Training - No Recourse to Public Funds

posted: 20/05/2011

No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) Training will be provided in Manchester on Tuesday 7th June (10am – 4.30pm) for Local Authority representatives with responsibilities for people with NRPF.

There will be NRPF training specifically for the voluntary sector in London, on 10th June. Details about Voluntary Sector NRPF Training are here

Voluntary sector people are also welcome at the Manchester training but in Manchester the training focuses on social services assessments.

This training is provided by the No Recourse to Public Funds network.

Limited places available

The cost of the training is £125 per person and will take place at Manchester City Council. Limited places are available. To book a place, please complete the booking form and return it to No Recourse to Public Funds at Islington. The training terms and conditions are here.

The Manchester training for local authority workers covers key issues, legislation and social services assessments, for adults, children and families, and includes human rights obligations.
 

• No recourse to public funds - introduction and overview
• Key legislation
• Assessing eligibility for support
• General considerations in assessments of need - adults, children and families, human rights
• Community care and community mental health assessments
• Child in need and human rights assessments
• Good practice in assessing and supporting people with NRPF
• National NRPF Network and the policy context of NRPF
• Case studies

Booking Form

Terms and Conditions

Enquiries and bookings to nrpf@islington.gov.uk

More information on the No Recourse to Public Funds training programme for Local Authorities

More information on the No Recourse to Public Funds training programme for Voluntary Sector

More information on No Recourse to Public Funds from the network

More information on No Recourse to Public Funds from UK Border Agency
 

'Inhumane' Asylum Payment Card

posted: 08/11/2010

Four leading refugee organisations criticise the Azure payment card used to pay asylum seekers because it leaves so many living in hunger and deprivation.  The Azure card problems affect people with HIV. The new report, Your inflexible friend: the cost of living without cash, shows the many problems people face when you have no cash and are given no change.
 

The Azure payment card was introduced at the end of 2009 and the card replaced the system of supermarket vouchers for asylum seekers.

The card is topped up weekly (but only with £35 income for a single person) and can be used only in certain supermarkets. You cannot get cash, be given change, and anything over £5 that you do not spend by the end of the week is taken back from you.
 

Cash-less hassle
Without cash,

• over half (56%) could not pay for travel to see their legal advisers, or attend essential health appointments (53%)
• 40% could not buy food for their dietary, religious, or cultural requirements from the allowed supermarkets, and many go hungry as a result
• 39% believed the supermarkets do not give the best value for money, and say markets or charity shops offer a better deal
• 60% had problems with the card not working, including 13 people with children
• 79% reported that the shops had refused the card
• 56% reported anxiety and shame when using the card

The findings confirm the concerns raised by the organisations when the payment card was first introduced in 2009, and that asylum seekers living on this type of support continue to live in deprivation as a result of the card.
 

Jonathan Ellis, Director of Policy and Development at the Refugee Council said: “Our evidence proves the failings of the new Azure card are forcing asylum seekers into hunger and hardship. Their survival relies on a payment system that not only hugely restricts where, when, and what they can shop for, but often does not work at all. People, often with babies and young children, are in many cases just waiting to return to their countries as soon as they can, or cannot return because it is still unsafe. They have no choice but to remain here temporarily, and are not allowed to work to support themselves. It is therefore unacceptable that they are unable to buy items that meet their basic needs, and that they have to face hostility in shops when they use these cards.
 

People need cash not plastic

The government is reviewing the asylum and immigration system and must use this opportunity to end this inhumane system now, and offer asylum seekers cash as an alternative. Though levels of support are still too low – at just £5 a day - a simple cash support system would give people the freedom to spend the money as they wished, while allowing people to live with dignity until they can return home.
 

Your inflexible friend: The cost of living without cash
 

Zimbabwe - Forced Returns Protests

posted: 30/10/2009

Refugee and HIV organisations were among those angered and concerned by Home Office ministers saying that Zimbabwe is now safe enough to resume the forcible return of thousands of refused asylum seekers.
 

Bad timing?

The announcement by the immigration minister, Phil Woolas (MP for the NW constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth), came just as the UN's monitor on torture was forcibly expelled from Harare, and when Amnesty International warned that the country was "on the brink of sliding back into violence".
 

Woolas told MPs that he was encouraging Zimbabweans whose asylum application in Britain had been rejected to return home voluntarily by including a £2,000 cash payment in a total repatriation package worth up to £6,000. But he also said the UK Border Agency was resuming work on a programme of enforced returns to Zimbabwe.
 

"We have always expected those not to be in need of protection to return home. We prefer these individuals to return voluntarily, and the enhancements to the assisted voluntary return scheme will support this," he said. "But where they choose not to do so, we are bound to take steps over time to enforce the law."
 

George House Trust comment

That’s perhaps more bluff and bluster, for the benefit of the press and some sections of the public, to make him seem to be tougher on returns. His formal statement says something less scary – the key sentence is:

“The UK Border Agency will therefore be starting work over the autumn on a process aimed at normalising our returns policy to Zimbabwe, moving towards resuming enforced returns progressively as and when the political situation develops.”

