Sir, The Immigration Minister, Mr Tony McNulty, is superficially reasonable in his reply to the Archbishop of York and others about destitution among asylum-seekers (letter, Dec 6). He claims that government policies do not make them destitute.

Our experience as a small refugee charity is different. People who lose their asylum cases can only claim “hard-case support” and then only if they co-operate with arrangements for “voluntary” return. That isn’t always as easy as it sounds.

The situation in Zimbabwe, for example, is so bad at present that nobody is being forcibly returned. But Zimbabweans who have lost their individual appeals are still having hard-case support stopped unless they sign up for voluntary return. They are not allowed to work. Likewise for those from the Congo.

Failed Iraqi asylum-seekers are now being sent back to Iraq from the UK. Ironically, the US is not returning Iraqis as it considers the situation too dangerous. The people being arrested and returned from the UK are those who signed up for hard-case support.

The word has gone around among failed asylum-seekers that signing up leads to rapid return, even to countries such as Iraq and Zimbabwe. Those who cannot face that prospect are left destitute.

People who are seriously sick are also refused support unless they sign to go back voluntarily. If they are HIV-positive, signing to go back to a country where there is no realistic prospect of treatment is akin to signing their own death warrants.

There is logic in insisting that those who have lost their claims should return as soon as possible. However, the Government itself will not return people to Zimbabwe, parts of Congo or, until last month, to Iraq. How then can it expect frightened individuals to volunteer to return to such places in exchange for a few weeks of very low benefit payments?

MICHAEL WOOLLEY
Co-ordinator
Haslar Visitors Group
Portsmouth

Sir, The Archbishop of York and his co-signatories (letter, Dec 3) do a service to the nation in drawing attention to a major moral scandal of our times, namely the appalling attitude shown generally to asylum-seekers and the even more appalling way we treat those who are refused asylum but must perforce remain here.

Hostility to those who have usually endured great hardship and danger to get here is whipped up by the more irresponsible sections of the media and cravenly capitulated to by Government and Opposition alike. To withdraw benefits from those who are refused asylum, and thus to use privation as a means of forcing them to leave, is different only in degree from the classification by Nazi Germany of Jews and others as Untermenschen.

In his wonderful installation address (Dec 1), Dr Sentamu called on the Anglican Church to be a “beacon” proclaiming the Christian message. He could not have started at a better place.

DAVID TERRY
Droitwich, Worcs

Sir, The minister should not ban work for immigrants awaiting a decision but insist on it. He would then not only be able to judge their character, know where they were and provide an alternative to crime or hunger, but save money while gaining their affection and our respect.

TOM HUGHES-DAVIES
Fordingbridge, Hants

Sir, Church leaders tend to live in places where they see individual cases, but not the whole reality of the problem.

It is in the poorer inner-city areas and estates that refugees and asylum-seekers live. It is difficult to assimilate large numbers of new people, especially when many are suspicious and wary of informants. Few country towns or leafy suburbs see refugees or asylum-seekers, so the pressures fall on city resources. We see it in the longer waits at the doctor’s surgery and the increased demands on the facilities of our church hall.

This comes when most churches are reducing staffing levels in the cities in favour of more vociferous church members in the country and wealthier suburbs. We are left on our own to cope as best we can.

THE REV CANON JIM CANNING
Coventry

Explore Letters

• Feedback