Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

The Discriminatory Asylum Vouchers

IMC Birmingham | 14.10.2006 18:11 | Anti-racism | Migration | Birmingham

Over 5,000 'failed asylum seekers' in the UK receive £35-a-week vouchers instead of cash for their NASS support under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, despite concerted efforts by the Home Office to open routes of enforced and 'voluntary' return to get rid of them. The so-called "hard-case support" claimants are stigmatised, demeaned and discriminated against on a daily basis. Yet, the House of Commons have recently debated extending the use of vouchers for more asylum seekers, 4 years after the original Asylum Voucher Scheme was abolished following huge public pressure [1 | 2] and a lot of criticism.

Read: Shaming Destitution: Citizen Advice Bureau's report | the Home Office review of the voucher scheme (pdf) | Token Gestures: the effects of the voucher scheme on asylum seekers (pdf) | Joint parliamentary briefing (pdf)

Links: Birmingham No Borders | other No Borders groups in the UK



Vouchered

The Asylum Voucher Scheme was first introduced in the UK in April 2000, under the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. The scheme was set within the then Home Secretary Jack Straw's broader 'support package', which also involved the dispersal of asylum seekers away from London and the South-East to other parts of the country on a no-choice basis.

Under the scheme, a single person aged over 25 was entitled to voucher support of £36.54 per week, amounting to 70% of basic income support. Only £10 of that was redeemable in cash. If meals were provided by a landlord, then the amount received by the asylum seeker was reduced.

When the Bill that was to become the 1999 Act was being debated in Parliament, it was envisaged that such 'hard case' support would be delivered by Home Office-funded 'voluntary' organisations such as the Refugee Council and Refugee Action, but eventually no such delivery system materialized. The production of the vouchers was, instead, contracted at the time to French multinational Sodexho Pass International, which operated a similar scheme in Germany. The vouchers were only valid in designated chains and retailers signed up by Sodexho, and they were not permitted to give change. In fact, keeping the change was a further incentive for these corporations to subscribe to the scheme.

Unsurprisingly, the voucher scheme then created massive opposition. An alliance of anti-racist and anti-deportation groups, trade unions and NGO's eventually put enough pressure on the government so that in October, 2001, David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, announced that vouchers would be abolished. Indeed, the scheme was scrapped in April, 2002, and replaced by cash payments.

Hard Cases

Under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (commonly known as "hard-case support"), failed asylum seekers who have come to the end of their asylum process, including appeals, but who cannot be returned home immediately, may apply to the National Asylum Seeker Service (NASS) for accommodation. Clause 43 (Accommodation) of the the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005 gives the Home Secretary the flexibility to provide by order for additional needs of failed asylum seekers receiving Section 4 support. Currently, those in receipt of Section 4 support receive full-board accommodation. This takes the form of a bed and either three meals a day and no financial support or £35 vouchers to purchase food and toiletries. The legislation does not specify how Section 4 support should be provided, nor does it provide the flexibility to address essential needs which do not result from accommodation.

Further, Section 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 (Treatment of Claimants etc.) requires failed asylum seekers in receipt of Section 4 support to participate in community activities. In this way, in the words of the Home Office, "persons in receipt of state support, who have no basis of stay but cannot leave immediately, will be able to give something back to the community in return for their board and lodging."

Throughout 2000 and 2001, the number of 'failed asylum seekers' in receipt of such 'hard case support' at any one time remained relatively small. From late 2001 onwards, however, the number of applications (and grants) rose slowly. This was largely due to the Home Office's announcement that Iraqi-Kurdish 'failed asylum seekers' would be considered to "have exceptional circumstances for the purposes of hard case support", due to the "lack of a viable route of return to northern Iraq." By late 2003, when NASS was supporting some 80,000 asylum seekers and dependents, there were approximately 300 in receipt of 'hard case support' at any one time. By October 2005, they were more than 7,600.

Initially, Section 4 support was provided in the form of full-board, hostel-type accommodation close to Heathrow and other airports. These locations were apparently chosen to "convey the message" to supported individuals that they were "on their way out of the UK". Accordingly, supported individuals received no separate subsistence support. However, as the number of applications for (and grants of) such support rose, supported individuals were placed in similar, full-board accommodation (mostly provided by the YMCA) in several areas around the UK. As the numbers rose further, some of the growing number of NASS-contracted Section 4 accommodation providers began, with the agreement of NASS, to allocate self-catering accommodation instead, and to provide supported individuals with £35 per week subsistence support. At first, such support was mostly provided in the form of vouchers, but increasingly it came to be provided in cash. By March 2005, fewer than 440 (8 percent) of the 5,180 'failed asylum seekers' then in receipt of section 4 support were in full-board accommodation (i.e. including food), with the remainder receiving £35 per week of subsistence support in vouchers or, in most cases, cash.

In early 2005, however, NASS instructed all accommodation providers to cease providing Section 4 subsistence support in cash and, instead, provide it in the form of vouchers. The decision as to the exact nature of these vouchers was left to the then six separate accommodation providers, with most choosing to provide Luncheon Vouchers, and others choosing to provide supermarket vouchers or swipe cards, like ASDA Gift Vouchers, for example.

