Home Affairs Committee
1. Executive Summary
We present evidence that the methods used to assess credibility within the decision making processes are culturally inappropriate, intimidating, inconsistently applied and sometimes based on factually incorrect information. We argue that the 5 year system of review has a negative effect on family life, job prospects and economic stability. We point out that the system of support for asylum applicants is insufficient, and poorly administered, causing delays when those who have every right to support are left without it, and leading to vulnerability, emotional and physical distress. We also argue that asylum seekers are at risk of destitution at many points within the asylum process and this could be remedied through greater flexibility and more efficient administration.
2. Introduction
2.1 Manchester Refugee Support Network (hereafter MRSN) is a grass-roots organisation directly managed by refugee communities, based in Manchester. Our work focuses on the development of refugee organisations, advocacy and campaigns, and advice and orientation.
2.2 This submission responds to four of the themes: the assessment of the credibility of women within the decision-making process; the effectiveness of the 5 year review system, the system of support to asylum applicants, the prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.
2.3 The material for this submission was gathered at a meeting of refugee community leaders from a range of nationality groups, including Eritrean, Congolese, Sudanese, Zimbabwean, and Kurdish. Refugee community leaders, particularly those who manage Refugee Community Organisations and offer services such as befriending, orientation and advice to new arrivals, have a strong understanding of the myriad issues that affect members of their own community while they are claiming asylum in the UK.
3. The assessment of the credibility of women, the mentally ill, victims of torture and specific nationalities within the decision-making process and whether this is reflected in appeal outcomes.
3.1 Two main areas that consistently bring the culture of disbelief towards anyone claiming asylum in the UK into sharp relief are the treatment of people seeking asylum during their asylum interview; and the methods used by Case-owners to establish whether an account is reliable, including the treatment of dates and other factual information.
3.2 We feel that the way dates are relied upon in asylum interviews reflects a wider cultural difference between African cultures and British culture, which UKBA makes no adjustments for: “There is such a reliance on dates in this country. It’s a cultural thing. It’s not important in many African countries. I have never celebrated my birthday. I forget when it is. It’s not important in my culture.” In many African cultures, only women remember children’s birthdays, not men. This is a problem when men are asked to give evidence to prove their family relationships. One man recalled: “They asked me the date of birth of my father and mother and when they died. You need to computerise your head. If not, you are ruined.” Another man spoke about having been pressured into giving a specific date in his asylum interview: “I was asked if I could remember a date. Asked to guess a date. He suggested I guess a specific month. I resisted but he kept pushing me to guess; said that it would help my case, then held it against me.”
3.3 The specific details that UKBA Case-owners expect asylum applicants to be able to give about their home or country are unreasonable, and open to abuse and error on the part of UKBA. For example, a Somali woman spoke about UKBA claiming she couldn’t be Somali because she didn’t know what was on the back of a 1,000 shilling note. She got the answer right, but the information sources UKBA was using were wrong.
3.4 UKBA is also known to deliberately use trick questions. For instance, they ask Somalis where the railway station in Mogadishu is, but it was demolished years ago, so younger people are unable to answer.
3.5 Many people spoke about UKBA increasingly relying on data from the internet, some of which is out of date or unreliable. One Eritrean man said “In each village/town there are specific market days. When I mentioned the town I was asked about the market. I knew it was currently on a Tuesday, but on the internet it says Wednesday so I explained and said both days. But how many people have access to this information?”
3.6 A Sudanese man spoke about UKBA doubting the claims of teenage boys from Darfur, and language tests being administered in order to establish whether they come from the region: “They may have lived in exile in another region for a long time, and they don’t want to be recognised as coming from Darfur so they hide their accent. When they do the language test, UKBA claim they can’t be from Darfur, but we know they are still at risk and it is still politically relevant.”
3.7 Several people also highlighted the attitude of UKBA staff towards asylum applicants who claim that their involvement in political activity while here in the UK has put them at additional risk. The underlying feeling was that in their haste to question an applicants’ credibility, UKBA staff fail to recognise what characterises and motivates activists: “To be an activist is in your DNA. You don’t just get involved when you come here. You’ve always been an activist.”
4. Asylum Interview
4.1 We have identified a range of concerns with the approach UKBA staff take in the asylum interview. Many Case-owners begin from the position that asylum applicants are generally lying, and they communicate this in the interview. One lady said “It’s like an interrogation. I told my story. Then I was told ‘Ok, you have 20 minutes to tell the real story’.” In this context, asylum applicants feel pressurised and intimidated, leading them to fail to disclose key details that are relevant to their application.
