David Blunkett intends to speed up and slim down the appeals process, and further restrict the number of people eligible for state support. Conveniently for the government, those who slip between the cracks won't appear in official statistics and there will be no way to measure the numbers. Blunkett's deck-clearing exercise will no doubt make for prettier headline figures, but community organisations are concerned that they will be left to fill a very large gap.
"A white paper won't stop people coming to the country, but it will stop them going to the authorities," says one source. "There will be more people we won't know about."
Councils will not register these people as homeless because they are not entitled to housing. They will thus be left to rely on services for the destitute. So is a vast housing crisis developing off the government's radar screen?
The signs of coming trouble appeared in January with the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002). This denies government help to those who enter the country and do not immediately claim asylum, and voluntary organisations have been struggling to cope with its consequences – the Refugee Council reluctantly has decided to stop offering emergency accommodation from 30 November. It is not a housing organisation and was only meant to provide very short-term accommodation for small numbers of people; instead it found 4500 asylum seekers under its roof, a number it could not manage.
Anecdotal evidence from homeless charities suggests that the number of asylum seekers sleeping rough has increased, but many more have joined the "hidden homeless", staying with friends or extended family. Keith Best, chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, believes the problem will not remain hidden for long.
"The impact of section 55 is really beginning to bite," he says. "For the first time, people will be faced with the knowledge that beggars genuinely are beggars."
There are also fears that a faster appeals process may not be a fairer one, and that many people in genuine need may be ejected from the system and forced underground.
"There's nothing to indicate the quality of the decision-making will be any better," says Heather Petch, director at the Housing Associations' Charitable Trust. "If you reduce people's right to appeal, you reduce the number of people who are successful, but there's a vast number of people who get a positive decision on first or second appeals."
"The people we're dealing with now have experienced huge problems in their country of origin," says Dave Robinson, homelessness manager at Sheffield council. "I don't believe there's much evidence that people are staying when they shouldn't."
But even if asylum seekers are granted the right to remain in the UK, they might still slip out of the housing system. The National Asylum Support Service will only pay rent for 28 days after an asylum decision, after which tenants must find their own housing.
Petch believes the government will enforce the rule more confidently in future. "This keenness to see improvements is as much to do with feeling justified as it is about making sure those with positive decisions have got a decent place to stay," she says.
The Home Office wants to keep tabs on these people, but they disappear into the ether
John Perry, policy adviser at the Chartered Institute of Housing
Consigned to limbo
Ultimately, sector professionals believe, the home secretary's tough approach will fail because it is based on a flawed assumption. "Making things unpleasant for asylum seekers is felt to be a deterrent, but they only work if they're communicated to those they're supposed to deter," says Best. "The smugglers aren't going to pass on the message. It is bound to fail."
And although Blunkett is trying to make life as unpleasant as possible for those who do not gain asylum but remain in the UK, his record of removing them isn't impressive.
"If the process is going to be very streamlined at the front, it ought to be at the end too, so people aren't stuck with no support," says Pat Hagan, advice and statutory services manager for Doncaster council, where 1500 asylum seekers have been dispersed. "It's not happening like that in our experience. We don't know how many people have had negative decisions, fallen out of the system but are still living in the area. If you're not going to give someone support, don't leave them in limbo."
John Perry, policy adviser at the Chartered Institute of Housing, says the Home Office's policies are putting housing providers in a difficult position. "There's certainly a problem with people whose appeals get refused: the housing provider has no choice but to evict.
It makes no sense – the Home Office wants to keep tabs on these people, but they disappear into the ether."
Data on the number of people slipping out of the system in these ways is hard to come by, and the fear is that a huge, invisible problem is growing. People who are shut out or opt out of the system may disappear from the government's sights, but for those who provide services to the most vulnerable, they are all too visible, and on the increase.
In April, Safe Haven, a partnership between South Yorkshire Housing Association and Yorkshire Housing, refused to evict more than 300 tenants after 28 days because it believed they would become homeless. South Yorkshire's chief executive Tony Stacey condemned the "policy vacuum" that left refugees waiting months to get on council lists or into the worst private housing.
Clare Tickell, chief executive of Stonham Housing Association, says women who have been refused asylum regularly turn up at its refuges. "It's difficult running any kind of emergency housing when people are so vulnerable. The big issue is, what do you do when people come to you?" she asks.
Similarly, Erskine Odongo, chief executive of Afro Caribbean Housing Association, says it sees an average of six failed asylum seekers a day and houses them for nothing. "The community has to take up the burden because the council turns them away. At the moment, those who have applications refused are not being removed: we can't continue to support them," he says. "Blunkett has lost control of the whole thing – this is a mess, with policies driven by paranoia. It's not good for community relations."
This poses a serious problem for social cohesion. "When there's a national view that refugees are a problem, it doesn't fit with the idea that people should get along locally," says Paul Birtill, new initiatives manager at Refugee Housing Association, which houses more than 1000 families in the East Midlands.
Perry agrees: "We're dismayed by the government's pandering to the worst examples of hostility towards asylum seekers, rather than confronting the issues."
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet