Home Affairs Committee
We are part of a small group of volunteers who run a drop-in centre for asylum seekers and Refugees in Sunderland; and we volunteer at the North of England Refugee Service in addition to this. We are currently seeking to promote City of Sanctuary in Sunderland.
Through the above, we have for several years been in regular and detailed contact with considerable numbers of asylum seekers in the City, and have reached the enclosed conclusions as the result of our experiences. We have not named the particular asylum seekers/refugees to whom we make reference, as we have not gone out to ask if they would consent.
We have not attempted to address all of the issues, but have limited ourselves to those of which we have direct knowledge.
Summary
1. We are concerned that issues of credibility falsely arise due to the initial screening process.
2. We are concerned about some features of the system of support to applicants; in particular the Azure card system.
3. Destitution causes great hardship, and adds pressures to people already highly stressed. We discuss some of the instances where this arises.
4. We offer some comments on problems exacerbated by inaccurate and sensationalist media reporting.
5. We offer some comments on the difficulties of following up what happens to people who are returned.
Submission
Your point 3 : assessment of credibility:
1. We are concerned that there is no medical assessment of mental capability prior to initial screening: statements can be affected by mental illness pressures, and it happens sometimes that when the cleansed statement is presented, differences between that and the original interview statement are used to infer a lack of credibility.
2. Similarly, we encounter women (and occasionally men) who eventually confide in us that they have been sexually abused, and they have been too embarrassed to disclose this earlier in the process. Late disclosure of these details can be used to infer lack of credibility, whereas the truth is that some women (and, indeed, men) are unable to disclose this to people they don’t know, in circumstances where they are quite unsure of what to expect and what is expected of them.
3. We believe that Freedom from Torture does a thorough and valuable role: we listen to people who tell us that they were able, at last, to explain what has happened to them. However, this is a long process, both in terms of getting through the waiting list, and then being assessed by Freedom from Torture. It has happened, in our experience, that people who are going through this process and are quite fragile are being urged to hasten the process. It is quite outside of their control, and harassment at reporting Centres on this point with its implications of lack of credibility is causing pressure and distress.
Your point 5: Whether the system of support to asylum applicants is sufficient and effective and possible improvements.
4. The use of the Azure card: The refusal to give cash support is unnecessary and causes hardships. No provision for bus fares either to shop, visit support or One-stop service Centres which may be miles away. No way of paying for a haircut. These cards sometimes fail and leave applicants without resources. We are pleased to note these cards can now be used in a couple of charity shops, but not in the “pound shops” which abound on the high street, and which can make the support stretch a bit further. There is an existing system of paying cash via ARC cards, and we feel it must be more efficient to run one system, not two.
5. The provision of housing is part of the support offered to asylum seekers. We find that people are being moved round the country to suit the housing providers’ search for profit maximisation via cost reduction, with little or no regard for the extra pressures this brings to bear; pressures caused by, for example, having to find and start again with new solicitors (because it’s too expensive to keep travelling to the old ones), new medical support and the process of having to start again trying to build whatever fragile social support networks they can find. We believe that it must cause extra costs for the State, too, in terms of transferring caseloads, having to re-arrange hearings, etc.
6. The level of support takes no account of the fact that asylum seekers generally do not have friends and family who can help them out when they need a new pair of shoes, for example; or of the need to keep in touch with family and friends who may be in danger themselves; or of having to make expensive phone calls to solicitors in their original areas of dispersal. For example: An asylum-seeker here would have to spend slightly more than one day’s living allowance to travel to a one-stop service support centre. The level of support is not sufficient to cope with the demands of having to buy further or replacement clothing as the seasons change: or for sustained periods of time during which clothing, shoes, etc. have to be replaced.
Your point 6: prevalence of destitution among asylum seekers:
7. The level of support offered takes no account of possible misfortunes: asylum seekers on benefit fall into destitution if their cards stop working; or if they commit some thoughtless act which causes them to incur costs. If the case of the former, they must spend just over one day’s allowance to go to get a new card and have it validated; in the case of the latter, they are pushed below the level of daily subsistence. For example: two new arrivals to the area who could not speak or write English had to go to Newcastle; unknowingly, they bought tickets for the train rather than the Metro system, but used the Metro which uses the same departure point: They were fined for having incorrect tickets, and had to use more than half their weekly allowance to pay the fine.
8. Temporary destitution is sometimes caused when emergency support amounts are sent out in cases where people are new to the area and have not received a validated support card. In HMO’s (Houses of multiple occupancy, of which there are many here) there is frequently no way of knowing who is living in the house, and no way for the deliverer to contact (because no individual bells) someone who is sitting on the third floor waiting for the support to arrive. We deal very often with people to whom this has happened, and have nothing to live on while a re-delivery is being attempted.
9. Destitute asylum-seekers are in a dire situation. They have to go to their reporting centre as a legal requirement, but are not provided with the means (cash or a ticket) to do so. They have to rely on centres such as ours, if we happen to have some unallocated cash, or friends, or risk travelling without paying. As well as appearing to us to be an unfair situation, this helps push people into “disappearing”: they fear the consequences of missed visits to the reporting centre, and become more and more likely to give up trying altogether. They are without food or shelter, and cannot buy necessities such as clothing, toiletries, etc.. For food, they have to rely on food parcels from charitable organisations, and hope someone will allow them to cook/heat the food during the day so that they can eat. With more and more pressures on food parcels round the area, there is a danger that on some days, there is nothing. For shelter, they have to sofa-surf or sleep rough. They are in much more danger than other rough sleepers, as they are easily identifiable as “different”. They are totally dependent on charity in some form or another.
10. Unsurprisingly, many of them turn to illegal working as a way of staying alive; but this exposes them to exploitation, blackmail and abuse. We have dealt with cases of attempted suicide by people in this situation. Some few turn to crime or prostitution. We are unable to give accurate estimates about how many failed asylum seekers are in our area: we know many, but believe there are many others who have just gone “off the radar”.
11. We are particularly disquieted about the plight of those who are unable to be returned to their own countries; either because their country won’t acknowledge them; or they can’t get documentation; or their countries won’t accept them. We believe that such people should get some form of support rather than languish in limbo for years. For example, we know of someone who is destitute, and yet is supposed to make his way to an Embassy in London, pay over £100, and try to get them to issue him with documents proving his nationality. UKBA have been unable to persuade this Embassy that the man is one of their nationals, yet he is supposed to try. He is becoming less and less rational, as years of destitution take their toll. He has to try to find £5.00 per week to go to the reporting centre – he can’t rake together the money to make a visit like this.
12. Another area of destitution which is occurring is due to the delays which take place when someone is granted leave to remain; falls out of the NASS system, but then is not fully integrated into the normal state system for weeks, while issues such as National Insurance numbers, housing benefit support, and income support are sorted out. The present system of heavy reliance on telephone and internet-based systems makes it extremely difficult for people who have little English to get through these hoops, and they fall into destitution as a result. Without a national insurance number, they can’t get accommodation (not even the Salvation Army will take someone without an NI number!) or mainstream benefits. We have not found Job Centres to be particularly understanding or helpful in this process.
Your point 8 : whether the media is balanced in their reporting of asylum issues
13. We find the bad stories outweigh the good : horror stories sell papers. We do work into colleges, schools, church groups etc. discussing the nature of asylum-seeking, and find that press stories are frequently quoted back to us. Some sections of the press seem to be unable to distinguish between immigrants, asylum-seekers and refugees, and illegal immigrants: this ignorance is reflected in the people we talk to, who seem vaguely to regard everyone as “asylum-seekers” and grossly over-estimate the numbers of people in this category. The effect is to make some of the people we volunteer with feel ashamed to be called asylum-seekers, and adds to their feelings of isolation and despair.
Your point 9: are people tortured on their return to their country of origin?:
14. We have found this extremely difficult to get accurate information on. We hear rumours and stores of people being tortured and killed, and this adds to the fear among the asylum-seekers we work with. Voluntary organisations could be supported in setting up websites where those returned can email – if they get the chance – about what happens to them. I fear that many will not trust government sites because they will fear that the government that sent them back will report on them to the governments of the countries they go back to. Support could be given to the few people inside countries of return who try to find out what happens to returned asylum-seekers.
Other points:
15. We strongly feel that asylum seekers should not be excluded from learning English as soon as they arrive here: they have to navigate their way through a very complex system in which all communications are made to them in English of a very official nature. They are not able to understand what is happening to them or participate fairly in their own cases without at least some grasp of English.
Dorothy Ismail, Arthur Carr and Jane Nikolorakis
April 2013