4.2 Many people talked about how UKBA Case-owners made mistakes in their interview notes, which then had a direct effect on that person’s claim: “How do you defend yourself when they have written it down wrong or rely on an interpreter who has said it wrongly? There were 3 different dates recorded by UKBA about when I came into this country. It was their mistake, but it was my word against theirs.”
4.3 Likewise, we feel that there is no consistency between interviewers, and applicants with similar claims find that that the rules are applied differently. One man said: “I was told ‘we have evidence you came through Italy’. Then when I did admit it they said ‘Thank you for telling the truth, but the law won’t allow this’… But other people who did the same got a positive decision.” Such arbitrary decision making erodes any trust asylum applicants have that their case will be treated fairly.
4.4 In many cases, this compounds the fear that many asylum applicants already have about speaking to government officials and figures of authority. There is little or no sensitivity within the asylum process to the experiences that many asylum seekers have had at the hands of the police: “Police would kill me in my home country. If I see police in this country I think the same. You forget everything. You feel threatened.”
4.5 As with the treatment of dates and other factual information, we believe that challenges with cross-cultural communication within the interview process have a direct impact on decision making: “If you make mistakes or don’t look someone in the face, they say you’re not truthful. In my culture, how can you face a woman and say this? It’s just not done.”
5. The effectiveness of the 5 year review system introduced in 2005.
5.1 The 5 year review system introduced in 2005 meant that from 2010 onwards there could in theory be ‘active’ reviews to see if people still ‘deserve’ asylum. At present, UKBA does not appear to be actively reviewing and querying cases, but there is still the threat/mechanism for doing this. There could, in theory, be a review of personal conduct while in the UK and a re-analysis of Country of Origin Information to establish whether the situation has changed and question whether there is still a threat of persecution. What this amounts to is the automatic route to integration being removed, along with the certainty that a person whose application for asylum has been approved will be allowed to stay after the initial 5 years. After an often protracted period awaiting a positive decision from UKBA, those granted asylum still have an uncertain future here in the UK. This has a profound psychological and emotional impact, as well as a negative effect on family life and economic prospects.
5.2 As a consequence of the 5 year review system, many people describe their lives as still being on hold. A Sudanese man summarised it thus: “How can I integrate and be part of the community if I don’t know if at the end of 5 years I can be a British Citizen?” This is made worse by the grindingly slow administration of reviews at UKBA. One man waited for over a year for a decision when his case came up for review, and all that time he couldn’t travel because his documents were being held.
5.3 The 5 year review has a direct effect on refugees’ job prospects. Several people spoke about not being able to prove to a new employer that they will be here long term, and therefore not appearing as a safe bet to train and invest in. People also struggled to prove their status while UKBA held their paperwork. A Sudanese man commented that it is difficult to find jobs in the UK, particularly for second language speakers, so it may be easier to go abroad to find work (eg to the Gulf for Arabic speakers), but no refugees want to do this until they are sure of their status. He also commented on wider economic effects of the 5 year review system, eg buying a house: “I can’t plan my life. If the mortgage company discovers you may not be here in 5 years they won’t give you a mortgage.”
5.4 The 5 year review system also has more direct effects on family life through the system of family reunion. A Zimbabwean lady whose sister came to join her family in the UK explained how she had to pass a University level entrance test, which left her questioning why it was necessary to have academic level English, when it is basic communication skills that are needed to help you integrate in a new country.
5.5 A the other end of the spectrum, if a relationship breaks down after a family is granted asylum (a not uncommon occurrence given the strains imposed by the asylum process and adapting to life in a new country), the spouse and/or children admitted under the family reunion provisions face difficulties in proving they have a basis of stay in the UK as and when the 5 year period granted to their sponsoring spouse/parent expires.
6. Whether the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements.
Section 95 Support
6.6 The current rates of support are:
- — Qualifying couple (married or in a civil partnership): £72.52
- — Lone parent aged 18 or over: £43.94
- — Single person aged 18 or over, excluding lone parent: £36.62
- — Person aged at least 16, but under 18 (except a member of a qualifying couple): £39.80
- — Person aged under 16: £52.96.
6.7 Even when taking into account the fact that accommodation and utilities are provided, when compared with the rates available to UK citizens claiming Job Seekers Allowance, single asylum seekers gets less than what has been calculated as necessary for meeting essential living needs, forcing them to live below the poverty line. MRSN endorses the recommendations contained in the recent Children’s Society Inquiry into asylum support (http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-lobbying/parliamentary-work/parliamentary-inquiry-asylum-support-children-an-1).
