Last Thursday (20th October) the inaugural annual lecture of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Poverty – chaired by Kate Green OBE MP – took place in the Houses of Parliament. The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, addressed the audience – made up of organisations that work with poverty in the UK and several MPs. Antony Metcalfe, manager of the Fairbridge programme in Wales and one of our partners present at the event, talks about his experience.

I was privileged to be invited to attend the inaugural annual lecture of the APPG on Poverty at the Houses of Parliament last week. As one of the people sitting on the charity panel, I had the opportunity to field a question to the Minister. I asked what the government was doing about a problem a lot of young people we work with face: combining seasonal work with benefits. If a young person finds seasonal work, they have to go through the process of coming off benefits and then back on them again once their work stint is over, which is a big disincentive for them to take up seasonal work at all.

The Minister recognised that this can be a real barrier to progression and might deter some from breaking out of unemployment and achieving that first step on the work ladder. According to the Minister, the introduction of the Universal Credit will solve this issue, but in the meantime he is instructing the JobCentrePlus to ensure young people can step on and off the welfare system more easily and without being penalised.

I was fortunate to also be able to speak to the audience about our work addressing the needs of those deemed hardest to reach across South Wales, many who come to us from worklessness households, from the homelessness system or suffering from addiction issues. Our Cardiff programme, together with the other Prince’s Trust programmes, will support 50,000 young people across the UK this year. This might be by raising aspirations, confidence and motivation or by facilitating young people to start their own business. Today’s job market is highly competitive and, because our main aim is to raise youth employment, we need to ensure that all our young people receive the support they deserve at these difficult times.

One of our programmes, funded by Oxfam, is based on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, an approach that builds a holistic picture of people’s lives by considering their assets (skills, health, relationships within the community, access to services and financial situation) rather than starting from a negative view of what people lack (work, money, skills). With this initiative we are tackling the causes of youth poverty and unemployment by enabling our young people to understand their surroundings and how they themselves can grow out of poverty by taking control of their lives.

All the other organisations that showcased their work to tackle poverty across the UK were passionate and driven and had a deep understanding of the entrenched reasons behind individual and family poverty – and I felt like we all shared the same goals. My only concern is that in this difficult economic climate, those most at risk and with the furthest to fall might slip through the net of economic reductions and budget cuts.

Antony Metcalfe is the manager of the Fairbridge programme in Wales – part of the Prince’s Trust. Fairbridge is an Oxfam partner who works with young people in England, Scotland and Wales to help them overcome the barriers in their lives by supporting them to develop the confidence, motivation and skills they need to turn their lives around.

The main side effect of our lifestyle last week was the feeling of being hungover, which Marianne and I both reported. The lack of nutritious food combined with long walks is not healthy.

Safe to say we are now back onto normal food, and especially enjoying the fruit, veg, meat, and use of the bus!

The only thing I can say about this challenge is that it really highlighted how badly we treat refused asylum seekers, and that it is no wonder they have to be so resourceful in their survival strategies  http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/right_heard/downloads/rr-coping-with-destitution-survival-strategies-uk-040211-media-en.pdf

In total, Marianne and I raised £600 – and would like to thank anyone who donated. Sadly however, this will only go a small way. I would encourage you to add your voice to any campaign calling for the forced destitution of refused asylum seekers to be abolished. http://stillhumanstillhere.wordpress.com/take-action/

Some of the typical contents of a food parcel, as distributed to refused asylum seekers by the Red Cross

Friday – day four of our challenge. I’ve just had an update from our friends in Birmingham who are joining us from Mon-Fri and their experiences sound similar to ours; to quote Siobhan: ‘My body is telling me that it’s very much looking forward to fruit, vegetables and meat!’.

