- The Observer,
- Sunday May 12, 2002
Another day, another bunch of asylum seekers in northern France make their desperate attempt to get on board a train headed for the UK. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that the urge of these people, many of them from distant countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, Albania and Zimbabwe, to reach our shores is an indicator of the princely level of benefits that are waiting for them at the other end of the Channel Tunnel. Otherwise, why not stay in France or one of the other European countries they have traversed on their way?
But is the financial support offered to asylum seekers really generous? Or are they - as some campaigners argue - the most deprived group in society, living below the poverty line?
Since April 8, asylum seekers have at least been able to meet their immediate needs in the same currency as the rest of society - cash. Until that date, they were living in a kind of parallel economy using 'goods' vouchers, which were introduced by the government in April 2000 as a measure to discourage 'economic migration'. The vouchers were seen by many as unfair and humiliating. Only £10 of an asylum seeker's support could be turned into cash, and the remainder had to be exchanged for goods at specified outlets, which meant asylum seekers weren't able to shop in the cheapest places such as street markets; no change could be given, which made it impractical to make small purchases such as a carton of milk; and worst of all, the vouchers attracted attention to their bearer at the checkout, and highlighted their second-class status.
Pressure from campaigners eventually paid off, and now asylum seekers can exchange their vouchers immediately for cash, when they receive them at a Post Office. So far the system appears to be working well, and the only people likely to be disgruntled are the black-market dealers who were reported to be buying vouchers at below their face value.
However, with one major issue resolved, attention is now likely to focus on other questions, such as whether the amount asylum seekers are paid is fair, and the continuing shortcomings in the system for distributing the vouchers. Forthcoming legislation is also likely to create a new battleground, as the government has indicated that asylum seekers who stay with friends or family and refuse to be 'dispersed' from London and the south-east will have their support cut off.
Where asylum seekers are concerned it is easy to fall back on stereotypes. They are not all automatically dependent on the state, says says Jean Candler at the Refugee Council. Many arrive with funds of their own, while others have family to look after them.
'State support is only provided for those who are destitute,' she says. 'So if you come here with money you won't qualify, or if you have expensive things with you, you may be asked to sell them first.' Those applying for asylum - and who pass the means test - have two options when it comes to seeking support from the Home Office-run National Asylum Support Service (NASS): they can ask for accommodation and financial support; or for financial support only (usually if they are staying with friends or family). The financial support is payable in both cases via the voucher system.
The amount is based upon income support, and is set at about 70% of the state benefit. A couple without children receive £59.26 a week; a lone parent or single person over 25 receives £37.77 a week; a child under 16 gets £33.50 a week and a single person aged between 18 and 25 gets £29.89 a week.
In addition, a £50 supplementary grant can be applied for every six months, which is designed to provide for less immediate needs such as clothing. And there is also a one-off maternity grant of £350, which again has to be applied for. It is a moot point whether these sums are fair or sufficient. Candler says: 'We think it is clearly inadequate. Income support is supposed to be set at the poverty line - the amount needed in order to survive. But asylum seekers are expected to live on 70% of that.'
The reason support was set at less than three quarters of income support is that, in theory at least, asylum seekers are provided with accommodation where bills such as electricity, gas, water and council tax are met. Of course, paying these bills is undoubtedly a huge burden on poor British citizens who might well feel they should be first in line for whatever government help is available.
On the other hand, many of those on income support are entitled to additional 'passported' benefits such as housing benefit, council tax rebates, and child benefit which are not available to asylum seekers. So whether the reduction is justified is hard to say.
What is certain is that living on these sums, whether it is income support or the asylum seekers' slice of it, does not leave any room for luxuries, let alone the sorts of financial provisions like insurance, pensions and savings that most people consider essential.
The system has definitely been designed with the intention of ensuring that asylum seekers are not better off than those holding full citizenship. A Reader's Digest Mori poll carried out in 2000 revealed that the public tend to greatly overestimate the amount of money that asylum seekers are given, believing it to be on average £113 a week. A common myth is that asylum seekers are paid more than pensioners. Yet the basic state pension for a single pensioner has just risen to £75.50 a week, and the Government's minimum income guarantee for pensioners is £98.15 - compared with the £37.77 paid to most single asylum seekers.
