Home Affairs Committee
Notes From Meeting With Some Local Voluntary Agencies In Stockton On Tees.
I am Suzanne Fletcher MBE, and active in the local voluntary sector. I have spoken to various voluntary agencies who have given me permission to give the following evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, but prefer not to be named.
1. Interpreting services
(a) Relevant interpreting is not provided in Self Evidence Interviews (SEFs) or courts in some circumstances.
At a SEF for an asylum seeker in Middlesbrough from Afghanistan that was held in Leeds, he was provided with an Iranian interpreter, which was no use at all, neither understanding the other’s dialect.
2 ½ months later exactly the same thing happened.
This was a rape victim who was very distressed. Another Iranian interpreter was provided the next time and UKBA were very rude to the client, leaving her very distressed.
The Rape Protection Unit in Sheffield got involved, but a 4th Iranian interpreter was provided. The court did not believe what the client said. Lots of matters of fact given in the interview, as recorded, had to be corrected by the solicitor she consequentially had to use.
(b) A court case
There was a case where an Afghanistan boy was in an age dispute. UKBA said that the boy was over 18—and asked an interpreter to give an opinion based on what had been said by Kent County Council. This case went to court in North Shields (the boy had moved to the NE by this time) 3 times, each time with a barrister. The first time the Home Office had not read up about the case so it was adjourned. The second and third time an Iranian interpreter was provided, who could not interpret the boy’s village language. The 4th time a Dari interpreter was sent to interpret for the boy, it was confirmed by an appropriate adult who understood the boy’s dialect that he did understand what was being said, and who then won his case. A huge cost to the public purse of having 4 sittings, a barrister having to appear 4 times, and 3 interpreters that could not do the job, as they had been wrongly allocated.
In each of the cases where the interpreter did not speak the relevant language—it had been made clear, by those supporting the asylum seeker, to UKBA exactly what dialect and language was needed to interpret for their client.
2. Support post positive decision
I have just heard that in the case of the boy above, he is now destitute. Whilst he has leave to remain in the country, he cannot sign on for work as he is only 16. Social Services are refusing to do anything to support till they have written confirmation of his status from the Home Office and are still waiting for this. He has no food, and will have to rely on charitable support.
3. Screening interviews
At these interviews asylum seekers are told to be brief, and details will be picked up later. However this leads to inconsistencies and gaps that are then used by UKBA to exploit to say the asylum seeker was not speaking the truth.
In addition, inconsistencies may emerge further into the process. The asylum seeker may account for discrepancies between the screening and substantive interviews by saying that he/she ‘didn’t feel well’ at the time of the interview. In such cases, UKBA have referred to the opportunity for interviewees to defer an interview by signalling any discomfort or illness they may be experiencing. Interviewees may have been asked if they were fit to continue, and replied ‘yes’, because they were fearful of jeopardising their case by responding negatively.
4. Solicitors
Some solicitors are not open with clients that appear to have a weak case, send the case off, and them blame the Home Office for not looking at it properly, and then offer to the client to take the case on for them. Not a good use of public money. Some solicitors will make a statement and do nothing till the Home Office decision.
5. Time limits
If an asylum seeker is refused leave to remain they are given 5 working days to appeal which is not enough. They can ask for the time limit to be extended, as long as they can provide a reason for the delay that is acceptable to the HO, but that is up to them to do, and causes extra stresses and worries.
I recommend that the above situations be taken into account in the committee’s recommendations. Particularly that there is an end to the huge waste of public money , as well as distress to asylum seekers in stressful situations, in the correct interpreter not being provided the first time they are asked for.
Suzanne Fletcher MBE
April 2013