Home Affairs Committee
I am Chairperson and de-facto director of Crossings, a small, cross-cultural music charity (charity number 1144577), run by volunteers, which works with people seeking asylum and refugees (www.crossings.org.uk). I set up Crossings in 2009 and since then, have got to know a number of people seeking asylum and have sheltered several people, for substantial periods, when they became destitute.
Unfortunately I have only just seen this consultation document and I have not have sufficient time to check my response with the Crossings Committee. I am therefore responding in my personal capacity, and in consultation with some people seeking asylum who I have got to know in Crossings, rather than in my official role as Chairperson Crossings.
Memorandum: Asylum response by Lucy Fairley and asylum seekers who wish to remain anonymous
Note—statements in quotation marks and italics are by Crossings members who are or were seeking asylum.
The process of claiming asylum
1. The effectiveness of the UK Border Agency screening process including the method of determining eligibility for the ‘Detained Fast Track’ procedure.
1.1 UKBA detained and attempted to send back an asylum seeker to his country of origin before his case was finalised. The asylum seeker’s lawyer had to write a Judicial Review and Quashing Order (which were successful). If I had not been on hand to inform the lawyer that the asylum seeker was detained (he had been staying at my house, so when he did not return home I called the police who told me where he was) he would have lost invaluable time to challenge his travel order, as he was taken on a Thursday night, his phone was taken away from him and he was not allowed to make any calls overnight while in the police cell. He only got his phone back once he was in detention in Scotland later on the Friday.
1.2 ‘I had many problems with interpreters, both at lawyers and at court. It made problems that led to refusal’.
ALS were unable to find an appropriate interpreter for this asylum seeker’s language and only informed the court of this on the day, so his court hearing had to be adjourned. A witness had come from London and a barrister from Manchester. This was an expensive mistake.
1.3 This asylum seeker (and others too) had problems with inadequate interpreters which led to major problems in their cases.
Recommendations: investigate the prevalent ‘culture of refusal’ within The Home Office and the Judiciary and instances of law-breaking by the Home Office. Terminate ALS’s contract as soon as possible and return the responsibility of obtaining interpreters to the courts. Ensure all interpreters have not only the correct language but dialect (in some parts of the world different dialects are like foreign languages).
2. The treatment of applicants—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.
2.1 I have heard of some screening interviews which were undertaken by officials who were unsympathetic to victims of torture and to women, had a hostile manner, asked unclear questions so the asylum seekers did not know how to answer and did not give them the space to tell their stories.
I know of one case (I listened to and transcribed relevant parts of the CDs) where the typist made a crucially important mistake in a date, the interviewing officer continuously looked at his computer rather than listening to the interpreter, and compounded the mistake, utterly confusing the asylum seeker by continually questioning him about this erroneous date. The interviewer also did not allow the asylum seeker to tell his story but kept intruding with questions unrelated to the asylum seeker’s responses. This particular asylum seeker was a victim of torture, but in this hostile context it would have been impossible for him to disclose this fact. The interview also lasted for close to four hours, by which time the asylum seeker was unable to answer questions coherently. These issues led to major subsequent problems in credibility for the asylum seeker. In a subsequent court hearing, a judge disregarded the asylum seeker’s ‘Freedom from Torture’ report as he said it was written by a ‘mere counsellor’.
2.2 ‘Interviews constantly make you relive your trauma.’ ...’unpleasant attitudes—it was so difficult to answer—traumatised. Interviewers don’t understand trauma’s effects.’
2.3 ‘I had my son of 14 with me at my screening interview. He was only a child. They threatened us both with jail if we didn’t return.’
Recommendation: commission Freedom from Torture to give training in understanding and dealing with trauma to all Home Office interviewing officers, barristers and judges.
3. Whether the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements.
3.1 Failed’ asylum seekers do not get transport costs repaid when signing on. Some (but not all) are treated callously:
‘My father is 76; he has chest and heart problems and he had a stroke two years ago. The Home Office sent him several threatening letters, with his photo, a statement that he was liable to be detained and a possible fine of £ 5,000. I wrote to them asking them not to send them any more letters like this and asking for a postponement of his signing on till his health improved, and I enclosed a letter from his doctor and from the hospital. They sent back another letter the same as the last one. It made him so ill—he could not breathe. his blood pressure went up and shingles started—that I had to take him to hospital again. They still want to send him back although he has no accomodation, no friends, no right to medical help for six months if he is returned. The Home Office say they know about this law but it’s his choice to come to the UK.’
‘They tried to force me to go back and said if I did not sign the documents for myself and for my parents, they would put me in jail for two years and send my parents back and asked me if I want to leave them without any support. When I panicked and tried to breathe into folded hands to help myself they shouted :”Take your hands of your mouth!!” also they said “You have no right for water.’ when I asked for a glass of water. When i asked to coll for an ambulance they said i will pay for a false call.’
