As the UK gets ready to face off with the triple threat of a cold winter, a global pandemic and a no-deal Brexit, the government is inundated with internal crises that challenge the government’s ability to remain true to its twin promises of “shielding the vulnerable” and “leveling up the country”. Its incompetence in its dealing with the pandemic itself, its clash with the mayors of Northern England regarding COVID-19 restrictions and its poor decision to not extend free school meals over the holidays are all over the news. But some things that are equally important continue to fly under the radar. Among these is the deteriorating treatment of asylum seekers.
Even before the pandemic, many asylum seekers have had to go through seemingly insurmountable odds in a bid to secure the statutory support they are entitled to. For example, asylum seekers who are at risk of destitution are supposed to be granted Section 95 support, which gives them housing as well as £37.75 per week. Even those asylum seekers whose applications have been refused but are destitute are also entitled to government support - Section 4 grants them £35.39 on top of accommodation. These are things that the UK government is legally obligated to provide but, unfortunately, it continues to drag its feet and sometimes, even actively evicts those it is supposed to help. Delays in providing financial assistance combined with wrongfully refusing support or denying even valid asylum claims result in many asylum seekers having to needlessly endure poverty and homelessness.
Banned from working and unable to depend on the government that is supposed to have their best interests at heart, these vulnerable individuals are forced to rely on the generosity of civil society instead. Whilst far from ideal, volunteer centres, charities and faith-based groups have risen to the occasion and at least provided a safety net, offering not just food and shelter but warmth and solace as well. Unfortunately, the onset of the pandemic has forced an end to what little support has been on offer. Whilst the Home Office announcement that it would temporarily suspend the evictions of asylum seekers was welcome news indeed, the temporary nature of the suspension of evictions made for a modern version of the Sword of Damocles, every uncertain day bringing with it the possibility that it would be the day asylum seekers would be turned out in the streets.
On 18 September 2020, the Sword fell as the Home Office started sending eviction notices to asylum seekers despite Boris Johnson warning that the country is seeing a second wave. Amidst a sharp rise in cases, the government insisted that it will end the suspension of asylum seeker evictions, announcing that refused asylum seekers will soon be given just 21 days to leave the UK. Make no mistake, the consequences of this decision will be catastrophic and not only to the individual involved. Never mind the fact that many asylum claims are handled incorrectly, with more than half of all appeals against Home Office decisions being successful. Even more important is the fact that the UK government seems to be deliberately manufacturing homelessness - forcing already vulnerable people to face the threat of destitution - and uses it as a tool of immigration enforcement. With the number of migrants applying for destitution funds during COVID-19 increasing by 572%, this decision is even more troubling. What does it say about the morality of a government that deliberately ignores its statutory obligation, all to pander to that part of Britishvf society that condemns all things foreign?
More importantly, despite the fact that the Home Office itself stated that people should not be evicted if they are in local authorities subject to regional lockdowns, they served asylum seekers in Tier 3 areas eviction notice - a clear violation of their own standards. On 16 October, asylum seekers lodged two appeals to contest this decision and an immigration judge ruled in their favour, clarifying that “risk to health and wellbeing applies to everyone, whatever their immigration status.” In other words, everyone’s health deserves to be protected, British citizens or not. She also said that evicting asylum seekers in Tier 3 areas was “unreasonable” and “may place them and others in their communities at greater risk of harm" as well as breach their human rights. To this date, the Home Office has not responded to requests for clarification on the safety of the eviction policy.
This is neglect, pure and simple. And it needs to end. For too long, asylum seekers have been treated as an inconvenience by the UK government - a problem to be passed elsewhere. Those who are in need of humanitarian protection are regularly deprived of it. In fact, almost two in five of all initial asylum refusals are overturned on appeal, providing insight to how many who are actually entitled to asylum in the UK are first refused this protection.
This government needs to stop pussyfooting whenever asylum seekers are mentioned and closely examine the rules they themselves set. Why do they feel the need to set dubious criteria they were never going to follow? What was underpinning the decision? And yes, they’ve already made a decision but it can easily be reversed. They’ve had lots of practice after all. What’s one more U-turn to add to their ever-growing list?
Jade MacRury is a correspondent for the Immigration Advice Service, an immigration law firm based in the UK & Ireland which provides invaluable legal support to migrants.
