants changed some responses between the first and second interview. There were more changes between interviews in peripheral detail than in the central gist of the account. Changes in peripheral detail were especially likely for memories of traumatic events. Participants with higher levels of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) were also more inconsistent when there was a longer delay between interviews.” Yet these were people who were taken directly from refugee camps—therefore proven refugees. If they did not give coherent and consistent accounts of their experiences, why should we expect that of asylum seekers?
(2) Section 4 support
(i) The length of time it takes to make a decision prolongs destitution unnecessarily.
(i) Client G was granted S4 and had to wait 1 month before being given accommodation.
(ii) This situation was frequently occurring last year, but now appears tobe improving
(ii) Moving dates are frequently changed at the last minute.
(i) Client B was granted S4 and given a moving date of 1st March. She waited all day and was called by Serco and told they would pick her up on 2nd March. They called her on 2nd and told her it would be the 4th.
(ii) Client D was in S4 and was advised she would have to move properties within greater Manchester. On 20/11/12 she was given a new address and moving date of 30/11/12. On 28/11/12 she received a letter giving a different address and a new moving date of 11/12/12. She was eventually moved with little notice to temporary accommodation in Liverpool before moving back to a new address on 21/12/12. She only ever received communication in English and when they moved to Liverpool she was utterly convinced that she was being deported. This client has been diagnosed with a mental health condition and this has been incredibly confusing and upsetting for her.
(iii) Inappropriate locations lead to isolation from communities and support agencies.
(i) Client G was granted S4 in another city. She was unable to attend her church, which was the mainstay in her life. She had fled persecution for her faith and now feels she is being prevented from worshipping in the way she would choose here in the UK.
(ii) Client B was granted S4 in another city away from community, friends, classes.
(iii) Client M was granted S4 30 miles away. He could not access the alcohol services he needed and his alcoholism worsened.
(iv) Cashlessness causes considerable unnecessary stress and hardship.
(i) Client G—needed to see a solicitor in Manchester but S4 accommodation was in Liverpool so unable to get back.
(ii) Client D—her nearest supermarket is Tesco Express—but these shops don’t take Azure cards because they have different tills.
(iii) Client B—S4 given in Rochdale. She is active in volunteering and a number of community groups and projects in Manchester, but cannot as there is no cash for transport.
(3) The lack of balance in media reporting
(i) Tabloids tend to focus on negative stories and ignore positive ones.
There are many examples of asylum seekers who have done extraordinary things and made great contributions to the country despite the odds being stacked against them. One such was a Zimbabwean doctor I knew who came to the UK with her niece, niece’s son and 6 adopted children whose parents had died of AIDS. She not only looked after the family and ensured the children were all doing well at school, at the same time she travelled 30 miles each day on 2 buses to gain hospital experience—all on meager asylum support and with little outside assistance.
Similarly there have been numerous cases of young asylum seekers coming to the UK with no English, and graduating with first class degrees from university: local media are often happy to print such stories, but I have rarely seen a positive story in the national press.
(ii) Headlines sensationalise and often warp the facts.
“Asylum Seekers eat our donkeys”, “Bombers are all Spongeing Asylum Seekers”, “Now asylum if You’re Gay”. Just three typical tabloid headlines, all of which were either totally untrue or a deliberate warping of the truth. Whichever it is, the damage is done by the headlines alone, because many people do not read the following text, which may give a totally different slant on the headlines.
(iii) Asylum Seekers have no voice and therefore no way of suing over incorrect stories.
Because most stories are generic rather than specific, individual asylum seekers are rarely mentioned. Even when they are, how can they gain redress? They are rarely aware of the legal aid system, and have no way of fighting a massive media organization, even if they wanted to. Most are too scared to do so, and intent only on trying to further their asylum case—they have no desire to be in the public spotlight.
It has recently been proposed that third parties should have the right to challenge media untruths in the courts—if this becomes law, then at last there is a chance that some of the ridiculous sensationalism can be properly challenged.