Section 4
6.8 The main issues we identified with regard to Section 4 support relate firstly to the restrictions associated with living on a cashless system of support and secondly to delays and problems with the administration of the Azure card. These include the fact that the card isn’t accepted in all shops, having no means of paying for public transport and being forced to walk long distances to attend appointments etc.
6.9 Letters from UKBA often do not arrive, causing people to miss their appointments and have their Section 4 support automatically stopped, through no fault of their own. One man spent two months waiting with no Azure Card and had to rely on friends to help him. He experienced depression as a result of a period spent in temporary accommodation and having nothing to live on.
6.10 The psychological effect of having no choice in how to spend the little support that is available is also features, as is the feeling that Section 4 support is another form of control and surveillance exerted by UKBA. One man gave an example of an asylum seeker within his community experiencing pregnancy related health problems who gave her card to her husband to bring groceries home. He was living in a different area of Manchester and UKBA picked and questioned why she was using the card in other locations, and stopped her support without any notice. Another lady who volunteered in different places across the city found that UKBA were monitoring where she used her card and stopped her payments: “It’s almost like a prison. Your rights are taken away. Home Office want to bully people to make them want to go home.”
6.11 A Congolese community leader commented on how the Azure Card serves to reinforce feelings of social exclusion: “A large number of people in my community use the Azure Card, but they find it very embarrassing and it’s very hard for them to take part in community activities. For example, we were all traveling to a demonstration in London, and we’d arranged for some very cheap buses to take us there but lots of people couldn’t pay and they were isolated and excluded.” Another community leader commented on the vulnerability and the risks taken by people forced into this situation: “People also congregate and take part in risky activities. They go to bars and see if someone will pick them up, or they work on the black market for £3 a day. It breaks my heart as a community leader to see this.”
Accommodation
6.12 Refugee community leaders commented on the poor quality of accommodation across the board (particularly in relation to cleanliness and safety), and said that the local housing provider commonly takes months to fix a simple problem. In addition to this, several people commented that Housing Officers often walk in without respecting people’s need for privacy. One Muslim lady was very distressed to have been seen in her nightie when her Housing Officer arrived without any warning.
6.13 The experience of being dispersed to accommodation on a no choice basis is made worse, in many people’s opinions, by being placed with house-mates from different cultures, language groups and faiths, leading to an increased sense of isolation and conflict between people who are already under a lot of strain. This is especially the case for single people placed in Section 4 accommodation, and something that many refugee community leaders feel the housing provider and UKBA could remedy.
7. The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.
7.1 There are many phases during the asylum process when asylum applicants are at risk of destitution, and around 50% of the people who took part in this discussion said they had experienced destitution at some point. For example, many asylum seekers become destitute after a positive decision on their case because the 28 day window in which to make the transition to private rented or local authority accommodation is too short. The letter from UKBA confirming a person’s status often takes a long time to arrive, and it typically takes upwards of six weeks to get a National Insurance Number and apply for any form of support, which leaves a gap when they are unsupported.
7.2 Many refugee community leaders know people who have been destitute for 3 or 4 years who are waiting to find fresh evidence to support their claim. One man explained that people often lose everything when they are forced to leave their accommodation, making their experience of sofa-surfing or being street homeless even more difficult: “When they are thrown out of their NASS accommodation, their possessions are taken away and they often don’t ever get these back. It’s theft.”
7.3 A Sudanese community leader said: “Many people in my community are destitute—they sleep in the park and have no money so survive on food parcels. It affects their ability to socialise and communicate. It might drive them into crime. Their mental health gets worse. Most of the time people get sick and mentally disturbed. They have nowhere to sleep. They’re supposed to sign at Dallas Court but have no money for transport. When you try to go to sleep you don’t sleep. You lose everything.” Women are especially vulnerable when they’re made destitute and are often exposed to rape or unwanted pregnancy.
7.4 Before the current housing provider, Serco, took over the accommodation contract, people living in privately run accommodation had experiences of landlords being flexible and letting people stay on after they had been made destitute or given positive status, whereas now people feel that Serco housing is so heavily booked there is no flexibility. A Zimbabwean community leader explained: “When I got my status I had built a good relationship with my landlord. I had a 4–5 week gap with no money, but he didn’t throw me out and he let me pay him back once I managed to apply for Job Seekers Allowance and housing benefit.”
Manchester Refugee Support Network
April 2013