Title: Meeting basic needs? Forced migrants and welfare.

Abstract As the number of forced migrants entering Britain has risen, increasingly restrictive immigration and asylum policy has been introduced. Simultaneously, successive governments have sought to limit the welfare entitlements of forced migrants. Drawing on two sets of semi-structured qualitative interviews, with migrants and key respondents providing welfare services, this paper considers the adequacy of welfare provisions in relation to the financial and housing needs of four different groups of forced migrants i.e. refugees, asylum seekers, those with humanitarian protection status and failed asylum seekers !overstayers". #here is strong evidence to suggest that statutory provisions are failing to meet the basic financial and housing needs of many forced migrants.

#his research is supported by the $S%& under grant number '''-((-')**.

Authors: Peter Dwyer and David Brown ord count: ),++, words including two endnotes &orrespondence toDr .eter Dwyer Senior /ecturer in Social .olicy School of Sociology Social .olicy 0niversity of /eeds /eeds /S( +1#. #el '22)),),*2* $mail p.3.dwyer4leeds.ac.uk

Meeting basic needs? Forced migrants and welfare.

!ntroduction

An increase in the number of forced migrants entering Britain throughout the 2++'s has seen deliberations about the welfare rights of such migrants become the focus of contentious debate. #his paper considers welfare rights in relation to the financial and housing needs of four different groups of forced migrants i 5i.e. refugees, asylum seekers, those with humanitarian protection status and failed asylum

seekers !overstayers"6, resident in the 0nited 7ingdom. #he paper is divided into four subsequent parts. .art one provides an overview of relevant legislation and highlights the implications of the tiering of welfare entitlement that e8ists for forced migrants. #his is followed by a brief outline of relevant background information and the methods and sampling strategy of the /eeds 5076 research that informs the paper. .arts three and four then consider the adequacy and e8tent of the social security and housing provisions available to the four different socio-legal categories of forced migrants interviewed in the /eeds based study. 9ualitative data generated in the research is used to provide a grounded understanding of forced migration and welfare. #he role of formal and informal welfare agencies and actors in meeting needs is e8plored. :t is concluded that the basic housing and social security needs of many forced migrants are not being adequately met. :ncreasingly forced migrants themselves are providing shelter and day to day necessities to those migrants who are denied access to publicly provided benefits and services.

Forced migrants and welfare: a decade of legislation

As the number of people seeking asylum in the 07 has risen, the past decade has seen the introduction of increasingly restrictive immigration and asylum policy 5&ohen, (''(; <ynott, (''(, ('''; Sales, (''(6. <ore stringent attempts to keep forced migrants out have been put in place 5e.g. Blunkett, (''26 and, simultaneously, successive governments have sought to limit the welfare entitlements of asylum seekers who enter the country 5Bloch and Schuster, (''(; &.A=, (''(; <orris, (''(6. &onsecutive pieces of legislation have impacted negatively upon the social security and housing rights of asylum seekers.

&onsolidating the approach of their &onservative predecessors the >ew /abour government introduced the :mmigration and Asylum Act 52+++6. #his Act widened the gulf between the social rights en3oyed by 07 citi?ens and those available to asylum seekers. :t removed responsibility for meeting asylum seekers" basic social security and housing needs from local authorities and placed it with a new body, the >ational Asylum Support Service 5>ASS6 that permits people to choose one of two support options; accommodation and subsistence or subsistence only. %ights to social assistance benefits were removed from all persons sub3ect to immigration control and instead certain asylum seekers became entitled to receive vouchers worth *'@ of basic income support and A2' cash. >ASS support is, however, highly conditional. :ndividuals must be destitute and accommodation is offered on a !no choice" basis with clients having to agree to be dispersed to an allocated cluster area somewhere in the 07. :f any of the above, conditions are broken the right to housing and financial support can be withdrawn 5&.A=, (''(; Better and .earl, ('''6.

#he subsequent >ationality, :mmigration and Asylum Act 5(''(6 retained the basic framework of >ASS support but also initiated important changes in the provision of basic welfare to asylum seekers. :n response to widespread condemnation and administrative problems 5$agle et al, (''(; %efugee &ouncil, (''(a; <ynott, ('''6 the voucher system has been phased out and replaced with !entitlement cards" which will allow holders to access cash benefits of the same value 5%efugee &ouncil, (''(c; Sales, (''(6. <ost controversially Section CC of this Act stated that individuals must apply for asylum status !as soon as is reasonably practicable" 5currently within *( hours of entering the 076, in order to retain eligibility for >ASS provisions. #he Act also gave the Dome Secretary the power to withdraw or deny >ASS support from in country applicants who fail to co-operate with the authorities" further enquiries. Section CC which pushed 2'''s of forced migrants into e8treme poverty or destitution, has been widely condemned and sub3ect to challenge in the courts 5see =/A, ('',; :A., ('',; %efugee &ouncil, ('',a; Shelter, ('')6.

As a result of defeat for the government in the &ourt of Appeal, the Dome Effice has suspended the use of Section CC in <ay ('',. #he policy is under review and the government intends to appeal to the Douse of /ords 5Dome Effice ('',b6. Furthermore, failed asylum seekers !overstayers" whose claims have been turned down but who remain in the 07 will not effected by any changes to Section CC and continue to run the risk of destitution 5%efugee &ouncil, ('',b; #ravis, ('',6. Since 1une ,th ('', the government has also removed the right of >ASS supported asylum seekers to apply for the Single Additional .ayment 5SA.6 of AC'. A SA. payment was previously available every si8 months to help meet the cost of replacing clothing, shoes and other worn out items 5&AB, ('',6.

#he Asylum and :mmigration 5#reatment of &laimants etc.6 Act 5('',6 has further reduced the welfare rights of forced migrants. >ew restrictions on eligibility to >ASS support for failed asylum seekers !overstayers" with dependant children have been introduced. #he Act places an obligation on adult asylum seekers with young families to accept voluntary repatriation or face the possibility of destitution and their children being taken into care 5Dome Effice, (''); %efugee &ouncil, (''); %&&, ('')6. Also regulations which previously allowed those granted refugee status to apply for the )'@ of :ncome Support they were denied under >ASS rules 5back dated from the start of their asylum appeal6, have been rescinded.

The tiering of entitlement

#he legislative changes of the last decade have consolidated a long established link between immigration residency status and welfare entitlement 5&ohen, (''(; Gilliams, 2+H+6. #his situation is further complicated by the stratified system of entitlement that e8ists within the generic population of forced migrants who en3oy differential eligibility to housing and social benefits dependent on formal immigration status 5&.A=, (''(; <orris, (''(; Sales, (''(; Bloch, ('''6. Four basic groups, each with different welfare rights, can be identified.

"efugees I welfare rights on the same basis as citi?ens; they en3oy rights to work and family reunion

Asylum see#ers I those making a claim for refugee status; welfare rights may vary considerably depending on date of entry; those lodging !in country claims" more than *( hours after entry effectively have no right to public

support; they are not allowed to work 5since 1uly (''(6; no rights to family reunion. $umanitarian %rotection&discretionary leave status I 5previously known as e8ceptional leave to remain i.e. $/%6, granted for periods of up to ) years; the same welfare rights as citi?ens; they may work, but lack rights to family reunion. Failed asylum see#ers&'overstayers( I asylum seekers whose claims have been turned down and who have no right to remain and thus no recourse to social welfare or 5legal6 paid work.

An unknown but substantial number of forced migrants !disappear" and or assume other identities. <orris 5(''(6 notes, that in 2++H around 2,,''' people received a negative decision but stayed in the 07 with no obvious means of supporting themselves. Ethers 5e.g. those in poor health, those who cannot be returned to their country of origin, individuals with a claim under 1udicial %eview6, may be eligible for temporary support from >ASS under their strictly administered !hard cases" rules 5%efugee &ouncil, (''(b6. #he combined effect of this tiering of entitlement and successive changes in the law is that different socio-legal categories of forced migrants in the 07 have widely different rights to social benefits and housing.

The )eeds study: bac#ground and methodology

Jorkshire and Dumberside has the highest regional population 5('@ of the 07 total6, of >ASS accommodated asylum seekers. #he biggest population within the region is resident in /eeds 5Dome Effice, ('',a6. Statistics show (,C*, asylum seekers living

in /eeds on 2 + ',. #his figure does not include !failed asylum seekers", those with !subsistence only", nor those denied support under Section CC. :t does include unaccompanied minors cared for by the social services 5/%AS, ('',6.

