Home Affairs Committee

Main points in Submission:

1. There are insufficient safeguards in the screening process to prevent people being incorrectly assigned to DFT.

2. To assign to detention those who seek protection, having experienced extremely distressing circumstances, is inhumane.

3. Officials and judges routinely discount not only the personal evidence of claimants, but also the professional evidence of doctors with experience of assessing torture and trauma, and the professional evidence of clergy.

4. A pervasive and adversarial culture of disbelief impacts on decision-making particularly in cases concerning Christian converts, culture, women, sexual orientation.

5. Inadequacies in interpretation contribute to poor decisions.

6. The lack of up-to-date information can be a direct cause of refusal and subsequent appeals. Country of Origin Information is frequently insufficient.

7. Without early representation by a good lawyer, the claimant is at a severe disadvantage in presenting their case. Yet this has become increasingly difficult with the erosion of legal aid and advice for those seeking asylum.

8. Young people who receive Discretionary Leave to remain are seriously disadvantaged in that they are unable to take up a place at university or access funding for nursing courses. We believe this needs to be investigated as a possible abuse of the human right “not to be denied an education”.

9. The 5 year review system is a cause of major anxiety and prejudicial to marital and family stability.

10. We are critical of section 4 support for stated reasons.

11. We find unacceptable the high incidence of destitution among those who are unable to return to their country of origin.

10. We find the use of administrative detention unacceptable in terms of human and financial costs.

11. The recent hardening of political rhetoric is exaggerating the issue of immigration in a disproportionate way, fuelling xenophobia.

12. Limited research shows that people in need of protection are being returned to situations that are unsafe.

13. We remain to be convinced that there are no breaches of confidentiality on arrival at Country of Origin.

Recommendations:

1. We urge the government to take steps to deal with the pervasive and adversarial “culture of disbelief” by encouraging and fostering relationships of mutual understanding and respect. This would lead to better decision-making.

2. We recommend better “structured communication” in advance of the first asylum interviews about the nature of the claims, the supporting evidence and witness statements as being likely to give rise to better decisions.

3. The UKBA or NGOs should be able to raise concerns regarding legal practitioners with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.

4. The UK Government should ensure home fees and student finance are available for young people with Discretionary Leave to Remain.

5. We would urge upon the government a duty of care to those who are destitute in consequence of an inability to return to their country of origin once their appeals are exhausted.

6. We recommend that the Home Office acknowledge and respond to the financial strain on charitable groups and local authorities as they struggle to address the needs of destitute asylum seekers.

7. We recommend in the light of human and financial costs that the practise of administrative detention should cease and alternatives be found.

8. We argue that, in the use of political rhetoric, immigrants should not be stigmatised and refugees and asylum-seekers should be distinguished from economic migrants.

Submission

1. Introduction.

The Churches Refugee Network, an associate group of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, aims to provide a collective ecumenical voice in the UK on issues concerning refugees and asylum seekers. It supports churches and NGOs in caring for the needs of refugees through accompaniment, practical help, nurturing social interaction and integration, awareness raising and advocacy. The Steering Group brings together a wide range of expertise with particular concerns both for the quality of decision-making and for those who are detained under the immigration rules or who are left destitute in the UK.

Our work is grounded in the belief that refugees should be treated as human beings who are capable of living a more fully human life and we reject all that would deny such people their humanity, irrespective of their citizenship status. We are deeply concerned at the irresponsible way in which recent political rhetoric has exacerbated debates on immigration in general, and refugees in particular.

2. Decision-making.

2.1 The quality of initial decision-making.

It is our view that the screening process is shaped to facilitate the refusal of the vast majority of claims and to do so as rapidly as possible. Referral to DFT is made following an interview in a public area, lacking in privacy and often noisy, where officers use a standard questionnaire to record information about the applicant. Discretion is allowed to individual officers in weighing this basic information.

2.2 We submit that there are insufficient safeguards to prevent people being incorrectly allocated to DFT in the first place:

• — There is too great a risk of the survivors of torture or trafficking being placed in the DFT221. “Misrecognition of refugees due to the inappropriate use of accelerated procedures involves the risk of returning the very people who have the right to protection from further persecution” 222.
• — Pregnant women: The Yarlswood Befrienders (YWB), the local visiting group, reports223 cases of pregnant women being inappropriately referred to immigration detention:
• — A DFT case was held with her husband for seven months, suffering from severe morning sickness and culturally inappropriate food. Her first removal was cancelled for failure to scan after history of ectopic pregnancy. Her second removal was cancelled for mental health reasons.
• — A Chinese woman was detained for four months when 3 months’ pregnant. She resisted removal and was eventually sent to Ireland where she was released.
• — People who present with acute psychosis: reception immigration officers do not have in-house psychiatric assessment skills. Medical Justice, usually the NGO to assess, is increasingly overburdened, so independent assessment waiting times lengthen.
• — Age disputed cases where the applicant’s appearance does not strongly suggest that he/she is over 18. Age assessments are not formally applied on entry; often the person’s claimed age is disbelieved. The so-called ‘Merton’ Local Authorities’ age assessments are often disputed later with the claim being eventually upheld by AIT Tribunals.

2.3 The published aim of the Home Office in 2010 was to decide a claim within three days; if refused, the claimant has then two working days to launch an appeal which must be heard in eleven days. The person is kept in detention throughout and Legal Aid helps with the cost of legal advice for people who cannot afford it. But it is subject to the ‘merits test’—the assessment as to whether there is a reasonable chance of winning the case and whether it would be worth the time and money needed to win. A roster lawyer is usually appointed, but withdraws in most cases from appeal representation since the high refusal rate of DFT (98–99%) means none pass the merits test of the Legal Aid Commission. The person is thus left unrepresented. But it is quite clear that these targets are unrealistic. In 2011, people waited in detention for an average of 11 days before they were interviewed and an average of 13 days before a decision was made on their claim. As, in the majority of cases, the Border Agency did not record the reasons for delay, it was not possible for the Independent Examiner to determine them224. And the absence of such information made it impossible for the UKBA to demonstrate that it had the circumstances of individual applicants at heart. It took longer than three months to remove 38% of those detainees surveyed by the Independent Examiner, and one person was removed after three hundred and fifty-five days.

2.4 There has been substantial and informed criticism of UKBA’s DFT assignment practices for lack of reasoned and open criteria. ILPA reports that 23% of DFT cases eventually are granted status; one is led to conclude that initial criteria applied on arrival are biased towards system-serving, not case oriented, hence dysfunctional and `superficial.225

2.5 We endorse the strong criticism of the policy by the UN. “Asylum-seekers who come to the UK have often experienced extremely distressing circumstances. To be led off to a detention centre-sometimes in handcuffs- as soon as they arrive, is a far from humane way of being treated for persons who did nothing else than ask to be protected. There is a presumption by UKBA that most asylum claims can be decided quickly, but in UNHCR’s view, the process of determining whether someone has a well-founded fear of persecution is not only very complex but an extremely important procedure”226.

2.2 The assessment of credibility.

2.2.1 We are disturbed by the frequency with which we learn that case-owners, tribunals and immigration judges have discounted the professional evidence of doctors who have experience of assessing torture and trauma as well as the evidence of the claimants themselves. Official refusal to believe such testimony and the supporting evidence compounds the suffering of those who have already suffered grievously and stains the reputation of the United Kingdom. Detailed reports on this have been submitted by medical professionals.

2.2.2 Decisions at the stage of the screening interview or the subsequent asylum interview often have to be based on little more than a claimant’s story and, in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, decision-makers have to make up their minds as to whether or not this account is credible. To be deemed credible, asylum applicants “need to present a coherent, consistent and prompt account of their claim”227. There is a common assumption that experiences of severe violence will be so important that they will be etched clearly long-term in a person’s memory. If applicants change their account of such experiences it is taken to be a fabrication. But this is challenged by the scientific evidence228 which points to the danger of concluding that asylum seekers are fabricating their histories solely on the basis of discrepancies between interviews. Discrepancies are common in people with high levels of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and these increase with the length of time between interviews. Inconsistencies should not be relied on as indicating a lack of credibility.

