By Emily Dugan
Published: 22 October 2007
Thousands of people are forced to spend years living in abject poverty on the streets of Britain’s cities after fleeing persecution in their own countries, an independent asylum inquiry has heard. The destitute have no access to help from the state as they have not been granted asylum, yet they prefer to stay in Britain rather than return home because they fear of being tortured or killed.
Senior lawyers, doctors and immigration officials even claim such destitution is, in effect, now being used by the Government as policy, in an attempt to force desperate people out of the country.
There are at least 280,000 people living in poverty in Britain after having their leave to remain refused. Some of them are appealing those decisions. Some just go completely underground, taking their chances on the streets of the UK with no money or shelter.
Living on the margins, these outcasts have been “failed” by the place where they thought they would be safe, the inquiry was told. Many sleep rough; few have access to the healthcare that UN legislation says they have a right to. Sir John Waite, a former High Court judge and chair of the Independent Asylum Commission that will report to the Government next year, said: “I think it’s a serious omission that we haven’t looked earlier at this very pressing problem. There is a significant element of the population subsisting while awaiting hearings or asylum claims, especially after rejection. And some of them are suffering serious hardship either because they don’t understand the system or because the system fails them.”
The Commission met last week in Manchester to hear evidence from immigration experts as well as direct testimonies from those who had experienced the struggle of surviving in the UK first-hand. They described the extremes of poverty they suffered while living in fear of returning to their countries of origin.
In an impassioned plea to the Commission, Iranian Afshin Azizian, whose asylum case is still undecided after 12 years, said: “Thousands and thousands of asylum seekers have been made destitute. I ask those in the Home Office to think, if you were to spend one day in my shoes how would you like to be treated? We never had much of a voice until recently. If you don’t have a piece of paper from the Home Office you’re not considered human. How can you call yourselves civilised?”
The 36-year old, who was beaten by Revolutionary Guards in Iran, fled after his activist friends were brutally tortured by the regime. Until recently he was sleeping rough, before finding sanctuary in a monastery. Sleeping everywhere from laundrettes to parks, he said that his living conditions had been better in Iran. “I was not poor in Iran – I did not come here for your money but I was seeking refuge. I would never have believed that one day I would be starving for food, and I would never have imagined that people would get this kind of treatment in this country. We’re human beings. You signed the [European] Convention on Human Rights: do you not respect your own signature?”
Financial support is cut off after 21 days for those without children whose asylum case has been rejected. Immigration experts have called this a “deliberate tool” to rush people out of the country, often before enough evidence has been collated to ensure the safety of their return.
Sandy Buchan, chief executive of Refugee Action, condemned the country’s treatment of failed asylum seekers: “It seems the Government is using destitution as an instrument of policy. It’s no accident. It’s very much a deliberate tool of government. It’s morally unacceptable to force people into utter destitution, and the most desperate and degrading circumstances when people are frightened of what awaits them when they return home.
“Destitution is an unworkable policy that has completely failed to deliver on its objectives,” he added. “It means the Government loses contact with asylum seekers. Each day they are destitute, the chances of return become more remote.”
Ruth Heatley, an immigration solicitor, said that part of the problem was in the phasing out of Exceptional Leave to Remain, a policy that used to grant temporary residency to those whose safety in their home country was still in question. In 2002, one in four initial asylum cases was granted this temporary permission; by 2005 this had been reduced to just one in ten.
“This is wrong and inhumane, and the policy doesn’t work: people would rather face destitution than persecution,” she said.
Dr Angela Burnett, who was at the hearing representing Medact, which campaigns to improve health worldwide, said healthcare provision for many asylum seekers was so poor that it broke UN conventions.
“Torture survivors are being denied access to healthcare due to an inability to pay. This contravenes the UN Convention Against Torture, ratified by the UK, which obliges states to provide as full a rehabilitation as possible to torture survivors,” she said, adding that thedifficulty of understanding a labyrinthine set of regulations meant that even those eligible for healthcare missed out.
“The complexity of the current and proposed rules means that some people who do have full entitlement to free healthcare, such as people who have active asylum claims, have erroneously been excluded or charged.”
The Independent Asylum Commission is conducting a nationwide review of the UK asylum system and will present a report to the Government in 2008. Last week’s hearing in Manchester, was the sixth of seven nationwide hearings and was specifically aimed at tackling the issue of poverty amongst asylum seekers and refugees.
Mary Namkussa: ‘It was like being an animal’
Mary Namkussa fled Uganda after she was raped and beaten by soldiers hunting for rebels. Her brother-in-law had been a rebel, but she had not known.