#he Jorkshire and Dumberside &onsortium for Asylum Seekers and %efugees 5established in ('''6, consists of ten local authorities. As a member of the consortium /eeds &ity &ouncil is contracted to >ASS to provide ))K properties until Ectober (''C. :n 1une ('') the council also negotiated a separate contract to provide KC spaces in the !Dillside" induction centre for newly dispersed asylum seekers 5/eeds &ity &ouncil, ('',6. #hree other agencies, the Angel =roup, &learsprings, 5private companies6 and Safehaven Jorkshire 5a not for profit organisation6, are also contracted to supply accommodation for dispersed asylum seekers. #hese landlords provide the bulk of asylum seekers"ii accommodation in /eeds some of which they procure through sub letting arrangements with other local private landlords 5Gilson, (''26.

A range of informal welfare services is also provided by an assortment of charitable and voluntary agencies across the city. <any of these are supplied by the key respondents interviewed in the study. :n addition there are a growing number of %efugee &ommunity Erganisations 5%&Es6 which offer differing levels of advice, companionship and support.

Method and sampling

:n total thirty four respondents took part in the fieldwork. #he research discussed below draws on data generated in two sets of semi-structured qualitative interviews with () forced migrants and 22 key respondents involved in the delivery of welfare services. A purposive non random sampling technique was used and C refugees, * asylum seekers, K people with subsidiary humanitarian protection status and C failed asylum seekers !overstayers" were interviewed. 2) of the forced migrants were male and 2' were female. Ages ranged between (2 and C* years. <igrants identified + countries of origin i.e. Afghanistan, Democratic %epublic of &ongo, :ran, :raq, :raqi 7urdistan, 7osovo, .akistan, Somalia, and Bimbabwe.

:nterviews were conducted in the city of /eeds between )' 2 ('', and (2 K ('', and lasted on average K' minutes. #wo ethical principles underpinned the fieldwork; informed consent and confidentiality. Forced migrants who participated each received a A(' supermarket voucher. All migrants were offered the use of a suitable interpreter but the ma3ority 52H6 chose to be interviewed in $nglish. :nterviews were recorded on audiotape and transcribed verbatim. Subsequent transcripts were anonymised, assigned a code number 5e.g. F<2, 7%(6 and analysed using grid analysis and thematic coding techniques 5%itchie et al, (''); <ason, (''(6. A >udist K computer software package was used to assist this process.

The inade*uacy of financial %rovision

Against the comple8 backdrop of formal and informal welfare provisions that may or may not be available to forced migrants depending on their socio-legal status and location within the 07, a key aim of the /eeds based study was to e8plore the e8tent to which forced migrants" basic day to day financial and housing needs are being met. :nterviews indicated that many migrants routinely e8perience poverty and social e8clusion. #he clear view of the overwhelming ma3ority 5('6 of forced migrants was that, for those with rights to social benefits, welfare had been reduced to little more than subsistence level. #hose without rights were literally counting pennies. For eating its ok, but not for clothing, not for other things. Its just to survive (FM10 as lum seeker!. "ometimes ou can#t even afford to eat. The $% pennies to bu a loaf of Tesco bread, its not ever da , but sometimes ou &on#t even get that mone (FM' failed as lum seeker()oversta er#!. Lincent has argued that the !defining characteristic" of living in poverty is when Mthe attainment of any one basic goal always involve5s6 the loss of anotherN 52++2-,6. For many, making ends meet was a constant worry. *e used to &alk to the to&n centre because its +1.$0, That#s like +$.-0 .for t&o/ so &e#re thinking ok &e can bu three cans of those kidne beans or something so that &e can eat for t&o da s (FM 10 as lum seeker!. "ometimes &hen I need a bus pass to come to the cit centre to go to church I can#t afford it,If I need to bu some clothes, I can#t afford to pa for shoes (FM 11 234 !.