‘When I had had an operation and the sick note had finished but I was still not feeling well, I asked them to pay for my transport costs or let me sign on once a month. They refused and said it was my fault. I ashed ‘why’ and he said, ‘for coming here’.
‘Why did I need to go every week? I did not have any benefit or money and the ticket cost me £ 4.20.’ (Note: this person was destitute about 6 months ago; the fare is now £ 4.40).
3.2 ‘When you are on Section 4 you are only directed to a certain shop. But people from some religious backgrounds can’t eat certain foods from that shop: it makes it very difficult to eat properly.’
‘I was sent to Thornaby. It was difficult, as I had no access to college, to my doctor, my therapist, my friends, the gardening project and Crossings and I had no internet. It was very difficult and I was very lonely and depressed.’
Recommendations: anti-racist training for officers at signing-on venues, and repayment of transport costs for all people seeking asylum (including people deemed to have ‘failed’) or else monthly signing-on while they are in the UK. Enabling people, wherever possible, to stay in the same location so their lives are not completely disrupted. Allow asylum seekers to work and pay their way.
4. The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.
4.1 ‘I needed to flee my country—they want to kill me. We did not have any other option—if we stay we die. We ask for humanity. I don’t feel human when I am destitute. I don’t like to ask for help but I am not allowed to work. I saw a lady at Morrison’s with a trolley full of food for a dog. I am human and I need help. I am next to you.’
4.2 ‘You need to eat and sleep. Destitution sends people out of their minds—it affects them psychologically and physically. It can lead to crime, as people have to steal food to survive. Local people are afraid that destitute people will be violent as they look less than human—we lose all dignity. They get sick so the NHS has to treat them—this is costly. Why not offer accommodation in the first place?’
4.3 ‘You don’t know where to sleep or what would happen tomorrow. It makes me feel like suicide if you can’t do anything. Every door is locked.’
4.4 ‘When I was destitute nobody cared about me. I felt something was broken inside me.’
4.5 ‘When I was destitute I worked as a cleaner, cleaning toilets to survive and get food. I gave false details to get the job, at the time I felt like I had no choice. I was caught by the police. Now although I have a right to remain, I have a criminal record. My CRB has ‘Fraud’ written on it. This makes it difficult to get a job.
Being destitute was also dangerous: I went with a man who I met because I had nowhere to live and was hungry. He could have been a murderer’.
Recommendations: allow asylum seekers to work and provide them with accommodation and the same subsidy (eg £ 36.62 pw for single person over 18 years of age) as for those whose cases are in progress, while they are in the UK.
5. Whether the UKBA or third sector organisations should be able to highlight concerns regarding legal practitioners to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.
5.1 I received a resounding ‘yes’ from those I consulted.
5.2 ‘It’s just business. The lawyer goes to court, doesn’t do any work, when refused say ‘sorry, can’t help further’. You change solicitor and start the same process again. If they paid lawyers more, then they could do their job properly.’
5.3 ‘...(named law firm) phoned me two hours before my hearing. They said, ‘we can’t go with you to the court’. I went by myself and was refused.’
5.4 ‘They take a case. They don’t call back or update you. There should be a system for us to report these people.’
5.5 ‘When I first came here lawyers would take money—they didn’t care and they didn’t represent me properly. The Home Office is happy with bad lawyers as more people get sent back.’
5.5 I have seen some examples of found, however, a small number of outstanding lawyers who, despite the inadequate payments, go well beyond the call of duty to support their clients.
Recommendations: set up a system where concerns about inadequate lawyers can be highlighted. Also pay lawyers more for immigration work—this will mean better decisions in the first place and will save a great deal of money.
6. Whether the media is balanced in their reporting of asylum issues.
6.1 Again, a resounding ‘no’.
6.2 ‘They only show mistakes, as when people are working illegally—they don’t explain why people have to—as they have no money.’
6.3 ‘They are not helping and they are only talking about bad things. Anything good they doesn’t publish. Why not publish good stories—such as volunteering? We could be seen as role models. Only the Guardian is fair. The local media should report on more good things’. The bad stories have an effect on the community: parents read the papers and tell their children. Teachers need to challenge racist attitudes more.’
6.4 One member said the effect of negative media coverage was that people, even those in authority, had become more racist: ‘we where both being attacked by a lady that had her kids in the school and she told me to move my child out of the school oh I will have no choice, when I told the school, they advised me to bring her in later and collect her earlier and that they would keep her in at school break time’.