2.2.3 Assessment requires specialist experience yet the judgment as to whether or not to apply for a medico-legal report is usually made by people who are not professionally qualified in this area and in reality independent reports are rarely requested.229. Yet a failure to identify mental health difficulties impacts on the asylum interview.

2.2.4 More often than not, credibility is the decisive element in asylum cases. If an asylum and/or human rights claim is certified as “clearly unfounded” under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the applicant cannot appeal whilst in the United Kingdom.

2.2.5 The claim of an applicant who converts to Christianity in the UK is seldom believed. Such applicants are invariably assumed to be manipulative, despite the fact that many are people who are believed by churches in the UK to be genuine in their faith. A lack of credence is given by adjudicators to the informed opinion of Christian clergy and an improper distinction is drawn in judicial findings between different church traditions. Inappropriate questions are asked of the applicants and customary attitudes are ingrained; such as the distinction between active proselytising and ‘mere’ faith practice; or between church leaders and ‘ordinary’ Christians; or between an ‘evangelical’ Christian who cannot be expected to conceal their beliefs and a member of a main-line church, who can.

2.2.6 Cultural matters are often a vital component of the claim of persecution. Yet these are often imperfectly understood by decision-makers, who will tend to uphold their own particular understanding230 sometimes in the teeth of strong evidence to support an applicant’s claims. A classic example is the case of Anselme Noumbiwa (H.O. Ref. No. N1126839), an asylum seeker from Cameroon who claimed that his tribe tried to force him by torture to become chief on the death of his father and to engage in animist practices rejected by his Catholic faith. Despite evidence to support his claim for asylum, including testimony given by a Mill Hill Missionary in Cameroon and a medico-legal report which stated that the scars on Noumbiwa’s body were “highly consistent with his account of maltreatment during his time at his father’s village,” it was decided that it was safe to send him back to Cameroon and he was forcibly removed from the UK. In this case, it appears as if the Home Office’s inability to recognise the importance and inexorability of chiefdom issues in a tribal culture overruled other considerations.

2.2.7 Women who are fleeing persecution often struggle to convince authorities that their claims for protection are credible.231 Despite the UK government commitment to ensuring gender-sensitivity232, the Independent Asylum Commission concludes that guide-lines on gender are inconsistently observed and implemented233. All too often, officials show scepticism in their failure to accept histories of rape and sexual abuse from women who are fleeing from conflict zones. Shame at having to recount such personal degradation to a stranger, particularly so if this is a man in uniform, cultural inhibitions and fear, are often ignored or misunderstood234.

A report by Asylum Aid235 shows that 87% of cases involving women were initially refused mostly because the UKBA did not believe the claim to be credible. Of these, 42% were overturned on appeal and this went up to 50% when including decisions made after the reconsideration of an initial appeal. It is instructive to set this total against the average for all asylum cases which stands at 28%.

2.2.8 Cases on sexual orientation offer further illustration. Compared with a 73% initial rejection rate for refugees in general in the UK, there is a 98–99% initial refusal rate for gay and lesbian applications236. Gay and lesbian applications are often refused because policy and case law are incorrectly applied237. Homosexual applicants have been sent back to their country of origin on the premise that if they are ‘discreet’ about their sexual orientation, they will not evoke persecution238 .

2.2.9 We endorse the urgent need to deal with this “culture of disbelief” as highlighted in a recent report by Asylum Aid239: “Poor decision-making persists because it is deeply rooted in a pervasive and profoundly adversarial ‘culture of disbelief’. We believe that a key to unpicking this regressive culture is to change the attitudes and then the approach of both UKBA officials and the legal representatives with whom they deal every day, by encouraging and fostering relationships of mutual understanding and respect.”