"ocio5legal status and social securit

As previously noted, the specific benefit rights of forced migrants are linked to their socio-legal status. At risk of stating the obvious failed asylum seekers !overstayers" were the most disadvantaged group in the study. =iven earlier discussions it may initially seem contradictory to report that all of the failed asylum seekers !overstayers" we interviewed talked in terms of at least managing to get by at a basic level when they previously en3oyed rights to >ASS support. Dowever, such sentiments reflect their current plight, 5i.e. a situation in which they are devoid of any rights to welfare6, rather than the adequacy of >ASS provision. A destitute, failed asylum seeker even appeared to be almost nostalgic about a time when their previous status of !asylum seeker" afforded them basic accommodation and limited financial support. *hat I can sa is a first it &as good since &e &ere living in a supported house and ever thing &as &ell. *e &ere living in a nice &a and getting our mone from the post office. 6ut &hen it came to the end of the tribunal, &e &ere told to move out of the house, that#s &hen the problems started (FM7 failed as lum seeker( )oversta er#!. Another respondent, with $/% status who had originally arrived in /eeds in 2+++ as part of a government managed and endorsed refugee programme outlined the benefits of their initial, relatively privileged, entry status. I felt most &elcome, I &as just baffled basicall . I &asn#t e8pecting such a &elcome , it &as ever thing medical provision, food clothes, housing. It &as the 99999 :entre, it &as ver good. I find it difficult to describe it to ou, ho& good it &as (FM0 234!.

2'

#his is certainly a more positive e8perience than that endured by other respondents on arriving in $ngland. Githin a year, however, any advantages of their particular status had dissipated. &urrently this respondent"s family survive on a combination of :ncome Support and &arers Allowance. Since leaving the reception centre and being housed in the community the family has faced serious, persistent harassment and violent attack from neighbours.

#hose forced migrants who are granted refugee status or leave to remain under humanitarian protection rules are, relatively speaking, better off than asylum seekers and !overstayers" in terms of their welfare rights. Dowever, two problems remain for these groups. #he first is a consequence of the decision to develop a separate welfare system for asylum seekers. #he second is a more general issue related to the current levels of social benefits available to poor citi?ens.

A key informant we interviewed described the !institutionalising effect" of the separate >ASS system of support reserved for asylum seekers. Its all ver nice until ou get into the real &orld &here ou do have to pa for our o&n fuel and ou have not learnt to pa for our fuel. The fact that ou are not allo&ed to &ork is another factor. It is actuall demoralising and deskilling and the longer the are in the s stem the more that must be the case,The actual s stem takes a cush approach to provision. I &ouldn#t sa it is generous but its cush in the sense that ou don#t have to manage our mone ver much and ou don#t have to &ork, If ou use the &ord carefull , there is an institutionalising effect in it because some of the pressures &ill come upon people &henever the succeed or fail &ith their as lum claim (;410!.

22

Eur data supports the view that >ASS provision does not prepare successful asylum seekers for the harsh realties of life at the sharp end of the British social welfare system. #he inadequacy of mainstream benefit levels was commented on by C respondents with humanitarian protection or refugee status. Ene person with $/% talked about running up an electricity bill in e8cess of A2'''. Another, stated. *e are ver careful &ith the mone so &e don#t bu e8tra things. "o clothes, food, &e don#t just go and bu things. *e don#t bu other things because &e can#t, it#s difficult (FM% refugee!. #hose who e8perience a positive change and achieve refugee status become entitled to the same social security benefits as other citi?ens. :n reality the overwhelming ma3ority are gaining the right to apply for limited and increasingly conditional 5Dwyer, ('',a, b; ('''6 social assistance benefits.

<estitution

Destitution among those forced migrants ineligible for public welfare is an acknowledged problem across the 07 5=/A ('',; %efugee &ouncil, ('',a6. :ncreasingly the charitable voluntary sector and other forced migrants themselves are having to fill gaps in provision. #he impact of current policies which deny welfare rights to certain individuals was starkly illustrated by a nurse who worked with forced migrants. *ith section '' &e#re seeing some people &ho are not eligible for support &hen the appl . = couple of &eeks ago I had an eight month pregnant &oman &ho &as destitute. "he couldn#t get social services to take her on as a pregnant &oman, in relation to the unborn child, and >="" &ere sa ing that she#d not 2(