Business

So, most of the current 'asylum vouchers' used are produced by Luncheon Vouchers, which is owned by Accor Services. Accor is one of world's biggest supplier of voucher solutions and a major provider of "human resource services". It has offices in 32 countries worldwide, 280,000 client companies and local authorities and 13 million users. In the UK, it is the biggest provider of employee benefits, work life solutions and government services, with over 7,000 clients and 600,000 daily users.

Luncheon Vouchers (or LV's, as they are commonly known) are ordered by more than 2,000 organisations for many different uses and are used by over 100,000 employees every day. Their clients include the Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Service, N M Rothschild, Scottish Equitable, A C Nielson, Parity Training, Prada Retail, Birmingham Children's Hospital, Select Education etc. etc.

Created in 1954 by John Hack, LA's were immediately granted full exemption from National Insurance Contributions and a tax break of 15p. This meant that £1 was worth up to 33% more than £1 in cash. In April 1999, however, a change in the law led to the NIC exemption being brought into line with the tax break (i.e. 15p). This meant a tax and NI break of £36 a year. The reason for the Government's review of their policy on NIC and vouchers was that certain employers were found to have been avoiding paying NICs by paying their staff a very low wage and then topping it up with supermarket and gift vouchers. Accor campaigned relentlessly for LV's to be disregarded from the review, claiming they were a "canteen replacement" and a "social scheme". The appeal, however, was not successful. Ever since, the volumes of LV's issued has dropped, but has recently, according to their website, "stabilised".

About discrimination and other things

In most, if not all, cases, these vouchers are exchangeable for food and drink only, at prescribed retail outlets only (big chains, that is). This means asylum seekers are unable to buy clothing, footware and other essential needs; are unable to use public transport and telephones, never mind that most of them are required to 'sign on', on a weekly or monthly basis, at far-away immigration reporting centres. Further, it means they have limited access to culturally appropriate food (halal meat, for example) and cannot shop at cheap, local shops. Not even cheaper chains, like Lidl or Aldi, where most asylum seekers normally shop. Moreover, when asylum seekers are 'dispersed' out of inner city areas, they often have to travel a long way to get to a participating supermarket, which means that the token amount of benefit they receive in cash would soon disappear. And, of course, when the vouchers are presented at participating supermarkets, they receive no change, so they either get less than the face value of the vouchers or are encouraged by supermarket staff to make up any shortfall in often useless goods.

It comes as no surprise, then, that many asylum seekers living on subsistence vouchers are selling them in the black market, sometimes for half their worth. In fact, the 'voucher black market' is flourishing, with profiteers 'buying' vouchers, for as little as 50 percent of their face value, in return for cash. Others are forced to use their vouchers at certain local shops, which have 'special prices' for voucher holders, that is, they accept vouchers but for considerably less than their face value.

Of course, exposing such unscrupulous criminals would only mean that those who 'choose' to resort to such solutions would lose that option, given that the government is only strong for the powerless and most vulnerable. So we won't do that.

De-vouchering

A dignifying alternative, obviously, is to swap the vouchers for cash without having to be exploited. And this is what some grassrooots activists have been doing recently with a limited number of asylum seekers. Many voucher recipients used to drop in at the Cottage Occupied Social Centre in Birmingham, where Birmingham No Borders held their meetings and activities, to 'swap vouchers'. This practice, however, has stopped as the Social Centre was violently evicted last month. The same has more or less been happening at the Food Not Bombs servings, which take place in Birmingham's city centre every two weeks on Saturday.

"It is very simple, really," says one activist, who prefers to keep anonymous. "All you have to do is find out who's getting vouchers, go over to theirs every week, take the vouchers and give them the equivalent in cash, then find someone who's willing to use them doing their usual shopping or whatever." "I mean, if people are shopping at these bloody chains anyway," he adds, "why not help others by the way?"

IMC Birmingham

Additions

more details

27.08.2007 07:04

List of accommodation providers providing section 4 accommodation to NASS:

  • Accommodata Ltd.

  • Angel Group

  • Capital

  • Caradon Estates Ltd.

  • Clearsprings

  • Gateshead Council

  • M&Q

  • RCA Sheffield

  • Safehaven

  • YMCA—Glasgow

  • YMCA—London

  • YMCA—Cornwall

  • YMCA—Liverpool

  • YMCA—Welwyn Garden City

  • YMCA—West London

Regional breakdown of numbers supported under section 4 as at 24 October 2005:


Region

(6)Number supported

East Midlands

585

East of England

45

London

635

North East

475

North West

1,140

Scotland

185

South East

100

South West

255

Wales

300

West Midlands

1,745

Yorkshire and Humberside

1,900

Total

7,355

all figures are provisional and have been rounded to the nearest 5.


Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: Record of decisions made in 2005:


Month

Granted

Refused

January

2,663

289

February

2,542

636

March

1,008

582

April

803

275

May

660

304

June

766

365

July

782

303

August

352

277

September

244

84

Total

9,620

3,115


Source: www.publications.parliament.uk

transmitter


Comments

Display the following 3 comments

  1. Thats the spirit! — good one mate:
  2. Asylum process — Emma
  3. Report on the Section 4 Voucher Scheme — stu
Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
Regions
All Regions
Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Nottingham
Scotland
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on indy.im and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Schnews
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
VisionOnTV
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
Topics
All Topics
Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
Workfare
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Guantanamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
SOCPA
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech