Home Affairs Committee
Introduction
Bristol Refugee Rights (BRR) is a local independent voluntary sector organisation, which has been operating in Bristol for the past seven years, with charitable status since 2008. We hold a drop-in Welcome Centre for asylum seekers and new refugees on three days each week, and have become the most significant social and services hub for asylum seekers in Bristol. Attendance is between 70 and 130 each day and we estimate that 200 distinct individuals attend each month. We refer to those who attend the Welcome Centre “members” of BRR. We receive 250 new members each year (more than half of whom are still in the asylum process) which represents a substantial proportion of all those dispersed to Bristol each year. We get to know regular members well over time and have their confidence.
I am writing as the Manager of Bristol Refugee Rights for the past 6½ years. I have commented in the memorandum below on the following Terms of Reference of the enquiry:
1. The effectiveness of the UK Border Agency screening process, including the method of determining eligibility for the “Detained Fast Track” procedure.
2. Assessment of credibility within the decision making process and whether this is reflected in appeal outcomes
3. Whether the system of support for asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements
4. The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers
5. Experience of torture when asylum seekers are returned to their country of origin and how this can be monitored
6. Whether the UKBA or third sector organisations should be able to highlight concerns regarding legal practitioners to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.
I have added a further item of concern to us
1. The impact of long delays in the decision making process and re-traumatising individuals through the asylum process
In each case I have made comments directly arising from experience over the past six years of working closely with asylum seekers from more than 60 countries of origin at every stage of the asylum process.
Recommendations follow each section, and are written in italics. Recommendations are also summarised at the end of the memorandum.
Summary
This enquiry is very welcome. Having worked with those at the “service user” end of the asylum process for more than seven years, flaws, inadequacies and injustices in both asylum policy and asylum process are obvious. The general thrust of government policy with regard to immigration has been for many decades to keep it tightly restricted. This has led to what appears to be the dominant policy objective to “prevent abuse of the system’. While the number of asylum applications has for some time formed less than 10% of inward migration, concern about an asylum applicant’s credibility appears nevertheless to override concern for an individual’s personal safety, and is evident in the written determinations at each stage of the asylum process, including screening substantive interview, appeals, asylum support, to treatment of those whose appeal right are exhausted, detention and removal. As described below, there are many points in the process where asylum policy and practice allow for this bias to be exercised. In order to safeguard an individual’s rights under international law, these processes need to be reviewed and improved with the rights of the applicant in mind.
Issues addressed include:
1. Screening: timing, interpreters, recording, witness/legal representation, health care,
2. Assessment of credibility: detention of victims of torture
3. Asylum support: level of support, transport, communication, children and school, mental health, meaningful activity, azure cards, AVR
4. Destitution: prevalence, eviction from NASS accommodation, establishing a fresh claim, refused but non-returnable people (Iran, Eritrea, Somalia), permission to work
5. Monitoring enforced returns: examples
6. Concerns regarding legal practitioners: example
7. The impact of delays and re-traumatising of applicants: examples and case studies
Memorandum
1. The effectiveness of the UKBA screening process, including the method of determining eligibility for the “Detained Fast Track” procedure
We understand that the information recorded from the screening interview provides the first “benchmark” for information given by an asylum applicant, against which further statements are tested for credibility. The screening interview is thus crucial to someone’s chances of their claim being recognised, but the nature of the way it is conducted causes many concerns including the following:
(1) The screening interview is held within hours or a few days of arrival in the UK, immediately following what is often a traumatic journey, which itself may follow traumatic experiences in the country of origin. For example:
(a) A young female member of BRR arrived in UK as an unaccompanied minor from Somalia, having witnessed less than a week earlier, at close quarters, the rape of her sister and murder of her mother. Describing such events in precise detail is not possible for someone when they are so close to the experience.
(b) A member from Iran, who had been a political activist there wanted not to answer some questions but was told that he had to say something, that what he said and didn’t say at that point would be used in determination of his case. He felt under great pressure at the most vulnerable time, without any help.
These concerns must be taken into account. Subsequent discrepancies should not be at once taken to mean that the application is not genuine.
(2) Interpreters used may speak the same language but often are from different countries or regions of the same country, with different vocabulary, accent or dialect. There is no reason for an applicant to trust the interpreter (or the interviewer) in the light of their recent experience, and many asylum applicants have expressed great disquiet about their experience of the interpreters in these interviews
As there is no tape or CCTV recording of the interviews, it is not possible for either the applicant him or herself, or their legal representative, subsequently to challenge any of the information that is hand recorded by the interviewer. There is no record of what the applicant actually said, only what the interpreter conveyed.
All interviews should be audio-recorded and a copy given to the applicant
(3) An applicant is not allowed to have a friend or legal representative or any other “trusted other” at the interview. In practice, an individual usually is not anyway able to call on support of this kind.
IN the interests of fairness and sensitivity towards the individual, it should be possible for an applicant to have someone with them at the screening interview as an independent witness to the process, if such a person is available.
(4) Access to basic needs during the screening process
One member described his difficulty in obtaining medical help at the first place of detention, where he was taken after making his asylum claim, and where the screening interview took place. The interview was conducted after five days. On the first day he was asked if he had any health problems, and was told that he could ask to see a doctor. He subsequently asked three times to see a doctor and the officers kept refusing his request on the grounds that he would shortly be moved on. He was held a further ten days before being sent to Cardiff without seeing a doctor.
Access to doctors and health care should be given priority in detention centres at all times, in particular at the screening stage.
2. 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.
1. It is clear from written determinations on applications that credibility of the applicant is paramount in the case owner’s decision. It is evident in our experience that where telling a traumatic story is met with disbelief, about either the facts of the story or identity of the applicant contributes very severely to stress and anxiety for individuals fleeing danger and seeking safety. One member has said “in my country they tortured our bodies, here they torture our minds”. Figures for 2012 indicate that while two thirds of asylums applicants are refused at initial decision, one third of appeals are subsequently won, illustrating that a substantial proportion of first decisions should be challenged.
The Home office publicised concern to limit the number of total asylum applications and also to limit the number which are successful should be balanced by clear and equally clearly stated commitment to treat people who escape persecution to seek sanctuary elsewhere are treated with respect and dignity, and are supported to find the safety they need.
2. We know of a number of instances in which people who have experienced torture (even where evidenced by the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture) have been detained, although this contravenes HO guidelines on immigration detention. At least two such individuals to our knowledge have subsequently been granted leave to remain.
The guidelines advising against detention of individuals who have suffered torture should be affirmed and adhered to.
3. Whether the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements.
The amount provided under both Section 95 and Section 4 asylum support (£36.62) is 51% of income support levels for anyone over 25. In 2009, the poverty line was held to be £119 per week for a single adult with no dependents. This includes a cost for home heating which (if heating is taken at £15 per week) means that asylum seekers are being forced to live at a shockingly low level—with a weekly income of less than one-third of the official poverty line. The justification for setting the sum so low is presumed to be to prevent abuse of the asylum system by individuals without genuine fear of persecution in their country of origin. However, in our experience over seven years in Bristol working with more than 1500 people seeking sanctuary over this time, with very rare exceptions, none of them wished to leave their home and family, or would have done so if their lives were not endangered. Most of our members are highly motivated to survive and use their skills to contribute to the country they have come to without choice. We talk to people directly and believe from their emotional state that they are telling us the truth.
1. Section 95 and Section 4
(a) The amount available is wholly inadequate for an adult to feed and clothe themselves in a healthy way. Department of Health recommendation to eat 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day is impossible. The consequence for asylum is physical and mental ill-health, acute social isolation and inability to integrate. If it were not for various food-banks and other free meals services, illness amongst the asylum seeking population would be even higher than it is. Our members often report that the two full meals (are a lifeline, the best day in the week, the day I look forward to, etc.)
Support should be provided at levels equivalent to income support to enable asylum seekers to live in a healthy lifestyle, with access to basic resources to meet their physical, mental, emotional and social needs.
(b) People living on this budget have no access to public transport. Social isolation is the inevitable consequence of the policy, especially as a number of NASS houses are too far from the city centre and other services in Bristol for people to reach on foot.
(c) Ability to communicate is essential for asylum seekers: with solicitors, doctors, family in country of origin, etc. but topping up a mobile reduces the already inadequate food budget a further significant amount. Access to English classes is increasingly limited and currently many of those who are eligible are being turned away for lack of funds.
Alongside adequate NASS support access to English classes should be possible for asylum seekers from dispersal until their claim is determined
(d) School uniform for children on Section 95 or section 4 support presents another difficulty for the family. Either they cannot afford uniform, or if provided it may be after some weeks, compounding the sense of difference experienced by the child.
(e) Pressure on local counselling and trauma services is high, and even independently funded schemes have long waiting lists (eg Trauma Foundation South West, Womankind).
(f) Lack of meaningful activity, depression and low self-esteem. The incidence of depression is very high amongst our members. Asylum seekers have either severely limited or no access at all to public transport, to sport, to English classes, to communication, to fresh or varied diet or to entertainment, meaningful occupation or social activity. Attempts to remedy this by asylum seekers themselves are also actively discouraged:
Example:
A NASS household in Bristol are keen to engage in gardening and have requested minimum inputs to enable them to make use of the garden at their property—loan of garden tools and a few vegetable and flower seeds. This would provide a meaningful and purposeful activity, sense of achievement, dietary improvement, environmental improvement, social interaction, heightened self-esteem, at very little cost. Members of the household have been refused the basic requested inputs by their accommodation provider.
2. Section 4 support
(a) Section 4 support is currently by way of the “azure card”, restricting holders to a limited number of retail outlets. With limited possibility of carrying money available over from one week to the next (£5 maximum permitted) there is also no opportunity to save even at a modest rate for larger items. For costly items of clothing such as coats and shoes, the holder is entirely dependent on the charitable sector. Many of our members simply do not have an outer garment.
(b) The azure card also makes travel by bus impossible. This makes travel to vital legal or health related appointments extremely stressful. Our work frequently involves providing support to members from our funds to attend such appointments. Even where there is theoretically an opportunity for the individual to claim travel support from the agency concerned, the difficulty of doing this in advance without cash in hand, or in time for provision of a travel ticket or voucher, and without an interpreter, can mean that basic rights and services are not accessible (eg health care and legal representation).
Support should be provided in cash at Section 95 and Section 4 stages, instead of the restrictive and demeaning form of a store card.
(c) The use of the azure card for families leads to discrimination and further unwelcome singling out of the children of Section 4 supported families in school. On any occasion on which children are asked to bring cash (even as little as £1) into school to participate in an event, a trip, non-uniform day, etc.—they are unable to do so and experience humiliation, exclusion and social isolation.
Children should be supported as a matter of priority and equality to enable them to access the same facilities as their peers
(d) In our experience, the low level of support available during the asylum application process (which still can take many years for many of our members) has almost no bearing on a person’s willingness to take up Assisted Voluntary Return. We estimate that there they may be between 50 and 100 people without any support or recourse to public funds in Bristol at any one time, all of whom would be eligible for AVR. We are aware of fewer than five members of BRR who have taken up AVR.
4. The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.
Many of our members have had their initial applications refused. Approximately 13% of our members at any one time (ie 25–30 people) are destitute—without any recourse to public funds.
1. In our experience there are several critical phases of an asylum applicants experience that lead to destitution for varying lengths of time, all of which are avoidable.
(a) if the ARC card is not issued in a timely manner or for some reason it is not accepted by the designated post office
(b) Where appeal rights are currently exhausted for someone’s case. After 21 days they lose all support and then experience a period of at the least 6 months and often several years without any support while attempting to gather more evidence, seek legal representation and put together a fresh claim
(c) Where a person is granted leave to remain and has 28 days to leave NASS accommodation, but a NASS 35 has not been issued it has not been possible to process NI numbers, benefits and housing applications within this time.
2. A recent survey of members of the welcome centre (unpublished information) shows that 11% of membership was destitute when they first came to the welcome centre (at any time in the past six years). Half of these have since been successful in putting forward a fresh claim. A further 15% of these are currently in receipt of Section 4 support and the remaining 35% are still in the process of assembling a fresh claim. Our records do not show members who were in the process of claiming asylum when they first attended, but who were subsequently refused, and went through a period of destitution before being granted asylum following a fresh claim.
An individual who is attempting to gather evidence for a fresh claim should be entitled to support while they are doing this. It can take many months, depending on the situation in the country of origin and for the individual, and support is necessary during the process. The number of people who are successful at a second application indicates the importance of enabling this process.
3. In the case of several countries(eg Zimbabwe, Iran, Somalia, Eritrea), there are currently no enforced returns taking place, as diplomatic relations are severed, or travel documents are not available or it is recognised that there is no safe route of return. Indeed this is recognised insofar as there is no AVR available for nationals of Eritrea, Iran, Somalia or Palestine. Some of our members from these countries have been in the limbo of destitution for several years. In these cases in particular the policy of enforced destitution is wholly unacceptable. Many of these are young people, often highly skilled, and all are willing and keen to work, to contribute to the UK economy. Acute loss of self-esteem and frustration and anxiety is experienced by people in this situation. There is a toll on local services from the physical and mental health issues that arise.
Local authorities should not be prohibited from providing services to ARE asylum seekers who have become destitute
4. We have nine members of BRR from Iran alone who have been refused asylum and who have no accommodation or support. Each one of these is reporting regularly to the UKBA in Bristol, and is attempting to gather evidence to submit a fresh claim. It is notoriously difficult to gather further evidence from the countries in question, and it is even more difficult to attempt this while basic human needs for food and shelter are not being met.
The Home Office should establish whether or not any embassy is able to issue travel documents before insisting on this precondition for receipt of support
For nationals of countries where there are no arrangements for return in place, either voluntarily or enforced, on-going support should be provided.
5. The refusal of permission to work, even for those who cannot be returned, is further enervating and humiliating. It also does not make economic sense. The cost to local homelessness services and to the health service is considerable, whereas ability to work to support themselves and improve their capacity to submit a fresh claim (as all are entitled to do) is greatly reduced. It would also be less costly to the taxpayer/treasury if those on Section 4 were instead given permission to work.
Permission should be given for long term destitute and non-returnable asylum seekers to work, or Section 95 or 4 should be provided while an individual is gathering evidence for a fresh claim without the requirement to state the intention to return to the country of origin voluntarily.
5. The prevalence of refused asylum seekers who are tortured upon return to their country of origin and how the UK Government can monitor this.
We are extremely concerned at the lack of monitoring of enforced returnees.
Examples:
1. One older respected member of BRR was removed to the Gambia last year. He had sought asylum following an attempted coup in which his brothers were involved. One brother was executed before he left Gambia. Another brother has been executed since his return. To our knowledge, when K was returned, he was given no papers whatever, neither passport nor temporary travel document. The government was however alerted and given all the flight and passenger details. K was arrested, held and interrogated all night. He was released but continues to feel extremely vulnerable.
K was also returned without his life-preserving medication for a thyroid condition. One BRR volunteer managed to establish contact with an AID agency in Gambia and arrange for supplies for the medication to be provided to K. (Text messages are retained in evidence). We can confidently say that K’s life would have been endangered by this lack of attention to his medical condition had it not been for the support network which he had managed to establish in Bristol.
2. Several younger returnees to Afghanistan remain in contact with staff and volunteers at BRR and have clearly been in extremely difficult and dangerous situations
6. Whether the UKBA or third sector organisations should be able to highlight concerns regarding legal practitioners to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.
During the past 12 months we have been aware of a practice of one of the LSC contract holders at IRCs, which has effectively denied individuals their legal entitlement to avert removal. The decision whether or not to take on an individual’s case has been delivered to the person concerned so close to their impending removal that they have no opportunity to seek help from elsewhere. It would be helpful to know that concerns such as these, put forward on behalf of our service users, would be received by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority
7. The impact of long delays in processing applications and re-traumatising of individuals through the asylum process
We are concerned that the length and manner of the asylum process itself re-traumatises individuals seeking safety. This occurs at various points including:
- — Early screening as mentioned in 1. above.
- — Reporting at the police station, and the observed behaviour of UKBA staff at the counter, who rarely smile and who are heard to speak with contempt and impatience to people who are attempting to comply with required procedures.
- — Fear of detention, especially for those who have been victims of torture in their country of origin, which is present for the great majority of asylum applicants each time they report at the police station/UKBA.
- — The procedure of eviction from NASS accommodation within 21 or 28 days of a decision being made (either negative or positive respectively) as in 4. above.
Examples of delays and the impact on individuals
1. A BRR member from Sri Lanka has been waiting nearly three years for his substantive interview. He now volunteers in six charities. He initially had a private solicitor in London, who sent repeated letters to the Home Office that went unanswered. The case owner twice however had requested a psychiatric report. This was supplied by a Tamil doctor and subsequently by an English one who confirmed the diagnosis. Two years ago, the solicitor called the HO case owner, who explained “your client’s file is in the pending pile and I don’t know when it will come up in front of me”. The solicitor told the client to be patient. He transferred to a local Legal Aid solicitor, who also wrote several letters without reply. Finally she requested a reply by the end of March or she would initiate a Judicial Review. The Home Office replied that an interview appointment would be given within 8 weeks. This was five weeks ago.
2. One member from Sudan came by lorry to UK in January 2011. He does not know where he was taken for his screening interview, but he gave the interview within 3 days. He was dispersed to Bristol and his substantive interview was held 5 months later in Cardiff. 15 days later his case was refused (on the grounds that he could not prove that he had suffered and also that he had passed through Greece and France but not applied for asylum there). He appealed. It was then 10 months before he was given a decision. During this time he became extremely depressed and attempted suicide by jumping from a bridge. Finally he heard in March 2013 that his appeal had succeeded. He is facing the settlement process following a severely destabilising period of uncertainty, which will take time to recover from. During this period however, if he fails to attend any requirement of the Job Centre in relation to his benefits and job search (which happens very easily for people who have not yet learnt English), he will lose his benefits. This has already happened.
Recommendation: that due regard is given to the state of mind of those seeking sanctuary outside their homeland, both in the development of policy and in its application, as a matter of priority.
Summary of Recommendations
1. Screening interviews
(i) Bearing in mind the points given above, discrepancies between the screening interview and substantive interview should not at once be taken to mean that the application is “not credible”.
(ii) All interviews should be audio-recorded and a copy given to the applicant
(iii) In the interests of fairness and sensitivity towards the individual, it should be possible for an applicant to have someone with them at the screening interview as an independent witness to the process, where such a person is available.
(iv) Access to doctors and health care should be given priority in detention centres at all times, in particular at the screening stage
3. Asylum support
(i) Support should be provided at levels equivalent to income support to enable asylum seekers to live in a healthy lifestyle, with access to basic resources to meet their physical, mental, emotional and social needs.
(ii) Alongside adequate NASS support access to English classes should be possible for asylum seekers from dispersal until their claim is determined.
(iii) Support should be provided in cash at Section 95 and Section 4 stages, instead of the restrictive and humiliating voucher form.
(iv) Children should be supported as a matter of priority and urgency to enable them to access the same facilities as their peers.
4. Destitution
(i) An individual who is attempting to gather evidence for a fresh claim should be entitled to support while they are doing this. It can take many months, depending on the situation in the country of origin and for the individual, and support is necessary during the process. The number of people who are successful at a second application indicates the importance of enabling this process.
(ii) Local authorities should not be prohibited from providing services to ARE asylum seekers who have become destitute.
(iii) Permission should be given for long term destitute and non-returnable asylum seekers to work, or Section 95 or 4 should be provided while an individual is gathering evidence for a fresh claim without the requirement to state the intention to return to the country of origin voluntarily.
(iv) The Home Office should establish whether or not any embassy is able to issue travel documents before insisting on this precondition for receipt of support.
(v) For nationals of countries where there are no arrangements for return in place, either voluntarily or enforced, on-going support should be provided.
5. Monitoring of returnees
The Home Office should monitor the experience of returnees for up to 6 months in order to inform future policy in a responsible manner.
6. Highlighting concerns about legal representatives to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority
It would be helpful to know that concerns about legal practitioners, put forward on behalf of our service users, will be received and considered by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.
2. and 7. Impact of delays and re-traumatising of individuals through the asylum process
(i) Regard must be given to the state of mind of those seeking sanctuary outside their homeland, both in the development of policy and in its application, as a matter of priority. Home office concern to limit the number of total asylum applications and also to limit the number which are successful should be balanced by clear and equally firmly stated commitment to treat people who escape persecution to seek sanctuary elsewhere are treated with respect and dignity, and are supported to find the safety they need.
(ii) In particular the guidelines advising against detention of individuals who have suffered torture should be affirmed and adhered to.
Caroline Beatty
Manager
Bristol Refugee Rights
April 2013