applied for support in enough time. "o obviousl that had massive implications for her. =t the other end .there are/ destitute people &ho have come to the end of the process &ho go home to find their bags on the doorstep. There#s been no move to deport them and the have got no&here to go at all (;41!. Destitution remains a real, if largely hidden, problem. A /eeds &ity &ouncil report notes that only 2+ of the 2(' /eeds based asylum seekers whose claims were re3ected in ('') have been removed from the 07. #he whereabouts and means of support of the others are not known. 5/&&, ('',6. Ene respondent 5F<26 who was involved with a /eeds based %&E also reported that their organisation had a list of ,' destitute people. #ypically, those devoid of access to public welfare were totally reliant on the charity for their day to day survival. 3ook at me ou#re looking at a pauper,let me use the &ord &e#re scrounging, just scrounging, there is no structure of survival. *e are merel e8isting and I don#t kno& &h in the first &orld people are allo&ed to go like that,*e have been having food from this couple the support us, some other times &ell5 &ishers just thro& ou a food parcel, ?nce or t&ice I#ve got a food parcel from "t @eorge#s :r pt,.Things need to change. Its inhuman for this kind of treatment especiall for close to one ear (FM 1A "ection '' as lum seeker!.

$ousing issues

Several issues arose in relation to forced migrants and housing. &oncerns about the adequacy and standard of accommodation were evident. Enly one of the seven asylum seekers accommodated by >ASS contractors at time of interview deemed provision to be more than adequate. Ethers were more critical. 2)

M house &as ver bad .it/ had four floors, and I &as pregnant so it &as difficult for me,It &as ver , ver dirt ,for three months I fell do&n the stairs,&e had bedbugs in our bedroom (FM1% as lum seeker!. #he most damming tale was related by an asylum seeker who 5legally6 worked for a private provider contracted to >ASS in /eeds. ?ne famil , a lad &ith t&o babies, her house &as leaking from the toilet. The carpets &ere ver bad, the &ere torn ever &here. The sofas &ere ver , ver bad condition, believe me if ou thre& it a&a nobod &ould take it... The kitchen &as leaking &ater, the &allpaper all came off from the lounge because of the &ater. The &ater &as coming do&n, she had TB, it &as coming on top of the .electricit / sockets,it &as ver dangerous. I took it to >="" five or si8 times about this famil and nothing reall happened,.finall / The ceiling came do&n on the floor and then the changed her house (FM10 as lum seeker!. /eaving aside the issue of standards, a successful claim for asylum generates its own problems. >ASS allows a transition period of (H days for those who attain refugee status to find alternative accommodation. Several key respondents reported that, due to a lack of co-ordination, many successful asylum applicants in reality only get around * days notice to quit >ASS housing. Finding new accommodation in such a short time is often impossible and four of our eleven respondents with refugee or humanitarian leave status either remained in >ASS hostels or turned down hostel accommodation to sleep on friends floors before finding a new home. Several others are also currently awaiting further, subsequent, moves into more suitable accommodation. =iven the demand for social rented property in /eeds such hidden homelessness among those with positive asylum decisions remains an issue. :n ('') 2,

/eeds &ouncil received a total of ))* applications from people who recorded their cause of homelessness as being a refugee. :n the same year (*K applications for rehousing were received from refugees 5/&&, ('',6.

CousingD reliance on other forced migrants

#he research illustrates that hidden homelessness is also widespread among those who have no right to apply to be housed. All C of the failed asylum seeker !overstayers" and our Section CC respondent were effectively homeless and reliant on other forced migrants to meet their housing needs. #hose who work 5either legally or illegally6, rent rooms from !friends" on a short term basis. Such friendships are often the result of a chance recognition in the street of a fellow national and informal short-term accommodation arrangements then ensue. Accommodation is routinely offered for free, but sometimes there is a distinct economic dimension. F<2( 5below6 was paying A,' per week plus bills for a room with a refugee who had secured social rented accommodation costing A,C a week rent. Eou can#t go to the cit council or some&here else and tell them I need a house, ou have to live in somebod else#s house. 2speciall me because m )friend# he got a cit council house. I live in his house and I have to pa more because the kno& I can#t find another house, that#s &h the #re pushing me to pa more. (FM1$ failed as lum seeker()oversta er#! Apart from overnight emergency accommodation provided by various housing charities those without the ability to pay rent are totally reliant on the altruism of other forced migrants. Such provision is insecure and places great strain on both provider and recipient.