(iv) Some stories published are true but nevertheless biased.
One such story in the Daily Mail centred around an asylum seeker who had driven whilst uninsured and had subsequently been involved in a hot and run accident. The facts of the case were correctly reported, but by concentrating on the status of the driver, it gave the impression that asylum seekers were criminals. My contention is that, had he been a middle class banker from leafy Surrey, that there would have been far less emphasis on his status.
(v) The media is largely responsible for an untrue perception of asylum seekers.
Over the last 8 years The Boaz Trust has undertaken a number of presentations and talks at various venues. At the Greenbelt festival we conducted an asylum quiz with those who came to visit the stall last year. Given that the demographic of the festival goers is largely middle-class, educated, Christian, liberal, likely to read the Guardian rather than the Mail or Express, and that those who visit the marketplace stalls are those who are already socially conscious and likely to support charities, one would expect them to be far more likely to know the facts on asylum—especially as the Boaz Trust has had a stall there for the past 6 years.
Nevertheless those who tried the quiz rarely chose the correct answers from the 5 multiple choice questions offered. They vastly overestimated the percentage of refugees in the UK and the number who sought asylum in the UK in 2011. They overestimated the amount of asylum benefits, and very few could name more than two or three of the top ten countries asylum seekers come from.
The only explanation for this is that the media does a very poor job when it comes to coverage of asylum issues.
(vi) Politicians do not tackle the subject of asylum because they fear losing votes at elections.
At the last election I deliberately looked out for the word asylum during the election debates. The only party leader who mentioned it was Caroline Lucas of the Green Party. The others avoided the word entirely. There was much talk about immigration and the need to reduce numbers, but not a single word about asylum.
This simply reinforces the confusion in the electorate, who do not know the difference between the types of migrant in the UK. When they are told that immigration is too high, they automatically connect that to asylum, because the two are inextricably linked in their minds.
Despite the high profile Leveson enquiry and the exposure of the Murdoch press empire, there is no evidence that anything has changed in political circles. No party leader talks about asylum, just immigration, and the myths are thus perpetuated. The general public are, unfortunately, being misled by the silence of our political leaders, whose fear of losing the votes of the readers of the Murdoch Press outweighs their moral conviction.
Recommendations
1. No-one should be left destitute. If the Home Office is not in a position to deport a refused asylum seeker, they should continue to be supported. Although this will have some cost implications it will be far less that the costs currently born by hospitals, charities, police, advice agencies and local authority departments
2. Asylum Seekers should have access to legal representation and voluntary support before any substantive interview. There is clear and overwhelming evidence that many initial decisions are wrong, and the extra cost of early legal intervention would be more than covered by the reduction in appeals and judicial reviews. It would also reduce destitution.
3. Those who have been granted refugee status should be able to stay in their asylum accommodation for longer. I would recommend that they are allowed to stay at least until their benefits have come through and they have had several weeks to access other accommodation.
4. Training of UKBA case-owners and Asylum Judges should include input from CSEL on credibility. Until there is a recognition of the effects of trauma in discrepant accounts decisions will continue to be wrong, and the result will be unwarranted destitution.
5. More weight should be placed on Expert Witness in decisions. This is especially so in medical cases and in the assessment of faith based cases.
6. Section 4 Azure Cards should be abolished. All those who are accommodated should have access to cash. There is no compelling reason for a cashless system—it is a political sledgehammer designed to force people into returning home, and unworthy of a society that claims to be humane. Also, it simply does not work—the take-up rate of Assisted Voluntary Return is still only 20%, and then often only after a period of enforced destitution.
7. Any newspaper that prints untruths that are subsequently proven to be so should be forced to publish an apology on the front page.
Dave Smith, Director of the Boaz Trust, Manchester
April 2013
195 One of many excellent reports that are downloadable from the CSEL website under ‘Publications’.