News

• Government wins asylum appeal
• Asylum seekers win human rights battle with government

The government's challenge last week to July's high court ruling that new immigration rules could be in breach of human rights legislation has been used by campaigners as a platform to reiterate their concerns over the issue, writes Clare Jerrom.

Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 rang alarm bells even before its introduction in January. But while the Home Office seems more determined than ever to stand firm over the legislation, refugee and human rights organisations are protesting that the changes have left asylum seekers destitute and sleeping rough.

Under section 55, asylum seekers are not entitled to support from the National Asylum Support Service unless they claim asylum "as soon as reasonably practicable" when they arrive. But these new rules have been beset with problems, objections and court challenges from the outset.

The Refugee Council's deputy chief executive Margaret Lally immediately warned that the rules "could result in thousands of vulnerable people being left homeless and hungry across the continent".

The first case followed in February, when six asylum seekers won their legal challenge and Mr Justice Collins ruled that the law, as it was being applied in their cases, breached the European Convention on Human Rights.

He said "insufficient consideration" had been given to the issue and called for the decisions on their cases to be "quashed and reconsidered".

The Home Office confirmed last week that it had tightened its procedures in line with the judgements. The Immigration Service now carries out more in-depth interviews as to why people come to the UK, and the person who conducts the interview is now always the same person who makes the decision about whether the asylum seeker should receive support.

Every decision is reviewed by a senior immigration officer before it is confirmed in writing "to ensure consistency and quality", a Home Office spokesperson added.

Around 2,000 asylum seekers placed in emergency accommodation by the Home Office while it revised these procedures are now being called up to Platinum House in Croydon, south London, for their section 55 interview.

But charities are concerned by the decisions that have been made so far. A Refugee Action spokesperson explains that out of the 400 asylum seekers they had placed in emergency accommodation, 90 had been interviewed, but just 12 had been granted Nass support.

The government is challenging Mr Justice Kay's ruling in July that the human rights of three asylum seekers had been breached after they were forced to sleep rough having been denied Nass support.

The home secretary argued that it was not a breach of asylum seekers' human rights to sleep rough. But the judge rejected this argument and ruled that inhuman and degrading treatment under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights could include "sleeping rough, begging for food or money with which to buy it and the fear, humiliation and physical and mental suffering which soon ensues".

However, Kay said this did not mean everyone refused asylum support would be able to rely on article 3, as some asylum seekers might have access to private or charitable funds or be more resilient and resourceful.

Home Office minister Beverley Hughes welcomed this acknowledgement, but said she was "concerned" that article 3 was found to have been breached in the three cases and confirmed the Home Office would appeal.

In the end, the Home Office abandoned appeals in connection with two of the cases. The remaining appeal was heard last week and a judgement is expected shortly.

As the full effect of section 55 becomes clearer, campaigners' concerns about its impact are growing despite assurances from Hughes in answer to a parliamentary question in December that "there is no reason to suppose that the coming into force of section 55 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 will result in an increase in the number of rough sleepers".

Draconian policy

Last month, the Refugee Council was forced to refuse accommodation to more than 30 asylum seekers who the government claimed had failed to comply with section 55.

As a result, the group - many of whom deny applying for asylum too late - camped on the streets of Brixton, south London, and demonstrated outside the appeal court last week when the government launched its challenge. Lally says it is a "shocking example of the government's harsh and draconian policy towards asylum seekers".

A joint statement from refugee, homelessness and human rights' organisations issued in July points out that, while some charities can offer basic items such as blankets and provide advice, "the help we can offer is limited and wholly inadequate.

"The government seems to assume that charitable or voluntary organisations will be able to provide food, accommodation and essential items to those made destitute," it states. "However, we do not know of agencies in a position to provide such comprehensive support."

A spokesperson for homelessness charity Shelter explains that there is very little it can do as it cannot refer asylum seekers to a hostel or night shelter as most make a charge for a bed. While British citizens can cover the cost by claiming housing benefit, asylum seekers are prevented from claiming benefits or working to earn money to pay for accommodation.

Local authorities are also restricted. They are only required, under the National Assistance Act 1948, to support asylum seekers with special needs "who are in need of care and attention for reasons other than destitution". All other asylum seekers entering the country - providing they apply "as soon as reasonably practicable" - are supposed to apply to Nass for their support.

But Alice Webb, case worker at Asylum Aid, echoes Kay's observation that living on the streets can lead to physical and mental suffering - which could see an asylum seeker denied Nass support under section 55 qualifying for social services support. "If an asylum seeker is on the streets, their health is likely to suffer and mental health problems such as depression could ensue. At that point, they could make an application to social services."

However, Webb warns that, due to restrictions on resources, it can often be difficult for people to access this support, particularly in London.

Peter Gilroy, director of social services in Kent and the Association of Directors of Social Services spokesperson on asylum, says section 55 will lead to a rise in asylum seekers who failed to apply as soon as they arrived ending up at the social services department's door pleading special needs. He warns that this will lead to further judicial challenges as councils, unable to cope with demand, are forced to refuse support.

Gilroy is also concerned that section 55 could lead to an increase in the number of adults bringing children into the country and masquerading as their parents - as Marie-Therese Kouao did with Victoria Climbie - as families are exempt from the section.

By forcing asylum seekers onto the streets, section 55 will increase homelessness and increase asylum seekers' chances of committing or being the victim of crime, he warns.

In doing so, section 55 undermines other government initiatives tackling rough sleepers, promoting social cohesion and reducing exclusion, campaigners claim. "Section 55 is punishing people pursuing their legitimate claim to asylum," their statement concludes. "We call on the government to stop this measure, which threatens to put some of the most vulnerable people in society on the streets of Britain."