2C

"o it#s e8tremel difficult but if ou don#t have other options ou just go b &hat is there &hether it#s good for ou or not,It#s a % bedroom house, it#s them, their daughter and us, but sooner or later ne8t &eek the &ill be having another bab and if nothing has changed b then I &ill probabl be on the streets (FM 1A "ection '' as lum seeker!.

+onclusion

#he /eeds study provides strong evidence to suggest that the statutory provisions available are failing to meet the basic housing and financial needs of many forced migrants 5cf. &AB, (''(; $agle et al, (''(; .enrose, (''(6. As the responsibility of the state in meeting basic needs diminishes, and the ability of many forced migrants to do paid work is curtailed, the role of informal welfare agencies such as charities, churches and %&Es assume greater importance 5cf. Bloch and Schuster, (''(6. Furthermore, increasingly the burden of providing basic welfare for those who have no recourse to public provision 5i.e. those denied under section CC and failed asylum seekers !overstayers"6 is now being borne by other forced migrants. <any, who are themselves impoverished, are trying to ensure that the essential housing and financial needs of their less fortunate contemporaries are met.

2K

Bibliogra%hy

Bloch, A. and Schuster /. 5(''(6 !Asylum and welfare- contemporary debates", :ritical "ocial Folic , ((, ), )+)-,2). Bloch, A. 5('''6 !%efugee settlement in Britain- the impact of policy on participation", Gournal of 2thnic and Migration "tudies, (K, 2, *C-HH. Blunkett, D. 5(''26 !<easures announced to improve immigration control", Fress 4elease $1-(01, /ondon, :mmigration and nationality Directorate, Dome Effice. &AB 5('',6 =s lum "upport (=mendment! (>o $! 4egulations $00-, Briefing, <ay, /ondon, &iti?ens Advice Bureau. &AB 5(''(6 <istant BoicesD =s lum "upport 4emains in :haos, /ondon, &iti?ens Advice Bureau. &astles, S. 5('')6 !#owards a sociology of forced migration and social transformation", "ociolog , )*, 2, -2)-),. &ohen, S, 5(''(6 !Dining with the devil- the 2+++ :mmigration and Asylum Act and the voluntary sector", -2,2- 2CK in &ohen, S., Dumphries, B. and <ynott,. $. Oeds.P 5(''(6 From immigration controls to &elfare controls, /ondon, %outledge. &.A= 5(''(6 Migration and "ocial "ecurit Candbook, /ondon, &hild .overty Action =roup. Duvell, F. and 1ordan, B. 5(''(6 !:mmigration asylum and welfare- the $uropean conte8t", :ritical "ocial Folic , ((, ), -,+H-C2*. Dwyer, .. 5('',a6 Hnderstanding "ocial :itiIenshipD Themes and Ferspectives for Folic and Fractice, Bristol, .olicy .ress S.A.

2*

Dwyer, .. 5('',b6 !&reeping conditionality in the 07- from welfare rights to conditional entitlements", :anadian Gournal of "ociolog , (+, (, special issue Spring ('', -(KC-(H*. Dwyer, .. 5('''6 *elfare 4ights and 4esponsibilities, Bristol, .olicy .ress. $agle, A., Duff, /., #ah, &. and Smith, >. 5(''(6 =s lum "eekers# 28perience of the Boucher "cheme in the H;5 Field&ork 4eport, /ondon, Dome Effice. =/A 5('',6 <estitution 6 <esignD *ithdra&al of "upport from in5countr =s lum =pplicantsD an Impact =ssessment for 3ondon, /ondon, =reater /ondon Authority. Dome Effice 5('',a6 =s lum "tatistics 1st Juarter $00-, /ondon, Dome Effice Dome Effice 5('',b6 =s lum "tatistics %rd Juarter $00-, /ondon, Dome Effice Dome Effice 5('')6 !Final phase of asylum reform will build on progress in halving claims", Fress 4elease %$7($00%, (* 22 '), /ondon, Dome Effice. :A. 5('',6 The Impact of "ection '' on the Inter5=genc Fartnership and the =s lum "eekers it "upports, /ondon, :nter Agency .artnership available to download athttp- www.refugeecouncil.org.uk downloads rcQreports iapQsCCQfeb',.pdf /&& 5('',6 4eport of "crutin 6oard (>eighbourhoods and Cousing!D =s lum

