Home Affairs Committee

This is a report from two workshops held by the North of England Refugee Service, and attended by paid staff, volunteers and student placements

NERS Questionnaire for the Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry on Asylum

1. How would you rate the effectiveness of the UKBA’s screening process, including the method of determining eligibility for the ‘Detained Fast Track’ procedure? Please give examples if you can.

People are classed as fast track when they are particularly vulnerable and often do not get legal support.

2. What is your opinion of the use of Country of Origin Information and Operational Guidance Notes in determining the outcome of asylum applications? Please give examples if you can.

• — Country of Origin reports have been deemed unsatisfactory and unreliable by the Independent Asylum Commission and are often out of date.
• — Country of Origin information is not truly independent and lacks independent monitoring.
• — They are not applied in a fair and equitable way—for example have there ever been nationality disputes where someone has been determined as coming from a ‘more dangerous’ country according to country of origin information that they originally claimed? Furthermore the Home office appear to cherry pick academic research that suits their policy and also cherry pick reasons for refusal.
• — Sometimes there are controversies about the nationality of applicants, is this part of a strategy to not accept that they come from a really unsafe country?
• — People who seek asylum have far more information than the UK on current situations in their country. It is impossible for the UK to acknowledge all lived experiences of people in one document.
• — There is a lack of cultural competency and recognition of the varied experiences for different social groups of people within one country
• — Variations within countries are not accounted for and the argument of internal relocation is not valid for many social groups.

3. How do you view the UKBA’s assessment of the credibility of women, the mentally ill, victims of torture and specific nationalities within the decision-making process and how do you think this is reflected in appeal outcomes? Please give examples if you can.

• — No one wants to see the extremely long delays in the asylum process as we had in the past, but equally people who may have had a traumatic experience back home or on their journey to safety, require some rest and recuperation, counselling, etc, before they have their substantive interview when they are expected to tell their whole story too soon after arrival.
• — Credibility is often determined by bullying—people are not afforded the opportunity to tell the truth and are consistently called ‘liars’. People become scared to speak and this often undermines their ability to be consistent with their account and thus affects the ‘credibility’ of their asylum case. Being called a liar consistently, undermines people’s sense of self, ability to cope with loss and bereavement and their own identity.
• — People are almost assumed to be lying and they must prove that they are not lying rather than being believed until contrary proof is found.
• — Burden of proof is not fair, is often too heavily placed upon clients and often does not comply with the law.
• — There are many problems with interpreters withholding or miscommunication information. If possible workers who speak a variety of languages should be employed. Also people should be able to read back their transcripts in their own language and a second interpreter should check the translations
• — There should be more attention given to regional dialects when using interpreters.
• — The system is not appropriate for people with mental health problems and victims of torture as the process often compounds mental health problems and re-traumatised people.
• — Trauma is not understood within the UKBA’s assessment process. Trauma’s impact on people’s ability to disclose traumatic events and to provide clear and consistent accounts of their experiences is unfailingly overlooked within the assessment process. A PTSD diagnosis is often the only way for trauma to be recognised within the asylum process, however it is a Westernized concept and does not reflect the trauma that is experienced in addition to the persecution which has forced the person to leave, such as the trauma of leaving their culture, community and the trauma of the asylum process, stigmatisation in the UK, uncertainty and continued lack of safety and constant disbelief. The UKBA’s treatment of people often re traumatises people.
• — The UKBA appears to approach asylum interviews by seeking reasons to refuse people, rather than considering the merits of each case. There should be more in depth focus on getting the decision right the first time which would save considerable public money as appeals are extremely costly.
• — To fully comply with the spirit of the UN Convention on Refugees, the process of deciding on an asylum claim should be one of ‘enquiry’ rather than the current adversarial process, ie the UKBA trying to disprove the case before them.
• — There is culture of mistrust and disbelief of asylum seekers within the national social policy context, which is reproduced and encouraged by the UKBA
• — Many NERS workers have heard accounts of discriminatory attitudes and treatment from service user accounts. NERS workers are concerned that this suggests a dangerous organisational culture and could be reflective of inherent structural oppressions within the UKBA and current governmental policy
• — Assessment seems poor (by design?) significant number of decisions are overturned by judicial review, suggesting original assessment was incorrect

4. In 2005, UKBA decided that refugee status would only be granted for five years, followed by ILR applications. How effective do you think this process has been? Please give examples if you can.

• — There was confusion expressed around ‘effective’, what does this effective mean in this context? And for whom are we measuring the effectiveness of the process? For example do the Home Office mean the process has been effective in reducing the number of asylum seekers who are granted refugee status or do they mean it has been effective in meeting and respecting people’s human rights? Is this policy a way in which the Home Office can reduce the number of refugees who get ILR in the long-term as they plan to start refusing people after 5 years? At the moment it seems to be only used if people have committed crimes etc however workers are worried that this policy reflects another movement towards a more restrictive policy.
• — It could be argued that the five year policy was a sop to the media to make politicians look tough on asylum seekers/refugees.