Little research has been carried out on how asylum seekers manage on the support they do receive, and what they spend it on; however, a recently published Home Office report on the voucher system, which surveyed more than 200 asylum seekers, does give some insights. An undisclosed number said the amount they received was insufficient to provide extra clothing and bedding in winter, and medication was singled out as difficult to afford, with many seemingly unaware that they were entitled to free prescriptions. Many of those interviewed had developed 'strategies' such as skipping meals to save up for non-food items, and clubbing together with friends to obtain discounts on bulk buys. Other items they found hard to afford were school uniforms and treats for their children. Most would also walk wherever they could rather than take public transport, in order to save money.
Richard Dunstan at the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, says the key issue is 'not the level of support, it's the delivery'. He says that most of the problems brought to CABs concern processing errors, such as the receipts that must be taken to a Post Office not turning up. Because NASS has no office network, asylum seekers whose support does not arrive have to call the clogged lines at the organisation's head office in Croydon, often to find that mistakes are simply compounded or take weeks to rectify.
Dunstan says: 'I've just been looking at the case of a Somali woman in Manchester whose support was interrupted for almost six months. Her support has been restored but she gave birth in January, and she is still getting no additional support for the child.'
NACAB's submission to the government on asylum support concluded that asylum seekers will continue to suffer from poor service unless the government either invests in decentralised counter services or brings the payment of support back within the mainstream benefit system.
Asylum seekers are given free access to the UK's school and health systems, but not to the area where they could make the greatest contribution: work. They are not allowed to work for the first six months of their stay in the UK, and even then getting permission to do so is often hampered by bureaucracy. Habib Rahman, of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, says: 'In London in particular, it's not difficult for asylum seekers to find work, but employers won't take them on because it is a criminal act to take somebody on without a work permit.'
As to the notion that asylum seekers are attracted to the UK because of the financial benefits available, Dunstan says that it contains little truth. 'People aren't coming because of the benefits, they are coming because they have relatives here, because Britain treats their nationality better than other countries do.' He concedes that some may also be drawn by better opportunities to work illegally, due to the lack of an identity card.
A study of the treatment of asylum seekers in different European Union countries by the Danish Refugee Council showed that support offered in the UK runs on largely similar lines to that in most other EU countries. And despite the widespread perception that we are the favourite destination for asylum seekers, according to figures from the UNHCR the UK ranks only seventh among European countries in terms of the asylum applications per 1,000 inhabitants.
So are we too generous? The question is a politically loaded one. The answer depends upon such profound questions as whether you believe that we have some responsibility for less advantaged people from other countries; or whether those who have fled tyranny should be made to expect hardship as a price for their escape.
One thing is certain. Whether an individual's claim is bogus or legitimate,economically motivated or not, asylum seekers have to cope with financial circumstances that nobody else in the country could have reason to envy.
At best, they are receiving little more than the minimum support that a civilised society could be expected to provide, and it seems unlikely that offering less would discourage many from coming in the future.
'We go without to clothe our child'
Jerzy and Kasia are a mixed race couple from Poland - he is Roma and she is Polish - who were harassed and intimidated after they married.
The couple, who have a seven-year-old daughter, were ostracised, and Jerzy was beaten up regularly, once so badly that he ended up in hospital and was told he might never walk again.
Fortunately he has overcome these serious injuries. Their daughter was threatened at school and withdrawn for her safety. Eventually, the family felt too frightened to remain in Poland, and fled to Britain. They now live in east London on £80 a week from the National Asylum Support Service. The couple say they find it hard to manage, but spend everything they can on their daughter, determined that she shouldn't lose out because they are asylum seekers.
Their other problem is that she doesn't have a school place.
'Our daughter likes pretty things, so we try and buy them for her. At Christmas, we couldn't afford to buy any presents for each other and we could only afford to buy our daughter a present from the pound shop,' says Kasia.
'We often go without fruit and veg as it is so expensive, and find that we are very limited about what we can buy. We buy very cheap things from the market, and eat a lot of tinned food.
'We can't afford to buy clothing apart from things for our daughter. We often go without things so that our daughter can have nice clothes and toys.'
· The family's names have been changed in this case study provided by the Refugee Council.