2.2.10 We endorse also the other findings of the report that better “structured communication” in advance of the first asylum interviews about the nature of the claims, the supporting evidence and witness statements would be likely to give rise to better decisions.

2.2.11 It is our experience that inadequacies in the interpreting services contribute to poor decision-making. ASL, the single contractor put into place by the Ministry of Justice now provides interpreting services for the whole of the Tribunal system. ASL has been the subject of endless failures, causing serious court delays and adjournments. There have been many instances of sending the wrong language speaker, inability to find rarer dialects or minority languages, failures to appear through bureaucratic errors or omissions. The aim of reducing public costs has not been met, and the system even months later continues to function well below par, with complaints from both judges and barristers.

2.3 Background information.

2.3.1 Case owners and Tribunal judges are often unable to make proportionate decisions because they are given insufficient information. The availability of Legal Aid affects the number of expert reports that may be funded to support a claim; this is particularly significant in the case of Country of Origin Information. The lack of up to date information can be a direct cause of refusal and subsequent appeals to the Tribunal.

2.3.2 Too often we have found that the Country of Origin Information and Guidance Notes, though much improved from some years ago, is out of date, partial or based on inaccurate information. Information is frequently obtained from embassies or large NGOs, who may not be sufficiently in touch with the situation ‘on the ground’ to convey the full picture; information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not always represented in the guidance.

2.3.3 We find that UKBA and AIT interpretations of Country of Origin information are often Eurocentric in their expectations of reasonable behaviour by police or intelligence agencies and fail to recognise the weight of localised, familial, gender or religious ties as determining risk upon internal relocation and integration.

2.4 Legal representation.

Without early representation by a good lawyer, the claimant is at a disadvantage in presenting their case. We are concerned about the erosion of the availability of Legal Aid and advice for those claiming asylum. While the changes to the Legal Aid system appeared to exclude asylum, in practice they have had a disastrous effect on the number of practising solicitors who were previously able to use their skill in giving pro bono help to people seeking asylum. This help was necessary because the permitted hours for legally-aided asylum work fall far short of the hours needed in many cases. Such cases are frequently complex: those who have experienced torture, rape or traumatic journeys need careful and sustained interviewing in order to relate horrific stories, frequently with difficulty of interpretation from their own language/dialect. Yet the fixed fee funding system penalises conscientious representation and encourages shoddy work; and this perverse incentive is exacerbated by the low quality threshold for legal aid work240.

We would support the recommendation by Asylum Aid241 that “Legal Aid should be ‘front-loaded’ so as to incentivise the submission of detailed witness statements and other evidence, before the first UKBA asylum interview.”

Without good legal representation the person seeking asylum is at a disadvantage in presenting their case. This has shown to be key to a successful bail hearing. In a recent survey242, 68 applicants had no lawyer to present their case, of these only 7 (10.3%) were granted bail. This compares with the success rate for those with legal representation of 48% (69 of 145). In addition, several cases were noted where lawyers were poorly prepared.

2.5 Highlighting concerns about legal practitioners.

It is our view that the UKBA or NGOs should be able to raise concerns regarding legal practitioners with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. The present situation where the onus is on the individual to complain is far from satisfactory for the following reasons:

• — the relationship between an individual and their adviser: a person may be unhappy with the service received but because they feel that their life is in the hands of their legal representative it may take them some time to become aware that they can make a complaint. By then their complaint may be out of the 6 month time frame and is disregarded.
• — there is a common understanding that complaints are processed by the Home Office and that to register a complaint may impact adversely on the complainant’s future prospects.
• — it is hard to gather evidence to make a complaint: individuals seldom keep a record of evidence over a period of time.
• — unregulated people who set themselves up as advisers or solicitors are generally given a low priority with the police fraud department; gathering evidence is also very hard.
• — if one of these people who set themselves up as advisers encourages an individual to lie in their application to the Home Office, it counts against the applicant and is likely to prejudice their ability to put in another application.

3. Lack of access to student finance and the possible overuse of Discretionary Leave to Remain

The changed Regulations [Education (Student Fees, Awards and Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2011] mean that young people who receive Discretionary Leave to Remain are seriously disadvantaged. They can no longer access student finance243. They have to wait several years—in uncertainty—before, if given Indefinite Leave to Remain, being able to take up the offer of a place at a university or access funding for nursing courses. Having encountered a disturbing number of young people in this position, we suspect that DLR is being used inappropriately to postpone a final decision on leave to remain. We believe this needs to be investigated as a possible abuse of the human right ‘not to be denied an education.

The UK Government should ensure that home fees and student finance are available for young people with Discretionary Leave to Remain. Refugee Support Network, along with other members of the Refugee Children’s Consortium244 is calling for an immediate reversal of the changes to the Regulations [Education (Student Fees, Awards and Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2011], so that young people with DLR can once again access home fees and student finance, at one of the most critical moments in their education progression.

4. The 5 year review system.

We find that the 5 year review system introduced in 2005 is destabilising for new citizens:

• — this state of suspended anxiety is particularly harmful for those who have suffered abuse in the past and who may have waited for years already before being given permission to integrate.
• — the strict timing requirements mean that you must submit an application for renewal in the month before expiry. If you send it in before, it is ignored. If you send it late you may be deemed an overstayer which reflects badly on the application to renew.
• — it is prejudicial to marital and family stability.
• — it has an adverse effect on school performance in children.

5. Destitution

The significant changes in asylum procedures since 2007 have been accompanied by an increase in destitution245. We endorse the finding of the Joint Committee on Human Rights246 that “the deliberate use of inhumane treatment against asylum seekers is unacceptable...The government’s treatment of asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers falls below the requirements of the common law of humanity and of international human rights law” and we strongly deprecate the fact that this has not yet been remedied.

5.1 When an applicant’s claim for asylum has been refused and their opportunities for appeal exhausted, they lose the right to accommodation and support 21 days later. If they can show that they are taking steps to leave the UK, they qualify for interim support under section 4 of the 1999 Act. Currently the living allowance is less than £5 a day (the level of section 95 support) and is delivered in the form of a plastic card which has to be exchanged for food in specified shops these shops may not be the cheapest and they may be some distance away from the applicant’s accommodation.

5.2 The asylum-seeker has to live in a cash-less economy:

• — unable to use public transport to see a legal adviser or to visit a hospital.
• — unable to buy phone cards which prevent crucial communication with lawyers, doctors, relatives or the statutory authorities.
• — and, because inadequate administration often means that the card is refused at the check-out till, often even unable to buy food.

5.3 The accommodation often isolates people in deprived and faraway neighbourhoods. We have witnessed a significant number of cases where being assigned S.4 support, especially following release from immigration detention, resulted in clinically verified serious depression due to isolation. We quote just two examples of many: In one case of a pregnant mother’s dispersal to the South Coast, a severely critical clinical report of a young woman who was a torture victim resulted in an ASA tribunal’s decision to insist that she return with her new born baby to the previous city of residence where she had social links. Such transfers are particularly harmful to pregnant mothers and young children247 In another case we ensured instant transfer to prevent an attempted suicide. In both cases, the person very rapidly resumed a better state of mental health due to better social interaction.

5.4 The measures are humiliating; they emphasise a degree of separation between the asylum seeker and mainstream society.

5.5 Qualification for section 4 support is not in itself a guarantee against destitution. A large number of applicants who seek the help of the Red Cross are destitute because of delays in dealing with their section 4 support pending consideration of further ‘fresh claim’ submissions.248

5.6 For those who cannot contemplate return to their country of origin, section 4 support is out of the question. This is only available for those who agree to voluntary return. Those who are unwilling or unable to return to their country of origin have no alternative but destitution. In the case of refugees whose applications for asylum have been refused, many come from places of conflict such as Afghanistan and Iraq; some fear that they will be subjected to personal violence; others who have no identity papers cannot be repatriated, since some of the countries to which they would be sent will not accept them on UK Government-provided papers. A survey carried out over one week by the Scottish Poverty Information Unit at Glasgow Caledonian University249 found one person who had been destitute for more than six years, eleven with dependent children, and five pregnant women. Around one in four had mental health problems.

5.7 The Children’s Society250 has identified an “alarming rise” in the number of destitute children and young people in desperate need of help. Many of these are at great risk from having nowhere to live and no support. The Society points out that if such children lack regular access to food, clothing, toiletries, medicine and a place to live this has a huge impact on their life and prospects. Although many of them have come into the UK legally, they have never been officially recognised and have in consequence no access to education or social housing. Some are forced into sex work in order to buy food.

5.8 The campaigns of Church Action on Poverty251 have brought together a coalition of around fifty organisations to protest against the government’s “inhumane and ineffective practices.” These concerns are echoed in reports over the last 6 years252 and evidence suggests that the need for support is increasing. Unable to meet basic needs for food, shelter or healthcare, destitute men, women and children are forced to rely on handouts supplied by friends, charities or churches. But food banks, dispensing of clothes, winter shelters can only meet the needs of a minority.

5.9 This extreme poverty gives rise to higher rates of physical and mental health problems than in the population at large. In order to survive, destitute men and women, who are not allowed to work, may have to engage in illegal, often exploitative, work or prostitution, or be forced to endure street homelessness.

It is our view that there is a need for government to accept that this is the situation people are going to get into if they are not able to return to their country of origin and we would urge upon them a duty of care to those who are in consequence destitute. We recommend as a minimum that the Home Office acknowledge and respond to the financial strain on charitable groups and local authorities as they struggle to address the needs of destitute asylum seekers.

5.10 Refugees who have been granted status are at risk of destitution during the transition period253. We are advised by advice agencies and charities of an increasing number of cases in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Oxford and London. There are two common causes:

• — administrative delays by the UK Border Agency, Jobcentre Plus and HM Revenue & Customs. Once a status decision is made refugees have 28 days to organise their lives before they are evicted from their accommodation. But the routine failure of the UKBA to provide national insurance numbers within this period is a direct cause of destitution. We urge that these delays, which are largely avoidable, should be addressed.
• — a recent major reduction in the provision of support for new refugees during the transition period.

6. Detention

We find the use of administrative detention unacceptable in terms of human and financial costs.

6.1 Human costs:

6.1.1 length of detention

We maintain that indefinite arbitrary immigration detention amounts to ‘inhumane and degrading treatment”. In the UK power to detain under Schedule 3 of Immigration Act 1971 ‘pending deportation’ is apparently unfettered and people who have committed no crime have been detained solely under administrative powers for several years. Although the courts have developed jurisprudence to limit the exercise of power254—detention must only be for the purpose of deportation, and it must only be for a reasonable period under the circumstances- the Prisons Inspectorate and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration report255 that they found “inconsistent adherence by case owners to the Hardial Singh principles that removal of detained people must occur within a ‘reasonable period’”. A recent survey of bail hearings256 found that account was not necessarily being taken of judicial guidance on the length of detention.

6.1.2 impact on physical and mental health

The practice of holding asylum seekers in custody, while they are awaiting decision on their claims or enforced removal from the UK after refusal, impacts adversely on their mental health. Detained asylum seekers have higher levels of depression, anxiety and PTSD than asylum seekers in the community257.

Studies258 in the UK confirm that administrative immigration detention causes significant harm to the physical and mental health of children and young people. They speak of “state sanctioned neglect” and argue that the practice should cease without delay. We entirely endorse this.