The four of us on this challenge have been fortunate. We have been careful not to ask people for food, but it is the nature of our placements (drop in centres) that there are sometimes leftovers. Mostly they are offered to service users, but then we as volunteers can take what’s left. So on Tuesday I could bring home some leftover veg and pasta, on Wednesday some fresh milk, and yesterday Marianne brought home bread and chocolate. Similarly, in Birmingham they have been given leftovers of pasta, curry, yoghurt and fruit. I think we’ve all wondered if we were ‘cheating’ doing this, but have come back to the fact that if we were really destitute we would accept without hesitation.

The biggest challenge for me this week has been the after affects of walking long distances without proper nutrition. The walks themselves were fine, but the days after, i.e. weds and this morning, I feel like I’m hungover and am craving some vegetables!

We’ve used most of our cans of food and will be eating a lot of plain pasta and rice this weekend. We already had plans to visit a friend’s open house, so today should be OK food wise.

What strikes me this week is how much energy has gone into planning. From seeing how creative we could be with rice and pasta, to weighing and measuring each portion of food, to making sure I left enough time to walk to every destination. There is little freedom in any of this and all I can do is to come back to the point I made earlier: the way we treat refused asylum seekers is inhumane. I am seeing with new eyes just how valuable my placement and others like it are.

What do they have in common? Well, apart from the fact that they all feature in today’s news headlines the answer would appear to be – very little.

Below, we take some of the key points from today’s top stories – can you work out which quotes refer to which group of people?

…are seeing the biggest decline in living standards since the 1920s, as food and petrol prices soar
…can expect to take home an extra £46,000* in pay this year, compared to last year
…are facing unprecedented funding shortages, which may result in homelessness, violence, and prostitution for their users
…are struggling to find jobs in the depressed labour market**
…may take home a £8,000,000*** bonus this year. Or more.
…spend more than half of their income on food – and therefore face chronic hunger due to rising food prices
…reported group profits of £6.1bn*** for 2010

———

* (that makes their average pay £236,000. Which could buy plenty of food, and petrol. It’s ten times more than the average UK salary)
** (that makes them unemployed, which makes their average pay £0)
*** (that’s the same as 344 people on the average annual UK salary make – combined – in a year)
*** (yes, that’s £6,100,000,000 in profit – which could provide 20 million victims of violence and their children with a week of accommodation and subsistence)

Mike Kaye, Advocacy Manager for Still Human Still Here, looks at recent evidence of how asylum seekers survive in the UK and calls for the elimination of destitution in the UK as a fitting way to mark this important anniversary.

The term “sofa surfing” has been used as shorthand to describe the transient existence of refused asylum seekers who move from one place to another looking for any sort of short term accommodation with friends, family or members of the community to keep them off the streets. Coping with Destitution, a new report from OXFAM and Swansea University, provides a detailed and alarming picture of what this means in practice for the individuals affected.

Even where refused asylum seekers are housed and assisted by supportive and well motivated members of the community, this still has a devastating impact on the individual’s dignity and self esteem over time. The effect of being entirely dependent on others simply to subsist and the fact that there is no foreseeable end to a period in which their lives have effectively been suspended inevitably affects the mental and physical health of refused asylum seekers.

Another worrying finding of the report is that refused asylum seekers are so concerned about being returned to their country of origin that they try and avoid all contact with officials and that their distrust of the authorities extends to health professionals and even refugee charities. This means they are often not accessing services they are entitled to (e.g. primary health care or Section 4 support) or taking advantage of the advice and support offered by voluntary sector service providers. 

The isolation and desperation of these individuals means that they are vulnerable to manipulative, exploitative or even abusive relationships with the people who are supporting them. Both male and female refused asylum seekers contacted during the research had been involved in commercial sex work as a means of survival.

Despite the horrors of living in destitution in this ‘civilised’ country, evidence from the report shows that destitution will not force refused asylum seekers to return to their country of origin and should be a spur for the Government to review its current asylum support policy.

