Image: 
No one leaves home,
Unless home is the mouth of a shark,
You only run for the border,
When you see the whole city running as well.
An extract from the poem "Home" by Warsan Shire
 

In June 2018 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published Destitution in the UK.  The research developed a definition of destitution based on the views of the public and experts.  The definition applied when anyone lacked two or more of six essentials over a past month because he or she could not afford them.  The essentials were:

  • Shelter (have slept rough one night or more)
  • Food (have had fewer than two meals a day for two or more days)
  • Heating and/or lighting their home (have been unable to do this for five or more days)
  • Clothing and footwear (appropriate for weather)
  • Basic toiletries (soap, shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrush) or
  • Had an income that was so low and no savings so that they would be likely to lack these essentials in the immediate future

On this definition over 1.5 million people including 365,000 children experienced destitution during 2017.  The paths into destitution were often a combination of factors including debt, social security and health problems.  One trigger factor was the extended restrictions on entitlement to support and social security and support available to asylum seekers and EEA migrants.

In August 2015 a new standard rate was applied for asylum support.  This meant a substantial reduction in the already poverty based income for lone parents and families with children.  The new rate was fixed at £36.95 a week and over four years later it has been increased only once by 80 pence to £37.75 a week. 

Social security rules for European Economic Area migrants have also been tightened with tougher residence and other tests introduced designed to exclude migrants from accessing social security when losing employment.

The government makes great play on work being the route out of poverty – it isn’t as in-work poverty has increased in Northern Ireland.   Yet, for asylum seekers work is not even an option, never mind a route out of poverty.  Rules that prevented asylum seekers being able to work in circumstances where claims were delayed for long periods were challenged successfully in court. 

The UK government’s response was to introduce a scheme to allow asylum seekers permission to work where their claim had not been resolved for at least a year.  The work that could be obtained was limited to a shortage occupation list which included jobs such as chemical engineers, computer animators and classical ballet dancers.  A more cynical cosmetic exercise is hard to imagine, consequently, asylum seekers remain effectively unable to work.

This backdrop is unfolding in the fifth largest economy in the world, a society who could choose to end destitution if it had the political will to do so.  Instead, society is becoming more unequal, not less.

This is a human rights issue. Economic and social rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) include the right to an adequate standard of living including adequate food, clothing and housing, the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the right to work and social security.  The UK government has signed up to these international standards. 

UN Treaty bodies have recognised that meeting economic and social rights is a journey where governments should progressively move in the right direction towards fulfilling the rights.  In international human rights there should be no backsliding save in the most compelling circumstances which must be justified.  So how can the UK justify reducing asylum seeker support?

The explanatory memorandum to the regulations which cut asylum seeker support argued that families were receiving more money than was necessary to meet essential needs, almost certainly not written by someone who had ever attempted to live on asylum seeker support.

The ICESCR treaty is not directly enforceable in a domestic court of law.  Instead, the UK government is examined by a UN Treaty committee every few years to see if it is living up to its commitments.  Sadly, and unsurprisingly it is frequently found wanting.

Stepping back, we have to realise that this is about individuals and families lives – people already having to cope with upheaval, uncertainty, loss of the support of other family and friends and frequently dealing with personal trauma. 

And yet, we could end this through providing a decent amount of asylum support, allow asylum seekers permission to work and provide other integrated forms of support and services.  The integrated service approach is what Northern Ireland did in the Syrian Resettlement Programme to great effect.

Immigration is a matter reserved for Westminster, nonetheless, now the NI Executive is back we need to begin again the work to persuade local politicians to look at ways to effectively support asylum seekers and others.  We have done it before with the introduction of the Emergency Fund for people without means. 

We need to do it again while shining a light on the bigger issue, namely, a governmental approach that tarnishes the notion that the United Kingdom is a welcoming place for refugees.

 

 

 

 

 

 by Les Allamby, Chief Commissioner, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission