Enforced destitution

Frances Webber investigates the Home Office's policy of imposing poverty on those seeking asylum in Britain

December 1, 2009 · 4 min read

What can you buy for a fiver a day? A coffee and a sandwich, perhaps a newspaper or a packet of mints, and it’s gone. But for an asylum seeker, a fiver has to cover food, clothing, toiletries, travel, stationery, stamps, phone calls (essential to contact legal representatives and the Home Office) – all the expenses of living apart from accommodation.

From 5 October 2009, support for destitute asylum seekers over 25 has been slashed from £42.16 to £35.15 per week, representing just over half of income support – the level of income the government has set as a basic safety net.

Since the Home Office took over responsibility for supporting asylum seekers in the late 1990s, its support has been grudging, mean-spirited and clearly designed to deter rather than welcome.

The level of support was set at 70 per cent of income support if destitution could be proved, but initially was ‘in kind’ – paid through vouchers redeemable in supermarkets, which were enticed to join the scheme with promises that they could keep the change. A campaign supported by the Transport and General Workers Union led to the abolition of vouchers, but they have crept back into use for ‘section 4’ support of refused asylum seekers who can show that they are unable to leave the country. After more campaigning, the vouchers are to be replaced by smart cards.

Compulsory ‘dispersal’ of asylum seekers out of London and the south east for the past decade has led to increased isolation and vulnerability to mental illness and racist attacks. At the same time, a policy that allowed asylum seekers to work was reversed, creating unnecessary dependency and contributing to popular racist myths of ‘asylum scroungers’.


The extreme reluctance of the Home Office to allow asylum seekers to work stems from its institutional perception of asylum seekers as disguised economic migrants seeking to jump the queue to work in the UK. This myth is fostered by its own conduct in excluding so many from even below-subsistence support – such as those who fail to claim asylum within three days of arrival – that they are driven to work undocumented.

Refused asylum seekers too are excluded from all support, unless they can show that they cannot be returned home, and it is this group – including Zimbabweans, Somalis, Iraqis, Iranians, Eritreans and Afghans – who have suffered the most hardship. Research by Refugee Action in 2007 estimated that 20,000 asylum-seeking households were destitute. On average those interviewed had been destitute for 21 months, and 60 per cent of respondents had slept on the street on at least one occasion.

In 2007 the parliamentary joint committee on human rights condemned the asylum support system in devastating terms, observing that ‘by refusing permission for most asylum seekers to work and operating a system of support which results in widespread destitution, the treatment of asylum seekers in a number of cases [is] inhuman and degrading.’

Its report referred to ‘countless examples of Home Office inefficiencies in processing support claims, with severe consequences for desperate, vulnerable people who have no other means to support themselves … The institutional failure to address operational inefficiencies and to protect asylum seekers from destitution amounts in many cases to a failure to protect them from inhuman and degrading treatment.’

The report condemned the inadequate housing often provided, and described the voucher scheme for refused asylum seekers as ‘inhumane and inefficient. It stigmatises refused asylum seekers and does not adequately provide for basic living needs.’ The committee concluded that ‘the government has been practising a deliberate policy of destitution … The policy of enforced destitution must cease.’

But the government refused to implement the committee’s recommendation that asylum seekers and some groups of refused asylum seekers who could not return home be allowed to work, and has appealed a High Court ruling to that effect. It is no surprise, then, that a 2009 follow-up to a 2006 survey into destitution among asylum seekers in Leeds found continuing high levels of ‘serious and prolonged’ destitution (Still Destitute: a worsening problem for refused asylum seekers, JRCT, 2009).

In its treatment of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, the government shows contempt for the basic principles of human solidarity and compassion.

www.stillhuman.org.uk


Am I a modern slave?

Lyn Caballero describes her experiences as a migrant domestic worker and explains why domestic workers are campaigning for immigration policy change

Immigrants stand up

With casual xenophobia a comedy circuit blight, No Direction Home is a welcome tonic. Here, five troupe members explain the uses and power of laughter – and tell us some jokes

Refugee family reunification during a pandemic

Border closures and travel restrictions caused by the pandemic have made family reunification difficult for refugees. But, as Luke Butterly reports, these rights have been eroded over a number of years


Immigration detention and the politics of Covid-19

 The response to the pandemic has allowed us to imagine a world without immigration detention centres, writes Rachel Harger

The politics of Covid-19: urgent calls to end immigration detention

Hundreds of lives are at risk as the government resists calls to release people held in immigration detention. Annahita Moradi reports

Cartoonist from 1888 depicting John Bull (England) as the octopus of imperialism, grabbing land on every continent. Public Domain.

Education and Empire

Following Labour’s manifesto pledge to educate the public on the histories of empire, slavery, and migration, Kimberly McIntosh explains the dangers of colonial nostalgia in the national curriculum