The Government’s stated policy is that nobody needs to be destitute and that asylum seekers who have been refused should leave the UK. On the face of it this does not appear an unreasonable position, but it does not take account of the problems in the decision making process. For example, in 2010, around one in four asylum decisions made by the UK Border Agency were overturned on appeal. While the appeal process works for some asylum seekers, its effectiveness is largely dependent on asylum seekers finding good quality legal representatives and this is in increasingly short supply. 

The second problem with the determination process is that there is a protection gap which appeared in 2002 when Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) was abolished. ELR used to provide protection to individuals fleeing conflict and widespread human rights violations, but who could not necessarily prove that they were being individually persecuted. ELR was given to 24% of asylum applicants in 2002, but the new categories of Humanitarian Protection and Discretionary Leave which replaced it are only given to around 10% of asylum applicants and the great majority of these are children.

The consequence of this is that there are groups of asylum seekers who have been refused any form of status, but cannot be returned to their country of origin because it is not safe to do so. For example, there have been no removals to Zimbabwe in around eight years. Thousands of asylum seekers from Zimbabwe alone have been refused during this time and have been left in limbo in the UK, many surviving in ways outlined in the report.

A senior UNHCR official has recently noted that the approach of some European countries towards people fleeing generalized violence in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia “often defies common sense”. 

 If the UK Government amended its policy around Discretionary Leave or Humanitarian Protection so that UKBA caseworkers could provide temporary protection to asylum seekers who do not meet the strict definition of a refugee but may be at risk if returned to their country of origin, it would end the current situation where asylum seekers from a small number of countries end up refused and destitute, but then cannot be removed from the UK.

 This year is the 60^th anniversary of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees – it is an international standard that has literally saved hundreds of thousands of lives since it was established. Implementing the recommendations from the Coping with Destitution report and eliminating destitution from the UK’s asylum system would be a fitting way to mark this anniversary.

Mike Kaye is Advocacy Manager for Still Human Still Here

OXFAM is a members of the Still Human Still Here Coalition

 www.stillhuman.org.uk

“My day starts waking up on a mattress on a friend’s floor. The floor changes every few days, depending on who I’m staying with. And the “mattress” is really two duvets folded over… I tend to move around so I don’t impose on anybody for too long. I was kicked out of my accommodation just a few days before Christmas and am currently staying with a friend in her one bedroom flat.

I’m out of the door  early in the morning and depending on how much I’ve been able to pack into my day I’ll be back sometime in the evening. I try to fill my days with things to do and places to go. I make myself busy, so that I don’t have to think about my situation. I don’t allow myself to stop.  

There are various drop-in centres and sessions in different parts of the city all week, I attend as many as possible, and that also means I’m not under the feet of whoever is giving me shelter that day. I will usually be given some food for lunch or I can pick up a food parcel or sometimes cash at these sessions. The Red Cross Destitution Clinic gives out £10 a week for four weeks to people who are destitute. My four weeks are up now so I have no other way of getting money. Maybe friends will give me some cash now and again, but it’s not much.

If it’s a laundry day then it can be quite an ordeal. The friend I’m staying with doesn’t have a washing machine, and I don’t have money to pay for the launderette, so I go to another friend’s house to do it. I lug my clothes across town on foot and I stay there until it’s done. It’s not easy to get there and I walk everywhere because I have no money for the bus. I don’t like to impose, so I try not to go too often. So I’ll go maybe every 2-3 weeks and do two or three loads at that one time. Doing things, keeping busy is how I cope. It distracts me from my situation, my reality.

When I get back to my friend’s we will prepare dinner, I am fortunate to have such good friends willing to share their food with me.  Being dependent on others is difficult, especially as I’m an independent person. I don’t like to ask people for things. I cope with what I have and I’m happier to go without, so I tend not to ask for things.

I’m very lucky; I haven’t gone hungry or had to sleep on the streets. There was a gentleman from my country who was disabled and his case was refused. He had nowhere to go, so was sleeping in a stable, in winter. I know people who have had to sleep on the streets. When you are destitute a lot depends on how involved you are with other people around you. If you don’t know anyone then you will struggle.