After months of being held captive and repeatedly raped by soldiers, the 40-year-old mother of two was released and pushed out of a car on to the road. She tried to resume life as normal in the pharmacy she owned with her husband, but her home was raided and her husband disappeared.
When she escaped to England in 2003, her Home Office interview was delayed as she was being operated on for internal injuries caused by being raped. Her solicitor asked the GP for a medical report, but he never sent it, and the Home Office refused her entry. At an appeal hearing in 2005 she had a medical report, but again she was denied asylum. She was left homeless and penniless, and for two and a half years she has survived on Red Cross food parcels.
“It is difficult for me to put into words how I feel about being destitute,” she said. “I think living the life of a destitute person is like living like an animal, not a human being.”
“If I was returned I’m sure I would be targeted. Who will help me? I’m not a public figure or significant, so no one from the West would help me if I was imprisoned. I would like to be able to work so that I can do something instead of just roaming or sitting still. I used to work, I am not disabled, I am an educated and hard-working woman. I can use my brain.
“I think about my children, my family and my position every day, and every day I cry.”
Ibrahim Zukrya: ‘I was harassed and abused’
Ibrahim Zukrya was captured and tortured in prison after photographing a bomb site in Darfur. The 47-year-old teacher, who had already been in trouble for encouraging his students to be politically active, was tied upside-down and beaten as he was questioned. He escaped during a prison transfer, when his van had an accident in the jungle. After a trek by camel through the deserts of Chad and Libya, he found someone who transferred him by ship and lorry to the UK in 2003. His application for asylum was refused, and after an appeal was turned down he was told to return to the Sudan. Mr Zukrya preferred destitution to being returned “to be killed by my enemies”. He slept rough. “Drunk people would come up to me and harass me with racist comments. The only organisation I could get aid from was the Red Cross, who used to give me a parcel of food and £5.” Finally, after being imprisoned at a detention centre for two days, he found a new solicitor to represent him, and was granted asylum in September last year.
13 responses so far ↓
sym // November 7, 2007 at 11:22 am
I am an assylum seeker myself and i live in a house that is almost delapidated, if i tell you what i have to go through in this multicultural britain, you would not even believe it. At the moment i am trying to save my 32 pounds that i get per week to get some clothes as it is getting colder where we have been dispersed up north here. Its so stressful and the treatmen t i get i wonder if i committed a crime. Sometimes i feel terrorists and paedophiles are given much better treatment..england is probably worse in terms of supporting people in situations like this. If only they speed up my application and at least give me an answer i would be really grateful..onlg God knows my fate and thats the only thing that has kept me sane..Dont be suprised by my post, not all assylum seekers cant read or write english…..(very desperate)
Michael Woods // November 7, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Moderator,
is there some way that PAIH could act as a clearing-house for clothes.
I’m sure we can all find some clean and tidy clothes we don’t desperately need and could give to someone who does.
The apallingly, derisorily small sum of 32 pounds should be spent on food.
I am at this moment thoroughly ashamed of being a british national.
shuck // November 8, 2007 at 7:22 pm
sym, When did you come to the UK? Has your asylum claim been decided? Where are you from? You indicate that you are getting rough justice from the UK authorities, but do you feel safe? Until your claim is decided, is it not worth appreciating that the UK has in the meanime given you a safe place to live, housed you and given you money to live on? Afterall many families and individuals in the UK live on the the kind of money you are moaning about.
Ali // November 10, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Sym,
I think St Rollox church in Sighthill, North Glasgow, provides low cost (sometimes free) clothing to Asylum Seekers. I’m also sure there’s a mention of it here on this website - try using the search facility. Failing that, maybe you could ask your accommodation provider for info / advice? Good luck with your claim.
Shuck - Asylum Seekers are allowed to complain about their living condtions you know! Many do, and both the BIA and their accommodation providers are duty bound to investigate and resolve problems. Asylum Seekers are not expected to put up, shut up and be grateful for any old pile of rubble just because they exercised their right to claim Asylum. Also, British nationals are able to access a lot more services to improve their lot than Asylum Seekers are, so I don’t have much support for that line of arguement.
Lastly - Hi Michael!
paih // November 10, 2007 at 7:05 pm
RE: Comment - Michael Woods // Nov 7th 2007 at 2:52 pm
I will get back to you regarding this - Jamie
shuck // November 11, 2007 at 10:58 am
Asylum seekers in the UK are well looked after are they not? Safety, housing, cash, heating, child care, no bills whats to moan about?
I’m sure if an asylum seeker is that desparate he can turn to charities like paih or if they are still unhappy at the lack of luxury they have the option to return home.
Asylum seekers moaning about being looked after,what next I ask myself?
