UK Policy Archives

Court backs EU refugees' benefits battle
by Angus Howarth

Asylum seekers from the new European Union countries yesterday won permission to bring a High Court challenge against the government’s decision to block their state benefits.

"The way it has been done is arguably unfair," said Mr Justice Collins, granting permission.

The decision to block state support for asylum seekers from eastern European countries which joined the union at the weekend was attacked as unlawful in two test cases.

Hundreds already in the UK face loss of accommodation and subsistence following their change of status to EU citizens on 1 May.

They were previously prevented from working and supporting themselves while their asylum claims and linked human rights appeals were under consideration.

Now, as EU citizens, they must support themselves - but their lawyers say they have been given insufficient time to make the change from welfare to work under the regulations introduced to clamp down on "benefits tourism" from the ten accession countries.

Granting permission for the legal challenge, the judge emphasised that whether the decision was actually unfair and unlawful would have to be determined at a full hearing.

But he strongly criticised the government for not giving the asylum seekers - many of whom have remained in the UK after their initial claims failed - enough time to make the transition from state benefits.

"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," he said.

Among the EU accession countries are Latvia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Stephen Knafler, appearing for a Slovakian asylum seeker who has lived in the UK for seven years, argued they had been hit by "the sting in the tail" of the regulations aimed at deterring "benefit tourists" from eastern Europe.

Mr Knafler said Mr H, who cannot be identified, and others like him, were not bogus refugees or benefit tourists, even though their initial claims for asylum might have been rejected.

Problems had arisen because they had only been given a few weeks to find work and alternative accommodation as EU citizens.

"The complete absence of transitional protection in the scheme as a whole renders it unfair," he added.

Mr Justice Collins said he believed Mr Knafler had an arguable case, but added: "I don’t say that necessarily in the end it will succeed, but I think the manner in which this has been put into effect has not properly considered the situation of these people."

He gave as his reasons "the apparent length of time many of them have been here, the fact that they have families, the fact that they are required within a very short period to find work when most have not been able to work beforehand".

The judge added that it had "all been done at a terrific gallop" and he did not think the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) had had a proper opportunity to investigate the situation.

During the hearing, Nigel Giffin, QC, appearing for the government, had argued that judicial review was not appropriate and the situation could be dealt with through the NASS appeals mechanism.

The judge said the difficulty was that Mr H and others like him had only been given three weeks to find work, but it was now being argued that it was too late to bring a High Court challenge.

"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."

Turning to the question of whether the cases should be referred to NASS, the judge suggested that would only mean the cases coming back to the High Court for judicial review applications at a later date.

He said it would be "the same nonsense - spending vast sums of public money - people coming to court rather than sorting this out in a sensible fashion, having regard to the small number of people involved".