6.5 Here is an example of hysteria whipped up by the media, conflating seeking asylum with ‘divisive’ immigration, thereby seeking to deny that asylum seekers have a basic right to sanctuary. The Daily Mail (13/4/13) had a headline, ‘DIANA FUND IS HIJACKED BY THE LEFT’. It writes about this as a ‘pro-immigration propaganda campaign’...’Directors of the charity set up a secretive project’ and on page 6 a sub-heading ‘IT’S OUTRAGEOUS! DIANA NEVER EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN MIGRATION, SAYS HER FRIEND ROSA’...’she was always extremely careful never to get involved in anything remotely divisive’.....’another £ 24 million was raised from individual donations from a distressed public’...’ It says how much the fund has given to ‘79 different organisations working on behalf of immigrants and asylum seekers’ and it goes on to write that ‘Opinion polls in Britain have repeatedly shown the public’s desire for a sharp reduction in net migration’.
Recommendation: show leadership by not pandering to the lowest common denominator: perhaps a cross-party could brief the tabloids about some of the reasons why people have to flee from their homeland and encourage them to write, on the one hand, sympathetic stories about destitution and on the other, about the positive skills, contributions and revenue that refugees have given to the UK.
7. Post-decision outcome
7.1 When ‘Your Homes Newcastle’ was responsible for accommodation for asylum seekers, they gave invaluable support, particularly once a positive decision was made: they allowed them to stay in their accommodation until new accommodation was sorted, helped with the move and with renting equipment and furniture and helped with requests for grants for items. This level of support is not available to people from the currently contracted providers.
Recommendation: include ‘quality’ as well as ‘cost’ issues when preparing contract tenders.
APPENDICES
1. My (Lucy Fairley’s) experience with one lawyer in relation to an asylum seeker I was helping.
1.1 Lack of access to documents:
1.1.1 With X’s permission, I emailed the lawyer to ask for previous interviews and statements X had made to the Home Office and a dated refusal by the Home Office as an internationally acclaimed expert on taking testimonies had offered to take a statement from X while in detention, as his full story had never been fully told. The lawyer replied that she did not want this person to take a further statement and did not send the requested documents.
1.1.2 I emailed the lawyer again to ask for these papers and received this response, I am afraid I cannot send these documents as it will take a significant amount of time to do the same
1.1.3 I again phoned the lawyer, requesting this information, as a member of the House of Lords, to whom I had written about X’s case, had requested copies of statements and judgements. The lawyer replied that X’s previous lawyer at the same company had not scanned in these documents, and she certainly did not have the time to do so.
1.1.4 On the morning before a meeting scheduled between X and the lawyer, which I was due to attend, I emailed the lawyer, attaching a signed statement from X, again requesting the named papers. I offered to photocopy them myself at her office, if she could not spend the time doing so. When I mentioned this email at the meeting, the lawyer said she had not received it, then when I urged her to check, found it in her ‘trash’.
1.2 Carelessness, lack of attention to detail and lack of care
1.2.1 Given the fact that the lawyer had only met X once, and therefore might not be too familiar with his case, I had offered to meet her and help with the claim or to review it before she sent it off as he was in detention, but she refused my help. I could understand this if she had made herself conversant with his case, but in my opinion, she has not done so.
1.2.2 The lawyer did not put the main reason why he had to leave his country in his fresh claim, and also omitted to mention a letter which was crucial to the evidence.
1.2.3 In the Judicial Review the lawyer again did not give prominence to the main reason why X had to flee. She also omitted to send the previous Judge’s negative decision.
1.2.4 The lawyer emailed me the two sets of information I had repeatedly requested: the refusal and the full Home Office Bundle which contained the interviews and statements. However the whole fax was upside down, and the documents were jumbled and with duplicates.
2. Statement by a refugee about the experience of seeking asylum
‘I am writing this information based on my own personal experiences, I was technically stateless and i was living in extreme poverty. I am writing on the behalf of myself and all asylum seekers who are currently and have been in a similar situation,
I would like to point out that every asylum seeker case contains different variables, so I find it astonishing that the final decisions made by the home office and judicial system are Ironically the same. Secondly I would like to raise awareness that many asylum seekers are subjected to humiliating treatment.
Firstly being a stateless is very difficult to understand myself as a human being, secondly “Who am I”? Question arises by multiple. Even more when you become Destitute, then psychological turmoil within frame of doubt ness to live or die. Every single asylum seekers are going through very hard time of their life, it’s turning point of their life, it’s decision of live or die either live freely or suicidal.
Secondly, it’s a great humiliation to be handcuffed like a criminal and treated in an inhumane way. Asylum seekers are taken into detention centres while planning for deportation takes place in vary cunning way. For instance, an Asylum seeker can sign on a Friday and be taken into police custody on the same day. This is very clever planning, as the authorities know that there is no relevant help for an asylum seeker during the next two days as qualified professionals are unattainable.
Thirdly racism in Newcastle is quite prominent So many Asylums seekers (Including myself,) suffer tremendously from racist abuse both verbal an intangible through racial prejudice.
Fifthly, I do not wish to go into the experiences of failed asylum seekers with great detailing as you may find it appalling.’
Lucy Fairley
April 2013