Some of the most vulnerable people who found sanctuary in Sheffield may be left without any way of supporting themselves because of a legal ruling known as the ‘Slough judgement’. This is a court decision handed down last year which applied a new interpretation to Section 21 of the National Assistance Act (1948) that allows local authorities to support vulnerable people with accommodation and subsistence.
Following the 2008 ruling Sheffield (along with other local councils) has had to apply a much higher threshold of criteria, meaning about two-thirds of those previously receiving support are no longer eligible. Some of these people have been given alternative support by the Border Agency but some have fallen through both nets and are now effectively destitute. Because they were found to be ‘unlawfully present’ in the country the local authority can only support them if it would breach their human rights not to, which requires an even higher threshold of need.
Although these are not the only people left homeless because of the rules of the sanctuary system, the implications are alarming because they are individuals who have been identified as being particularly vulnerable. They are suffering from mental, physical or other impairments and will now depend on the goodwill and finances of an already overstretched voluntary sector to keep them alive.
Sheffield Council staff responsible for applying the new rules are working closely with the city’s health and mental health services, and with organisations like ASSIST (Asylum Support Initiative Short Term) to try and minimise the impact of the judgement. The Council’s formal status as a ‘City of Sanctuary’ is no protection against such external forces, but as more join the movement (currently 11 cities signed up around the UK) perhaps they will help turn the tide towards a more humane attitude to migration.Some of the most vulnerable people who found sanctuary in Sheffield may be left without any way of supporting themselves because of a legal ruling known as the ‘Slough judgement'. This is a court decision handed down last year which applied a new interpretation to Section 21 of the National Assistance Act (1948) that allows local authorities to support vulnerable people with accommodation and subsistence.
Following the 2008 ruling Sheffield (along with other local councils) has had to apply a much higher threshold of criteria, meaning about two-thirds of those previously receiving support are no longer eligible. Some of these people have been given alternative support by the Border Agency but some have fallen through both nets and are now effectively destitute. Because they were found to be ‘unlawfully present' in the country the local authority can only support them if it would breach their human rights not to, which requires an even higher threshold of need.
Although these are not the only people left homeless because of the rules of the sanctuary system, the implications are alarming because they are individuals who have been identified as being particularly vulnerable. They are suffering from mental, physical or other impairments and will now depend on the goodwill and finances of an already overstretched voluntary sector to keep them alive.
Sheffield Council staff responsible for applying the new rules are working closely with the city's health and mental health services, and with organisations like ASSIST (Asylum Support Initiative Short Term) to try and minimise the impact of the judgement. The Council's formal status as a ‘City of Sanctuary' is no protection against such external forces, but as more join the movement (currently 11 cities signed up around the UK) perhaps they will help turn the tide towards a more humane attitude to migration.