Michael Woods // November 13, 2007 at 11:01 am
Hi Ali. I did’nt know about St Rollix of the Clothes. Sounds like a good idea to me.
£4.57p a day to live on - the minimum wage for an adult is £5.52p per hour.
So we expect asylum seekers to exist for a week on less than our lowest-paid workers get each working day.
Even with Working Tax Credits, Housing and Council Tax relief many such workers are struggling. This is well-known.
I think Sym and others are right to complain about being, in my opinion, heavily discriminated against. Discrimination is wrong.
The “Staff at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office got nearly £2 million in bonuses last year alone.”
And.
“this week, the Home Office admitted that up to 5,000 illegal immigrants may have been hired as security guards despite vetting by its officials.”
So it seems Sym that you could easily get a well-paid job with one of the very departments whose job it is to stop you from getting a job here.
If we fired a lot of these overpaid fools rather than pay them bonuses we could easily afford a decent lifestyle for everone else.
Welcome to New Britain.
I’ve just seen 2 neds finish a bottle of vodka in one go, toss the bottle and head into the Social Services office. Exercising their rights as free citizens perhaps ?
Ali // November 15, 2007 at 8:53 pm
No one’s saying Asylum Seekers are not looked after Shuck. In fact, the UK has committed itself to do just that.
What’s to moan about? How about being looked upon as society’s bottom feeders as well as with suspicion and contempt? How about almost daily racial abuse in some areas? From the way you talk, I’m not convinced that you do suppport ‘genuine’ Asylum Seekers. At all. Those comments you make about how much they get are depressingly similar to those made by the envious and bitter lowlife of Glasgow I sometimes have the misfortune to meet.
Many asylum seekers are unhappy and there are many reasons for this. The reasons tend to be similar to those I outlined above, not a lack of luxury.
Your views really don’t come across as reasonable, Shuck. Or balanced. Or nice.
Ali // November 15, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Michael - Yep, the Home Office is a shambles as you just pointed out (aren’t we proud!). No wonder we’ve no confidence in their ability to fairly decide an Asylum claim.
Michael Woods // November 16, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I question our perception of normality.
Every day I drive from Drumchapel to Hillhead.
Most days I see 1 or more JCDecaux vans parked at bus stops replacing smashed glass.
Postulation -
if I see 1 per day,
then perhaps a minimum of 20 per day are being repaired in Glasgow,
and it costs perhaps £200 per bus shelter, or more.
Could we not better spend those £millions annual cost on the needy by making social vandalism more of a crime than failing an asylum claim?
3 problems then reduce in scale.
1 neds.
2 vandalised bus- shelters.
3 destitution amongst failed asylum-seekers.
Who would I rather share my society with - one with a sense of society or one intent on breaking it ?
Who would I rather see incarcerated - a Meltem Avicil or one of my local neds ?
For many of us this is a no-brainer.
shuck // November 18, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Ali, Are you a failed asylum seeker?
I find it surprising that someone with so much compassion for under privilaged failed asylum seekers, shows absolutely no compassion for the under privilaged youth of Glasgow. Don’t you understand the social issues surrounding the “envious and bitter lowlife of Glasgow you sometimes have the misfortune to meet”?
At the end of the day, these people whom you show complete contempt have a legal right to be in the UK unlike the many failed asylum seekers who have no legal basis to remain in the UK and can be considered no more than Liars Cheats and Thieves.
Michael Woods // November 20, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Whereas we know that many of our overprivileged indigenous lowlifes must be considered “Liars Cheats and Thieves”.
Thanks for emphasizing the difference Suhck.
Ali // November 21, 2007 at 1:02 am
Shuck, my immigration status is really none of your concern. Why do you ask? Is it relevant to anything?
Yes, I do understand the Neds’ ‘problems’ (do you?). Apathy, no sense of community or social cohesion, lack of self awareness and all sorts of issues that a lot of Sociological / Psychological theorists have attempted to explain. But there’s a lot of help out there for them, many of them just choose not to accept it. They much prefer guzzling Buckie and mindless violence and vandalism. Its not like I live in a leafy, middle class suburb of Glasgow (or an Asylum Seekers’ ghetto). I’ve met a lot of scumbags who’ve had the same opportunities as I have, they just don’t bother to take advantage of them (and would think you daft for doing so). So no sympathy from me I’m afraid, just mostly contempt. Although, I would help those who wanted it, but wanted is the operative word here (and not just pulling a scam to lessen their impending prison sentence).
Its unfortunate that unrepentant Neds have an unrevokable leave to remain - maybe that could be changed?…
Reiterating your liars, cheats and thieves comment won’t yank my chain, you know! Its a shame that you apply it to the wrong folk though.
Leave a Comment