6.1.3 The UKBA’s Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (Chapter 55.3.120) sets out categories of people for whom detention is not appropriate: the elderly, pregnant women, those suffering from serious medical conditions, the mentally ill, torture survivors, people with serious disabilities and the victims of trafficking. Yet a recent report259 highlights the fact that victims of torture are being regularly detained. The government should see to it that this should cease.

6.1.4 Financial costs

It costs at least £110 a day or over £40,000 a year to keep one person in detention260. The annual costs of immigration detention approach £200 million261. At a time when Britain is facing stringent reductions in spending on the NHS, welfare and public services, the high costs of immigration detention with the outsourcing of the running of Immigration Removal centres to contract companies should be reviewed.

In the light of these human and financial costs, we recommend that administration detention cease and that alternatives be explored. The Jesuit Refugee Service in Europe published a report262 which presses the European Parliament for a strong presumption against the detention of asylum seekers to become enshrined in EU legislation. In encouraging constituents to explore alternatives to custody in line with Article 15(1) of the EU Returns Directive, it urges the governments of Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom to take seriously the recommendation that it is important to link alternatives to detention to larger systemic change.

7. Reporting in the Media.

Evidence was given by the CRN to the Leveson inquiry of the ways in which particularly (but not only) the tabloid media distort the true situation and seek to shock the public with ‘horror stories’ which then puts pressure onto politicians. The Times on 30 November 2012 printed a double-page spread of fictitious or exaggerated stories about migrants and asylum seekers which had been reported to Leveson. Concern about a high level of immigration into Britain as a result of European regulations and difficulty in reducing these numbers, has led to a shameful concentration on people seeking sanctuary who amount to only a small proportion of the total number of immigrants. The recent hardening of political rhetoric is exaggerating the issue in a wholly disproportionate way, feeding fallacious stereotypes and hostility and fuelling xenophobia.263. We would argue in the strongest terms against the use of immigrants, especially asylum-seekers and refugees, as pawns in political arguments.

8. Prevalence of refused asylum seekers who are tortured upon return.

8.1 The UK Border Agency (UKBA) has said that the UK’s asylum system delivers fair and high-quality decisions and that individuals determined to not need protection are returned to “a home country that has been found safe for them to live in”264.

But limited research by civil society organizations has found not only that individuals in need of protection often are deported, but that some of the countries they are returned to are far from safe. Unsafe Return, a report by Catherine Ramos of the UK-based NGO Justice First, documented what happened to 17 Justice First clients who were returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) between 2006 and 2011. Ramos found that two of the returnees had disappeared without a trace, nine had been in prisons where they experienced beatings, sexual abuse and inhumane conditions, and six had fled their homes and remained in hiding.

In February 2013, the High Court stopped the deportation to Sri Lanka of 65 people, mostly Tamils, and brought to public attention the cases of 15 who had previously been returned and tortured on arrival there, and who had subsequently escaped again to Britain.

8.2 The UK Government needs to accept that it is difficult to monitor the situation of people who are returned to their country of origin without placing them in greater danger by calling attention to their situation. We are aware of countries where deported people are allowed to land without arrest in their country of origin, but are then traced to their homes and arrested there more discreetly. The practice of chartering planes for deportation, or using normal service planes to deport people in bulk, inescapably draws attention to those being returned. In some countries the mere fact of having sought refuge abroad is taken as an indication of dishonour to the regime or at worst treason which then attracts imprisonment, torture or other mistreatment.

8.3 It is also unclear what documentation about a refoulee’s immigration or asylum history is passed to the receiving government; there have been past instances where asylum dossiers have been passed to immigration officials on arrival at Country of Origin. Whilst the UKBA insists this does not now happen, there is no record of what IS being handed over, and the feedback from some individually tracked refoulee cases leads us to fear that breaches of confidentiality do still occur.

We also wish to draw attention to the fact that the Human Rights record of the British Government over recent years does not bear examination. Limiting the rights to Judicial Review will impact severely upon people who have been mistreated or wrongly disbelieved at earlier stages in the asylum process and who have no redress.

The Churches Refugee Network

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013