The key words we take comfort from are here (our italics) “moving towards resuming enforced returns progressively as and when the political situation develops.” So he means the political situation is not yet right to restart forced returns. Any government that rushes to resume forced returns to Zimbabwe faces the prospect of a second defeat in the courts.

Zimbaweans are the largest nationality group among expatriate Africans with HIV in the UK, which is why this policy change is significant. Well over 650 Zimbabweans diagnosed with HIV are living in NW England.

High Court ended returns in 2006

Forcible returns to Zimbabwe were suspended in September 2006, when high court judges ruled that those who could not demonstrate their loyalty to Robert Mugabe's regime would face persecution on their return. It is thought there are more than 10,000 refused asylum seekers from Zimbabwe in Britain. Only recently more than 2,000 fled to the UK during Zimbabwe's elections in 2008.
 

The Home Office statement says there have been "positive changes" in Zimbabwe in the past six months, including less indiscriminate violence, more basic commodities are available and the economy and schools have improved since the formation of the unity government. Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), is prime minister under President Mugabe.
Refugee groups say only 89 people went back to Zimbabwe under the British government's voluntary returns programme between January and August.
 

Safety claims ridiculed
The Refugee Council said the Home Office's judgment on life in Zimbabwe was ludicrous. "In the past few days allegations of arrest, intimidation and harassment of supporters of the MDC and of human rights defenders have been widely reported," said the council's chief executive, Donna Covey. "Our government is showing a cavalier attitude to the safety of refugees who have stood up for democracy and human rights. After the farcical attempts to return Iraqis and Afghans in recent weeks against UN advice, it is of great concern that the government are now considering returns to Zimbabwe."
 

Sandy Buchan, of Refugee Action, also said the move was premature: "We still see more Zimbabweans asking for help and advice than any other single nationality, and many are terrified of returning to their country." And Patson Muzuwa, of the Zimbabwe Association said "It is very premature of them to think of forced removals," adding that Woolas's statement was intended to pave the way for a programme of forcible removals last attempted in 2004 and 2005.
 

Source 
 

UN torture investigator refused entry to Zimbabwe
 

Minister's Statement on changing the policy on returning people to Zimbabwe 
 

Changes to the voluntary returns package
 
 

Court Rules on Treatment for Migrants

posted: 14/04/2009

Almost a year after the High Court said most migrants are entitled to free NHS hosptal treatment, the Appeal Court has now rejected that ruling. The long running struggle to ensure people living with HIV in this country always have free treatment will continue.

Although the Appeal Court ruling says there is no legal right to treatment, they did rule that the Department of Health Guidelines are unlawful.

Almost a year ago the High Court ruled that most migrants were "ordinarily resident" even if their asylum claim was refused. About a year before that the application was made to the High Court after a NHS hospital refused free treatment to a migrant. The Courts are very slow because there aren't enough courts and judges to deal with this type of case - a 'judicial review.'

Appeal Court rules

On the 30 March 2009 the Court of Appeal decided that the Department of Health's own guidance restricting access to healthcare for migrants is unlawful.

Solicitors brought a test case for the HIV and migrants organisations on behalf of a Palestinian former asylum seeker who is unable to return home and could not pay for treatment.

He was given the treatment he needed after the solicitors applied to court but the case went ahead anyway as a test case and to challenge to the government’s guidance.

At the High Court a year ago Mr Justice Mitting decided that refused asylum seekers could get free NHS treatment. His ruling was that migrants, including refused asylum seekers, are just as 'ordinarily resident' as any British person, and this entitles people to free NHS treatment.

Not lawfully resident

The Department of Health then appealed and now the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the High Court's approach, finding that refused asylum-seekers could not be lawfully resident in the UK. Anyone not lawfully resident cannot be ordinarily resident, and that means no right to free treatment.

However, the Court also decided that the guidance is unlawful because it fails to explain what hospital’s should do if a patient cannot pay for treatment and cannot return home immediately.

The solicitors are considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords or not, and would need the House of Lords permission to make an appeal. 

In the meantime there is likely to be confusion about how to apply the judgement and the new guidance. The Department of Health has wasted no time in telling NHS Trusts to follow the Appeal Court's ruling.

Reactions to ruling

Solicitor Adam Hundt of Pierce Glynn, who took the case commented:

“The Dept. of Health guidance said that hospitals should not provide treatment unless patients paid for it in advance, but this ignores the fact that many of these patients, like A, are destitute, and many cannot return home, so they are not treated until they require life-saving treatment. In my experience, sadly, by that time it is often too late, and that treatment is usually far more expensive, so the current rules don’t make clinical, economic or humanitarian sense, and I am glad that the Court has recognised this. I hope that the Dept of Health will now make it clear to hospitals that they must treat patients who cannot pay and cannot return home for the time being - and not just wait until they are at death’s door.” 
 

The decision disappointed refugee and health welfare groups. Donna Covey, of the Refugee Council, said she was concerned that the charging regime for failed asylum seekers was still in place. She said those people who were unable to go home straight away often ended up destitute and homeless. "To refuse treatment to them simply because they cannot pay for it is appalling and inhumane," she said.

