At a recent meeting of Labour party members I met a woman who had fled Zimbabwe. Her application for asylum had been turned down, her appeal had been unsuccessful. Articulate and bright, our asylum rules meant she was unable to work in the UK. She told me she had to stay with her sister and she felt depressed because she could not work, gain skills or support her 16-year-old son.
This woman is not alone. It is estimated that there are over 280,000 refused asylum seekers destitute in the UK; they are not permitted to work and they no longer receive asylum support.
Even at a rate of one forced removal every 26 minutes it would take at least 14 years to forcibly remove all the failed asylum seekers in the UK, at a cost of £11,000 for each deportation. The government simply cannot remove all failed asylum seekers so destitution is used as a tool to force return.
Yet imperfections with the asylum application process mean that, for many failed asylum seekers, returning home may not be a clear option. For example, many from Zimbabwe, Iraq and elsewhere may fear persecution, violence and death if they return home. Further, they may not be able to obtain travel documents or the airport in their country of origin may not be operational.
For those failed asylum seekers who can return home, their return should be safe, sustainable and carried out with dignity. For those who have protection needs and cannot return, a policy of forced destitution seems morally unacceptable.
Reports by Amnesty International and Refugee Action provide harrowing evidence of failed asylum seekers being forced to sleep in parks, public toilets and telephone boxes. Many rely on the charity of friends and drop-in centres to survive.
At the Labour party’s last National Executive Committee meeting, I called on the government to look again at the policy which leaves so many destitute. Like Amnesty International and the Refugee Council, I believe that where refused asylum seekers cannot be returned safely and securely they should be granted a form of temporary leave to remain that allows them to work and access support, until such time that it may become safe for them to return home.
Not only would this put an end to forced destitution, it would also enable failed asylum seekers to contribute to the economy rather than relying on handouts. Many asylum seekers have skills and a high level of education – among them are qualified nurses, teachers, journalists, civil servants and academics. By allowing them to work, they will be able to use and develop their skills, contribute to the UK economy and pay taxes.
To return to the story of the failed asylum seeker I met recently: one day, when the conflict and struggles are over, she would like to return to Zimbabwe. And when she returns she wants to be able to contribute to the economy there. Yet not having been able to work for years, like many others, she fears that she will not have the skills to do so. Not only does our government policy have an immediate impact on the lives of failed asylum seekers, it may also have a detrimental impact on the long-term prosperity of some of the very countries which we are working hard to assist.
I have never come across a Labour minister who is not humane and decent. Unlike so many of their Conservative predecessors, the motivation of our people is to improve the lot of humanity. Yet this is clearly an inhumane system, and often those who are the victims of it have already fled suffering, abuse and torture. I hope that the newly appointed immigration minister, Phil Woolas, will look again at the policy of forced destitution and instead give failed asylum seekers, who cannot return, leave to work in the UK.