Wednesday, 08 February 2012

Road to nowhere

New rules mean failed asylum seekers must travel to Liverpool if they wish to submit fresh evidence to support a new claim. But for most, the journey they most need to make is the one they can least afford. Emily Twinch reports.

When Heather* arrived in England in 2003 she had endured years of unimaginable suffering. She had been raped and tortured and her husband murdered in their native Zimbabwe because of their criticism of president Robert Mugabe’s regime.

Now the 52-year-old faces another ordeal in her fight to remain in the UK. Changes to immigration rules mean failed asylum seekers, like Heather, must travel to the Further Submissions Unit in Liverpool to make a new submission if they have fresh evidence that could back their claim.

The rule, which came into force on 14 October last year, has enraged asylum charities and has led to accusations that its only purpose is to make claiming asylum even more difficult. The change affects asylum seekers who made claims before March 2007, when the government altered the way it processed claims. But campaigners say there is a substantial backlog in the system which means thousands of failed asylum seekers now scattered across the UK could face problems.

Prior to the change, applications could be submitted by post. Since 14 October, 350 failed asylum seekers have made further submissions. If their case is re-opened, they can claim section four support to fund their accommodation.

However, the Home Office does not pay for travel to Liverpool or accommodation in the city, leaving people like Heather struggling to get there.

Difficult journey

So how are destitute asylum seekers, unable to work and without any access to funding, able to make the journey? And what has the impact been on the homelessness and asylum charities struggling to help them?

Heather borrowed money to get a bus from London to Liverpool when she got an appointment on 3 November - staying overnight in a cheap B&B miles from the city centre. Having completed her 20 minute interview she is now waiting for a decision.

‘When you are a failed asylum seeker, who cares about you? What’s the point of me going there and coming home empty-handed without a decision? I have suffered enough. I have already been tortured,’ she states with tears in her eyes.

Heather is not alone. David*, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, fled to the UK after his mother was murdered because of her Rwandan origin. Until July last year he received support from social services because of mental and physical health problems. When his claim for asylum failed, however, this support stopped. Since then David has slept on the streets of Birmingham and, when he can, in a night shelter.

‘A house, a house, please’, he repeats.

David had an appointment on 5 January at the Liverpool centre but when Inside Housing spoke to him he had no idea how he would get there.
‘I am looking for help,’ he said. ‘I will go because I need a house.’

This help often comes in the form of charities such as Asylum Support & Immigration Resource Team. Edin Hromadzic, co-ordinator of destitution services at ASIRT, says the voluntary sector has been left to deal with the consequences of the rule change.

‘They [the Home Office] expect him [David] to get up to Liverpool but don’t provide him any money for travel. He doesn’t have any money - he is rough sleeping.’

The problem is starting to attract attention. In December Clare Short, MP for Birmingham Ladywood and former secretary of state for international development, was so concerned she secured an adjournment debate to ‘plead with the government to reconsider the disgraceful arrangements’.

‘It is impossible to explain these changes without concluding that the ending of postal applications is simply designed to make it more difficult to make an application,’ she said in the debate. ‘This will inevitably increase destitution and homelessness among this very vulnerable group of people.’

Louise Zanre, director of the Jesuit Refugee Service, confirms two-thirds of the 120 people that came through its doors last year were destitute. The service has decided to pay for people making submissions to get to Liverpool - it has already sent two people.

‘It’s another drain on limited resources,’ she says. ‘Those that are even more vulnerable are those who don’t have any link with charities.’

Lisa Nandy, policy adviser at the Children’s Society says many families are sleeping on people’s floors, squatting or sleeping rough. ‘There’s no way the families we work with could get on a train or bus to Liverpool,’ she says.

The effect the rule change would have on children is something that Donna Covey, chief executive of the Refugee Council, says she feels the government did not fully consider.

‘The whole thing seems nothing more than a blatant attempt to make the asylum system even more inaccessible,’ she states.

But Matthew Coats, head of immigration group at the UK Border Agency, insists the UK operates a ‘firm, fair and efficient asylum system’.

‘This [system] allows us to maintain contact with applicants, minimise the risk of fraud and, where we decide that the further information submitted does not amount to a fresh claim, ensure their return as soon as possible through voluntary or enforced measures,’ he adds.

Unless the rules change, people will continue to struggle to get to Liverpool to state their case, leaving them to face homelessness and the voluntary sector to pick up the pieces.

* Names have been changed

In figures: asylum decisions since the October rule change

7,240
Number of initial asylum decisions made in the third quarter of 2009

350
Number of further submissions made by failed asylum seekers since the rule change on 14 October 2009

79 per cent
Proportion of initial claims made in the third quarter of 2009 that were refused

Source: the Refugee Council and Home Office

Readers' comments (3)

  • I feel sorry for these people. but they should never have been let into the UK in the first place.
    David wants a house, yes I'm sure he would like a house. But what about all the people who have lived and worked here all their lives and are on a housing waiting list, and the prospect is they will have to wait 20 to 40 years?
    Why did David come to England? there are 50 countries in Africa some very rich and tolerant. So why here?
    Every body Knows in the past, and even now, the country is a soft touch with a large industry of people earning good money, out of making cases for these people.
    We must refuse to accept anymore asylum seekers for at least twenty years, and reassess all those granted asylum in the last 20 years, to help them return home.
    Other countries have a zero tolerance policy, we have done our bit in the past now is the time to call a holt.
    when the housing waiting list is down to 6 months and every one is working, perhaps we could look at it again.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hi 'John' I'm not sure I follow your point about housing waiting lists, the lack of social housing in this country is a disgrace, but is an entirely different issue because asylum seekers aren't eligible for council housing or homeless hostels.

    I also don't know which countries you had in mind when you talk about a 'zero tolerance policy' - the claim that Britain is a 'soft touch' and is somehow taking more than it's fare share of refugees, is a really common one, but just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
    The vast majority of people fleeing persecution don't even cross an international border - according to the UNHCR, in 2008 there were 26 million of these internally displaced people. You ask why David came to this country, but the vast majority of people like David from DRC don't come to the UK. The DRC is in the top ten countries in the world for numbers of internally displaced people, and of those who do cross an international border, most don't get further than a neighbouring country - 20 per cent of the world's 10.5 million refugees are in Africa.
    In contrast, in 2008, there were 25,930 applications for asylum in the UK - to put that into perspective, that's 13 per cent of the total numbers of asylum seekers into the EU, and we are ranked 13th in the EU for asylum seekers per head of population. It seems that, far from others having a 'zero tolerance' policy, other countries have far more refugees than the UK.

    I'm not sure your idea of not taking any more asylum seekers for the next twenty years is very sensible either. Firstly, usually refugees are only initially given leave to remain in the country for five years - not permanently. Secondly we have a treaty obligation under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees - 147 countries worldwide are signatries to the Convention , flippin' Norah, John, even North Korea is a signatory! Are you seriously suggesting that we cede the moral high ground to North Korea!

    Asylum policy is a really contentious area and so it's really imortant to ensure that opinions are based on facts, I firmly believe that if the general public were aware of the reality behind the tabloid headlines, we would be having a very different debate. Thanks for the article - it's good to know that inside Housing is covering these kinds of stories which have been ignored by many other newspapers.

    All the statistics in thie post can be found at:
    http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c11.html
    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1409.pdf
    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/outcomes/successfulapplications/leavetoremain/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Its unfair how asylum seekers are treated , on one hand you say that the government of Mugabe is bada and on the other hand you leave people destitute and separate,

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register

Related

Articles

  • Asylum housing budget slashed by almost £30m

    08/04/2011

    The UK Border Agency is to slash the amount of money it spends on providing housing for asylum seekers by 17 per cent next year.

  • Asylum seekers at risk with legal aid cuts

    22 July 2011

    Cuts to legal aid are putting asylum seekers at serious risk of harm, a group of top lawyers has argued.

  • Nowhere to turn

    25 February 2011

    Government cuts will stop refugee charities helping vulnerable people and cause the big society to crumble

  • Home economics

    15/04/2011

    Home Office cuts to accommodation contracts next year could see hundreds of asylum seekers forced from their homes into the private sector. Martin Hilditch investigates

  • Clegg promises to help refugees

    11 May 2011

    The deputy prime minister has pledged to support people from across the globe seeking refuge in the UK.

Resources

  • The legal aid lifeline

    02/12/2011

    Cuts to legal aid and new spending restrictions mean tens of thousands of tenants will no longer be eligible for free housing advice. Jess McCabe visits a law centre to investigate the likely impact of the changes

  • Wind of change

    05/08/2011

    A host of new laws are set to change the landscape for Welsh social landlords. Michael Northcott reports

  • Pinnock in practice

    29 March 2011

    A recent case suggests the impact of the Pinnock case on repossession hearings could be less dramatic than feared. Daniel Skinner explains

  • Shout it from the rooftops

    06/01/2012

    Further planning rules under the Localism Act could increase the need to consult residents, says Ben Halsey, senior associate at Lewis Silkin

  • Counting the costs

    11/11/2011

    Just because you are successful at trial doesn’t mean you will recover all your legal costs, says Dan Butler

Latest Jobs