Everyone is doing as much as they can for me, but I don’t know what’s going to happen from week to week. The same people can’t support me for a long period because life is difficult for them and they have their own matters to worry about such as financial strains.

Getting to sleep is not too difficult, I’ve made sure that I’m so tired I haven’t the energy to think too much. The less I think, the less likely I am to breakdown. I know I have to cope, if I didn’t what would I do?”

*Nikki’s name has been changed to protect her identity

Yet our research launched today is full of such stories.  It shows for the first time both the horrors of what is happening here in the UK and shown that, despite government policy, people do find ways to survive.

Oxfam works with refugees all over the world. Whilst the majority of refugees are hosted by developing nations, a very small number come to the UK.  If they are refused asylum here, they are forced to resort to living on their friends’ sofas, surviving on handouts from charities, entering into overtly transactional relationships and sometimes illegal work, including sex work. In short, they are forced to live in destitution.

At Oxfam, we believe that two immediate changes in policy would help to create a fair, efficient asylum system that protects the rights and dignity of the people who use it.  They are giving asylum seekers unconditional cash support until the point of return and improving the decision making in the asylum determination process.

Firstly, change from badly administered payment cards to unconditional cash support until the point of return. Currently, someone who has been refused asylum can receive limited support (‘section 4 support‘, consisting of accommodation and an Azure card worth £35.29 a week), if they agree to return home when it is safe to do so. With many refused asylum-seekers feeling they were wrongly denied asylum and fearful of persecution at home, it is not surprising that few take up this option.

Lucy, a teacher seeking asylum here in the UK, talks about the problem with this. She speaks of a 45 minute walk until she reaches the one store which will accept her card.  On the way she passes not only other shops but markets that sell the African ingredients she knows how to cook with. Section 4 support is costly, and the conditions and poor administration mean that many refused asylum-seekers would rather live in destitution. With an unconditional cash alternative, refused asylum-seekers have access to some level of support.

Secondly, improve the quality of decisions in the asylum-determination process. Oxfam is not suggesting that people who are refused are automatically allowed to stay but initial decisions from the system are often wrong. Almost a third of applications that are initially refused and overturned upon appeal, meaning people who have been refused asylum have not been given a fair hearing. Returning someone who has been wrongly refused asylum because of poor quality decision-making violates the Refugee Convention by forcing people to return to a country where they face persecution and fear.

Free legal advice and representation for those at the end of the process would not only improve the quality of decision making but more accurate initial decisions could save up to £13.5 million[1].  Appellants with legal representation have a 51% success rate, giving the UK a much better chance of running a fair system.

We have a proud tradition of providing sanctuary in the UK. Yet, as we have heard, currently we are leaving some people in destitution.  One of the people interviewed in our research remarked that it brings back all the horrible and sorrowful memories of the struggle they went through in fleeing persecution in their own country in the first place. We never need to treat someone like that, under any circumstances.  We believe that these changes in policy, giving cash support, improving decision making and granting the right to work, would turn our system from one that leaves people as “living ghosts” into a fair, efficient and humane structure that we can once again be proud of.

Please see http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoffice/2011/02/04/asylum-policy-leads-to-life-of-destitution-says-oxfam/ for more information

For Oxfam’s latest research report ‘Coping with Destitution – Refused asylum seekers in the UK’, see http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/right_heard/coping-with-destitution-survival-strategies-uk.html

However, ignoring for a moment the student protests at the tail end of last year, the British people have shown a remarkable willingness to accept their lot.

The public may find the thought of the Treasury raiding their wallets repugnant but they have seemed content to accept it as a consequence of the current economic climate.

However, as 2011 matures it is likely that the attitudes of punch-drunk Brits will change, especially when the real cost of last week’s rise in VAT is measured.

According to the Coalition, raising VAT from 17.5% to 20% is both necessary and progressive. They argue that the Treasury’s coffers will be bolstered by an additional £12.1billion – money which can be used to pay off Britain’s budget deficit.