Overall staff felt five years is not effective as:

• — People become very guarded and fear saying anything
• — Takes a long time to ‘settle’ after becoming a refugee. People have to get used to housing benefits, education and have to make social networks. People’s success in all the above can be damaged by the uncertainty of the 5 year status, not really understanding what this means and the changing nature of the UK’s immigration system and policy.
• — Puts a huge amount of pressure on families
• — Is linked to the onset of mental health problems as people are unable to feel settled or safe within the UK and are left in a state of uncertainty where they cannot plan for their future and families may worry about their children’s future
• — The first three year wave of people to be granted refugee status for five years has just come to the end of this period. It has emerged that this process presents a real issue for refugees in the UK, due to long delays in processing ILR applications, and many people who have been working have lost their jobs because their employers are unsure whether they continue to have a work permit. Furthermore people have found there are problems in accessing benefits during this period, meaning people are left with no support.
• — This just moved the problem into the future, a new backlog emerged when the 5 year periods came to an end, many were given 5 years when this effectively took their accumulated time in UK over the period to qualify for indefinite leave (it would have saved time in these cases to grant ILR in the first place instead of granting 5 years then having to grant ILR at the end of this period)—higher cost to the public purse?

Staff felt that issues already covered in the asylum application/appeals process should not be able to be brought up again in the ILR application following five years status.

5. Do you think the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and what improvements would you like to see?

• — Below European recognised standard of viable support
• — Asylum support is not fit for purpose, it was set at 70% of income support, however has not risen with inflation/increases to income support and is subsequently set at a much lower percentage of income support today
• — It was brought in on the premise of short-term support, however many people are on this support for many years
• — Families should never be put on S4 support and the Home Office is breaching the UNCRC, families should not be put in hostels with shared facilities as this undermines families’ privacy, cultural ways of bringing up their children and are not places that are fit for bringing up children
• — Differences between s4 and s95 is punitive and creates enforced destitution. The system of support is (by design) inadequate, the way support is paid does not cater well for needs of clients
• — The current state of asylum support is enforcing poverty on asylum seekers and refugees
• — The privatisation of accommodation for asylum seekers means that people receive a far poorer service
• — Nationalities used to be considered in shared households—this is no longer the case. This prevents people integrating with local communities, means people become more socially excluded and prevents families from bringing up their children in the way that they wish
• — Home Office should provide multiple accommodation providers within one area which would allow for people with specific needs to be accommodated in more appropriate accommodation eg people with mental health problems
• — S4 accommodation providers should inspect accommodation thoroughly before provision as it is often inadequate
• — Minimise processing s4 claims as people are homeless and destitute for 14 days
• — People on s4 should receive cash so that they can cater for their cultural needs. Azure cards are disempowering and are not a dignifying option for people. It also creates a ‘black market’ for these cards and can increase crime as people do not have enough to survive on and cannot purchase the basic items they require
• — Subsistence should be raised to an adequate level—EU minimum
• — Our clients don’t feel able to go to soup kitchens/use food banks as they are often harassed.
• — Accommodation providers enter female-only properties without any notice—this should not be done and notice should be provided
• — No Choice sharing of bedrooms should be completely stopped
• — People should be able to work after 6 months and should get mainstream benefits after 6 months as the current system deskills people and renders them as a sub class of UK society

6. Please provide some examples of the prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.

• — We support hundreds of people who are destitute and living without any support. We often refer these people to various hardship funds and Red Cross. We have also seen eligibility criteria for Children and Adult services become more difficult, meaning individuals and families who would have previously received support are no longer deemed eligible.
• — Destitution is defined by people not being able to meet their essential needs. This is not just a roof over people’s heads but things such as bus fares for children at school age and school dinners/lunches for children and free school uniforms.
• — Prevalence of destitution is extremely high and seems to be increasing
• — All asylum seekers should receive support as this is beneficial to the home office, individuals and families. It is likely to improve public health, mental health, reduce crime rates in the UK, ensure that the UKBA are able to keep track of people and that people don’t slip under the radar. It would also means that people are not forced into destitution and cannot slip through the many gaps in the process such as disputed nationalities. Some of the long-term consequences of forcing people into destitution, are the increased cost of dealing with failing mental and physical health—prevention is better (and cheaper) than a cure.
• — UKBA further discriminate against people who are forced into destitution for example they refuse to provide travel tickets for people who are destitute for reporting, they can also ask people who are destitute to report daily if they do not have an address which is impossible if people are rough sleeping.
• — Refused asylum seekers are increasingly being diagnosed with malnutrition; pregnant women are particularly at risk. Destitution has also been at the centre of several Serious Case Reviews of accompanied minors.

7. Do you think that the UKBA and third sector organisations should be able to highlight concerns regarding legal practitioners to the Law Society?

Yes

8. Do you think the media is balanced in their reporting of asylum issues? Please give examples if you can.

No

• — Newspapers are sold under the premise of fear and exaggeration
• — Focus on a minority of people who abuse the system—unfair portrayal
• — Newspapers often provide extreme views.
• — ‘Asylum seeker’ was previously thought of as an honourable status—now used as a negative word.
• — There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ asylum seeker as someone fleeing persecution in their country of origin cannot usually obtain legal travel documents and leave the country on their own passports or documents
• — The media and government deliberately scapegoat asylum seekers and other vulnerable social groups to distract from harsh economic policy, the cutting back of the welfare state, a lack of jobs and an increasingly neo-liberalist society.
• — The media’s reports are consistently inaccurate and are not evidence based. For example ‘asylum seekers ate my donkey’ Daily Star. Yet it is not just right wing papers that write misinformed articles, inaccurate information regularly appears in mainstream articles.
• — The media and government use the terms ‘asylum seeker’ and ‘refugees’ interchangeably with other forms of immigration/migration.
• — There is considerable scaremonger by the press and government of ‘asylum seekers’ yet they represent a minute percentage of migration into the UK.
• — Media is used as a form of control as part of a wider political agenda and mainstream politicians regularly endorse misinformation. Media is used to stigmatise people.
• — There has been some sympathetic local media however; a recent case reported in Newcastle Evening Chronicle featured the compensation claim by an asylum seeker unlawfully detained for 12 months without making it clear that the authorities were at fault for his unlawful detention. The sum of money involved would only serve to incite jealousy and antagonism towards the person and asylum seekers/refugees. This was something of an anomaly, previous reports, particularly regarding the murder of a client of NERS, were very sympathetic regarding the reasons for seeking asylum and the difficulties faced

9. Are you aware of any incidences where refused asylum seekers are tortured upon return to their country of origin, and how do you think the UK Government could monitor this?

• — Yes Workers are aware of such incidences occurring, with particular reference in the DRC, Uganda, Sri Lanka
• — It is a huge risk and is extremely difficult to monitor. The UK Government do not monitor this and they cherry pick reports from other agencies to suit their policy objectives
• — It should not be monitored by the UK Government who has neither the expertise nor the experience. It should be monitored by Amnesty/Human Rights Watch/UN/other NGOs, who are already set up, independent and doing this kind of work
• — The Home Office should revaluate their list of ‘safe countries’
• — There are currently no countries listed under the criteria of ‘no viable route of return. This should be re considered under UM guidelines and begs to question why it is on S4 criteria?
• — People’s fear of torture upon their return can cause them to lie about their nationality.
• — AVR is unrealistic, ‘starving people back’ it is not a real choice.
• — Local Teesside charity Justice First has produced an independent report on the maltreatment, including torture, of refused asylum seekers returned to the DRC. ‘No Safe Return’ should be considered when decisions are made to remove people to the DRC.

10. Are there any other issues or improvements to the asylum system that you would like to see, or is there anything else you would like to add? Please give examples if you can.

• — Housing providers do not have adequate interpreting services
• — Lack of clarity to help guide people through the asylum process from the very beginning
• — Better access to healthcare for refused asylum seekers
• — Better public sector training for working with asylum seekers
• — send out letters in the language of the recipient if they cannot speak good English
• — Translated documents should be regularly updated and improved
• — change the term ‘asylum seekers’ to asylum applicants/asylum claimants/sanctuary seekers
• — More funding for voluntary sector organisations to provide independent advice and support
• — Support people to gain a better understanding of the laws and norms of British society
• — Better training of asylum/immigration judges
• — Options for gender specific interviews/age assessments—these should always be communicated to clients
• — The approach to the asylum interview should be to establish facts, talk to the person and establish whether people need protection from the start instead of trying to fail people from the start
• — People’s asylum cases should be moved with their dispersal
• — Asylum seekers should be granted permission to work after 6 months and all asylum seekers should be entitled to mainstream benefits after 6 months
• — The funding rates and conditions to asylum Legal Aid work means that asylum seekers often do not have a chance. Asylum work needs to be properly funded and the minimum success rates for legally aided solicitors should be abolished.
• — There are too many gaps to fall through in the asylum support process
• — Families with children should never be put on S4 support
• — The Government and media need to stop presenting asylum seekers as a problem and need to stop scaremongering and playing on people’s fears. They should portray a fair and accurate image.
• — The Home Office should have greater accountability throughout the process and the whole process should be independently monitored.
• — The process is wasting public money as many people win on their appeals (both support and asylum appeals) therefore there is a need for better quality decision making from the start. For instance, the following percentages are the appeal success rates for people refused asylum:
• — 52% from Syria
• — 45% from Eritrea
• — 43% from Sudan
• — 41% from Sri Lanka

The UKBA therefore do not appear to take any notice whatsoever of the immigration judges decisions, and continue to refused people on the same grounds that are constantly being overturned by independent immigration judges.

• — The management of the asylum system is chaotic (as everyone knows) inefficiencies and punitive measures combine to make life unnecessarily hard for asylum seekers.

North of England Refugee Service

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013