"eekers, <ay ('',, /eeds, /eeds &ity &ouncil. /%AS 5('',6 "tatistical "ummar Service. <ason, 1. 5(''(6 Jualitative 4esearching, /ondon, Sage. <orris, /. 5(''(6 !Britain"s asylum and immigration regime- the shifting contours of rights", Gournal of 2thnic and Migration "tudies, (H, ), -,'+-,(C. 6ulletin, /eeds, /eeds %efugee and Asylum

2H

<ynott, $. 5(''(6!From a shambles to a new apartheid- local authorities, dispersal and the struggle to defend asylum seekers, -2'K- 2(C in &ohen, S. et al Oeds.P op cit. <ynott, $. 5('''6 !Analysing the creation of apartheid for asylum seekers", :ommunit , *ork and Famil , ), ), -)22 I ))2. .enrose, 1. 5(''(6 Fovert and as lum in the H;, /ondon, E8fam %efugee &ouncil. %&& 5('',6 !:lause A, Failed =s lum "eekers *ithdra&al of "upport, /ondon %efugee &hildren"s &onsortium. %efugee &ouncil 5('',a6, Cungr and ComelessD the Impact of the *ithdra&al of "tate "upport on =s lum "eekers, 4efugee :ommunities and the Boluntar "ector, /ondon, %efugee &ouncil. %efugee &ouncil 5('',b6 =s lum "eekers *in 6ack Their 4ights to 6asic Food and "helter, .ress %eleases, 1une (C /ondon, %efugee &ouncil. %efugee &ouncil 5('')6 The 4efugee :ouncil#s 4esponse to >e& 3egislative Froposals on =s lum 4eform, /ondon, %efugee &ouncil. %efugee &ouncil 5(''(a6 @overnment =nnouncement and Froposals "ince its *hite Faper on =s lumD a "ummar , Briefing 1uly (''(, /ondon, %efugee &ouncil. %efugee &ouncil 5(''(b6 Celp and "upportD Card :ases "upport, Briefing >ovember (''(, /ondon. %efugee &ouncil 5(''(c6 The >ationalit , Immigration and =s lum =ct $00$D :hanges to the =s lum " stem in the H;, Briefing December (''(, /ondon, %efugee &ouncil %itchie, 1., Spencer, /. and E"&onnor, G. 5('')6 !&arrying out qualitative analysis" (2+-(K) in %itchie, 1. and /ewis, 1. OedsP Jualitative 4esearch Fractice, /ondon, Sage.

2+

Shelter 5('')6 !Loluntary sector unites against new asylum law, Fress 6riefing, /ondon, Shelter. Sales, %. 5(''(6 !#he deserving and the undeservingR %efugees, asylum seekers and welfare in Britain, :ritical "ocial Folic , ((, ) -,CK-,*H. #ravis, A. 5('',6 !Blunkett backs down on aid for asylum seekers", The @uardian, 1une (K ('',. Lincent, 1. 52++26 Foor :itiIens K the "tate and the Foor in the T&entieth :entur , /ondon, /ongman. Gilliams, F. 52+H+6 "ocial polic D a :ritical Introduction, &ambridge, .olity .ress. Gilson, %. 5(''26 <ispersedD a "tud of "ervices for =s lum "eekers in *est Eorkshire <ecember 10005 March $001, Jork, 1oseph %owntree Foundation. Better, % and .earl, <. 5('''6 !#he minority within the minority- refugee communitybased organisations in the 07 and the impact of restrictionism on asylumseekers", Gournal of 2thnic and Migration "tudies, vol. (K. no. KC*-K+*.

('

#he term forced migrant is used a general category to include the four groups discussed in the paper. :t is recognised

that other groups e.g. those displaced by development pro3ects and people trafficked illegally for e8ploitative purposes are also forced migrants 5rf. &astles, ('')6.
ii

En (+th February ('', 2*)* asylum seekers were non /&& supported and H2, supported by the council 5/&&, ('',6.