Of course, David Cameron once described raising VAT as ‘regressive’ admitting that such a rise will invariably hit the poorest hardest. So too did Nick Clegg.

But now that Vatman and Robbin have settled into Number 10 their economic mantra has changed. VAT increases are now ‘progressive’ in so far as it will help to chip away at the budget deficit.

Reducing the deficit must be a priority for the government but by raising VAT the Coalition is ignoring the burden that hard working families will have to bear.

Indeed, the Treasury’s own data suggests that the households who spend most of their income i.e. the poorest, will be hit hardest because they are forced to spend more to pay for the basics.

Cynics of course will argue that top earners purchase more expensive items and therefore will pay more VAT. Simple! Well, not quite.

Unlike high earners who have sufficient income to sustain tax increases low earners do not have the financial flexibility to adjust easily. Many have to budget day-to-day and with little or no savings they have no back-up to cushion the blow when tax bands change.

Consequently, most low income families will have even less money in the bank at a time when prices are rising across the board, with many more still facing the prospect of financial ruin.

The VAT rise will also affect poor families in other ways. Last week a host of charities warned that some vulnerable people will miss out on essential goods such as beds, cookers and fridges as welfare assistance is scaled back.

These grants provide a safety net for those in dire need – such as vulnerable women escaping domestic abuse – but the rise in VAT coupled with funding cuts means that the number of grants available will be slashed.

This is hardly progressive and certainly not in keeping with the Coalition’s promise to enshrine  fairness at that the heart of government policy. It is a backwards step which will create even greater inequity and further widen the gap between the rich and poor condemning future generations to a life of abject poverty and misery.

It is now imperative that the government realigns its moral compass and rethinks this socially disruptive policy. Only then will societies poorest be protected.

The Government’s just published the latest national homelessness statistics. Overall, it’s not great news.

Homelessness has risen in two consecutive quarters for the first time since 2003. According to Communities and Local Government department figures, accepted applications for a main homelessness duty between July and September were up 14 per cent on the same time last year, to 11,840. Acceptances were also 12 per cent higher than the previous quarter.

But what about those at the sharpest end of homelessness – rough sleepers?  We at homelessness charity St Mungo’s are worried about the rising trend in rough sleeper numbers in London over the last year which looks set to continue, and worsen, in 2011.

Overall, 3,673 people slept rough in London during 2009-10, compared with 3,472 people in 2008-09. A total of 1,549 people were seen rough sleeping on the streets of London between July and September this year. This is a 19% increase – 250 people – compared with the previous quarter, and 108 more people than seen rough sleeping in the same period last year.

At St Mungo’s we accommodate around 1,600 residents all year round in supported housing ranging from emergency shelters and hostels to semi independent housing and high support projects across London and the south.

In our last client survey, 56% have slept rough and 64% have a physical health condition. Up to 70% had mental health issues.

We’re concerned that street numbers will swell with cuts to services that support vulnerable groups at real risk of sleeping rough.

Central government has pledged to protect the most vulnerable and that cuts will be applied fairly but the reality is that some councils are planning cuts in funding to services for homeless people and those at real risk of sleeping rough.

Money previously ring-fenced for homeless and vulnerable people under the Supporting People programme is now available to be spent more widely.

Our fear is that this will mean some councils could prioritise resources elsewhere, as they make tough spending decisions, without due consideration of the long term cost to society and people’s lives.

Any cuts that impact on the services that support the housing of people with mental health problems are of deep concern. In our experience, it is vital that services have the capacity to help people quickly. If people end up sleeping rough for any period of time, their physical and mental health both start to deteriorate.

In the months ahead, St Mungo’s among others is facing cuts in its direct services for homeless people. Its largest hostel is threatened with closure, and its homeless prevention service in London prisons is one of 28 services facing loss of funding in a raft of £3.2 million potential cuts planned by London Councils.

Great work is being done in helping people off the streets. But who can ensure that homeless, vulnerable and disadvantaged people don’t slip through society’s safety net before they end up on the streets?

Local authorities must not be allowed to raid what was the Supporting People coffer for other priorities. There is nothing fair about cuts that hurt the most vulnerable, people with least in their lives.

We want the Coalition Government to ensure that local authorities meet the pledges that have been made nationally, and don’t allow vital services to be decimated now, only to have to re-build them, at greater cost, at a later date.

For further information please see the new Homelessness Briefing from St Mungo’s, Shelter, Homeless Link and Crisis.

At the moment, though, I’m sitting in a well-known coffee shop. It’s somewhere I normally try to avoid for a variety of reasons – the prices, my effort to go to independent cafes, and not least my distinct lack of taste for coffee. From my vantage point I can see a guy browsing the Internet on his laptop, a schoolgirl across from me pulling out an iPhone, and the luminous Apple store across the road lighting up the street. It is the contrast between my two evening activities which persuaded me to write this blog – my unease at finding myself caught up in this huge inequality in our society, spending £8 odd on a sandwich and a coffee before heading off to a soup kitchen.  At the centre approximately one hundred people a night will be doing exactly the same thing – killing time, catching up with friends, getting a snack in a warm place out of the rain.

I’ve been going for about seven months now, and have heard some stories. One regular is a 59-year-old gentleman suffering from severe arthritis. He told me he cannot feel anything anymore – his nerves have gone, as have his taste buds, and he feels constantly cold.  His family do not live close by, but his neighbour assists him with jobs around the house occasionally.  I helped find clean clothes for a young girl whose mother had passed away a few weeks before; she was carrying her death certificate around for lack of a safe place to keep it.  She disposed of some sterile needles she’d been given free, explaining she did not do drugs, before heading off to a friend’s flat where she was sleeping on a sofa. Last week just before closing, a woman ran upstairs in a complete state. She didn’t know what day it was, where she was staying or where she was, and was extremely paranoid. She smelt of alcohol, showed me the fresh self-harm scars on her arms and chest, and told me about her recent miscarriage.  These are only examples of some of the personal experiences individuals have confided to me, and are all situations any of us could find ourselves in that without the right support can have a devastating impact on someone’s life – the death of someone close to us, a relationship breakdown, an illness or loss of job.

From my experience I would say it’s clear the majority of customers have an addiction problem, suffer from poor mental health have learning difficulties or are simply terribly lonely, lacking the social support most of us too often take for granted.  Research supports this: you are up to 15 times more likely to experience mental ill health if you are homeless.  The centre seems to be a place to come for safety, warmth, and company – more than just satisfaction of hunger or thirst. In fact, the centre fulfils the same role as any activity that that any of us undertake in our spare time, going to the cinema, visiting a friend’s for dinner, or sitting in a coffee shop like me.

And yet the plan to send job seekers to work for free (or at least, no additional money on top of benefits received) implies that people on benefits have a certain kind of personality – someone out to trick the system by doing ‘undeclared jobs on the side’, which would be uncovered when they could not take part in the scheme.  It seems to insinuate punishment for those who have not managed to find work, rather than being the safety net we would all rely on in that same situation.

Schemes like this ignore the issues paramount to the problem of prolonged periods on benefits, i.e. a lack of jobs or flexible working hours.  In Scotland, there are 6 JSA claimants for every vacancy advertised at the jobcentre, and too few job seekers can realistically enter work that pays a decent wage that makes moving off benefits a rational choice.  Over half of all adults living in poverty are from working households. 

Underneath all our belongings, stripping away our material wealth and looking at our basic needs and wants, we’re all the same.  The possibility of any of us swapping over to the ‘other side’ of the counter in a soup kitchen is a distinct possibility; in fact over half of us will experience poverty for at least a year in the space of a decade.  And our treatment of those, who for whatever reason are at this point in their lives experiencing hardship and need a little support, needs to reflect this.