Break the Links — No Collusion with the Dispersal System

There is one aspect of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which has attracted virtually nil criticism but which represents a huge and reactionary development in immigration control enforcement. This is the engagement of parts of the voluntary sector in a system which is directly antagonistic to the interests of refugees. In particular it is the involvement of some voluntary agencies in that part of the legislation which removes entitlement to welfare state benefits and housing support

There are two mutually exclusive positions that can be taken on this involvement. On the one hand it can be argued that the role of the voluntary sector is essentially a facilitating one that is helpful to asylum seekers through the provision of advice and other help based on the so-called support provisions of the Act. On the other hand it can be argued that any identification with any part of the legislation serves to legitimise and therefore strengthen the whole of the legislation.

The role of the voluntary sector, or its advice-giving component, has historically been to act as an advocate against state authority. Now there is a situation where parts of the sector has become a junior partner of the state. There is no reason to doubt the honourable if mistaken nature of these agencies' motives and the sincerity of the belief that they are assisting asylum seekers.

Refugee Action’s justification for collusion

In a letter of September 2001 to NCADC, Refugee Action put forward two reasons for their accepting money from the Home Office to help implement the dispersal and voucher scheme. Neither of these are convincing. First it is said that "if Refugee Action and other agencies withdrew, the government would very likely put this service out to the private sector". So what? This could hardly make the scheme worse. Second it is said that "if we withdraw we will have fewer opportunities…to influence policy". An example given is a personal meeting with Barbara Roche about the voucher scheme. However this must be about the world’s worst example of influence — as the voucher scheme remains intact.

So what should the voluntary sector be doing?

The only responsible position that can be taken by voluntary agencies is one of non co-operation with the 1999 legislation linked to a campaign for the reinstatement of welfare state provision for asylum seekers.

Helping implement the legislation in itself undermines any campaign against it. This is not political "purism". There are instances where the major voluntary sector refugee organisations have not complied with everything demanded by the Home Office and this non-compliance represents hope for future good practice. In particular they have refused to administer the Dickensian "hard cases" fund established by NASS outside of the statutory framework to supposedly support some asylum seekers after a refusal of their claim

This is an example of defiance. It establishes a principle of non co-operation by the voluntary sector. This principle should be extended so as to cover the entirety of the so-called support provisions of the 1999 Act. The withdrawal of co-operation would, especially if linked to community protest, encourage other participating bodies, in particular local authorities, to do the same. Such powerful action could force the Home Office into restoring all welfare state entitlements to asylum seekers and others subject to immigration controls.

Steve Cohen