Asylum benefit battle to go ahead

Asylum seekers from new EU countries no longer get support

Eastern European asylum seekers have won permission for a legal challenge over the withdrawal of their benefits and housing.

The High Court said a test case involving a Slovakian man should go ahead. His lawyers said a government order to end asylum benefits from 1 May had been "unlawful and discriminatory".

They said the thousands affected had not been allowed to seek work to support themselves until this week.

In a test case before Mr Justice Collins, the High Court heard there had not been sufficient time for the thousands affected to make the change from welfare to work.

I think all the evidence points one way as to whether it was reasonable to expect them suddenly to find work when they had not been able to work Mr Justice Collins

On Friday, amid mounting pressure, the government gave assurances that no asylum seeker affected by the rule change would be evicted ahead of the High Court hearing.

But granting permission for a full judicial review of the policy Mr Justice Collins said: "The way it has been done is arguably unfair".

"Someone seems to have overlooked until rather the last minute the status of these 2,500 or so, some of whom have remained here for over seven years."

'Catch-22 situation'

Stephen Knafler, appearing for an asylum seeker from Slovakia, had earlier told the court the eastern European asylum seekers, predominantly from the Roma communities, had been left in a "Catch 22" situation.

TRYING TO WORK How can you work legally without a National Insurance number saying you are legal - we keep saying to officials give us the documentation and we will find ways to provide for ourselves. Josef Cina, Roma community spokesman, Newcastle Roma families 'caught in asylum trap'

The applicant, named only as "H", was a skilled bricklayer who fled to the UK seven years ago.

Although his initial claim for asylum had been rejected, he had been pursuing a human rights claim that it would be a breach of his children's human rights to remove the family because the children had been raised and educated in the UK.

Under EU rules, H and his family are now allowed to live and work freely in the UK because their countries have joined the European club.

But the government had failed to provide enough notice or support for former asylum seekers to move from benefits into work, the court was told.

Mr Knafler said this was because it had set impossible deadlines for them to leave their homes - while also refusing them work permits until after their countries formally joined the EU on 1 May.

In turn, refugee agencies and councils believed they faced a potential crisis of homelessness and a race relations backlash if the change was not better managed.

"All those affected have in common that they want to work and be self-supporting; they want to contribute to the UK economy," Mr Knafler told the court.

"They want to help themselves by getting themselves off [asylum support] with its subsistence level of support and very basic accommodation."

The National Asylum Support Service told H on 5 April he would lose his benefits and home on 30 April.

But at the same time, they were not allowed to apply for work permits until 1 May.

In practice this meant waiting until 4 May because the change happened on a bank holiday weekend.

This left people in an "impossible position", said Mr Knafler.

Three months 'fair'

Applying for permission to seek judicial review of the Home Office policy, Mr Knafler said fairness demanded the government gave the asylum seekers three months to find jobs and new accommodation.

For the government, Nigel Giffin QC, argued appeals could be dealt with through the asylum system.

But Mr Justice Collins said by leaving assurances on appeals to the last minute, the government had created a problem which could lead to "vast sums" of public money being spent on legal challenges, rather than "sorting this out in a sensible fashion".

"You say that, because you have left it to the last moment, nothing can be done, subject to the (human rights) convention," said the judge.

"That is a recipe for bad administration: Leave to the last moment - don't do what you should have done earlier. Then you get away with it. That doesn't sound very attractive.

"That is the problem I am faced with. I think all the evidence points one way as to whether it was reasonable to expect them suddenly to find work when they had not been able to work."

The full legal challenge is expected to be heard within the next month.