Deborah Jack, of the National Aids Trust, said anxiety over medical bills would deter many people from seeking the care they needed. She said the government should use its review of healthcare charges to end its policy of ill-health for the most destitute.

Department of health advice letter

The Department of Health has issued a letter to NHS trusts before the new Guidance is published in the autumn.

The letter says 

• Trusts shouldn't charge people treated free as 'ordinarily resident' for the period of time between the two court rulings
• people already on treatment are entitled to have it continued for free
• Trusts must always provide any immediately necessary treatment, including all maternity treatment. It's a matter for clinical judgement if care is 'immediately necessary.' HIV care could fall within this - especially if there is symptomatic illness, or CD4 count is low.
• Trusts must provide urgent treatment (which is treatment that isn't immediately necessary but which can't wait until the person can be reasonably be expected to return to their home country). This is likely to include HIV care under BHIVA treatment guidelines. It is a matter of clinical judgement whether the care is 'urgent'.
• Treatment should not be delayed or cancelled if the person can't pay for urgent or immediately necessary treatment.
• Trusts have the option to write off debts where it proves impossible to recover them, or where it would be futile to begin pursuing them, for instance when the person is known to be without funds (our emphasis - this will apply to most migrants with HIV).
• even non-urgent routine elective treatment can be provided depending on how long the person is likely to remain in this country - eg if the return home is not likely to be within a 'medically acceptable time.'
• immediately necessary, urgent and non-urgent treatment will require Trusts to assess when a patient is likely to return home based on "their plans, intentions or ability to do so."
• Trusts must not charge anyone identified as actual or suspected victims of human trafficking by either the UK Border Agency, or the UK Human Trafficking Centre. This is nothing to do with the Appeal Court, but because the European Convention on human trafficking came into force on 1 April.
• can't now bill the person's local Primary Care Trust for treating any people who are "chargeable."

The Department of Health letter says they will update the Guidelines, as required by the Court, in the autumn. HIV and migrants organisations will be pressing for a practical, humane approach.

People living with HIV in NW England who have problems with treatment charging for hospital care should always contact our services team.

The Appeal Court's ruling

Asylum UK - Life on £5 a week

posted: 16/03/2009

Hundreds of thousands of refused asylum seekers are living in extreme poverty in the UK, including some with HIV, because of fears of torture or death if they return to their home countries, according to a report released today.

Video

Trapped in a twilight zone - no home, can't work, can't claim

The report warns many refused asylum seekers are living in a "twilight zone", with no housing or financial support, and no right to work. Many refused asylum seekers are living on less than "a dollar a day", the global yardstick for extreme poverty, it claims. Recent research by the London School of Economics estimated there are 500,000 refused asylum seekers in the UK.

Christine Majid, from the refugee charity Pafras, who commissioned the report Underground Lives , says the number of destitute asylum seekers the charity dealt with tripled in the past two years and called destitution a "deliberate" policy to force asylum seekers out of the country.

Starving people out

She said: "In the 21st century the fact that the government is trying to starve people out of the country, it is absolutely inhumane and it just isn't working. These people would rather starve on the street here than return to their own countries."

A series of governmental policy decisions including preventing asylum seekers from working in 2002, cutting legal aid in 2004 and an overhaul of the system in 2007 has lead to an "untenable strain" on local charities, she added.

Most live on £5 a week or less

The report found that, on average, failed asylum seekers were surviving on £7.65 per week, but the majority lived on less than £5. Two thirds had experienced torture in their countries.

Homeless and vulnerable

Following the refusal of their asylum claims, 72% have spent time sleeping outside; of these, 38% have experienced physical attacks. More than a third of the women sleeping rough had experienced sexual assault, including rape.

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg called the report "a timely reminder of how the government has combined incompetence and inhumanity to create one of Europe's most inefficient and cruel asylum systems". "Responsibility for asylum should be taken away from the cack-handed blunderings of the Home Office and given to an independent agency."

Asylum claims fallen sharply but human rights record shames us

Asylum claims have fallen sharply in recent years and are at a 14-year low, with 23,430 applications for asylum in 2007 - 4% of all immigration applications - compared with 103,080 in 2002. A lack of access to proper legal advice is having a significant impact on the number of valid asylum seekers being refused sanctuary, and returned to countries where they could be tortured, said human rights lawyer Louise Christian. "The government's asylum policies are entirely at odds with its human rights obligation - particularly with regards to children in detention. It is a huge source of scandal and shame to this country."

UKBA emergency support spurned by most

A UK Border Agency spokesperson said the government provided measures to ensure individuals are not left without basic essentials. But the report says only around 9,000 people receive UKBA support, which provides £35 in supermarket vouchers a week and no-choice accommodation. Many are reluctant to apply for it as they must sign an agreement consenting to be removed from the UK at a later date.

The report is being released in conjunction with a major exposition of photographs of failed asylum seekers, launched in association with the Still Human, Still Here campaign, led by a coalition of human rights organisations including Amnesty International and the Refugee Council.

The secret world of destitute asylum seekers is captured in pictures in the exhibition Still Human, Still Here, at the Host Gallery, London from March 18.

Underground Lives report

source

image from Refugee Council