Home Affairs Committee
Exec Summary
(i) In this submission, we argue that there are many ways in which the assessment of credibility within the decision making process is flawed, preventing those fleeing persecution from having their case heard fairly. We point out that UKBA fails to recognise the impact of the traumatic experiences on an asylum seekers’ ability to remember specific details and give an ordered account (this is particularly so for young people).
(ii) We argue that UKBA’s reliance on dates to assess the credibility of a claim is culturally inappropriate. We show how some of the other credibility questions that UKBA uses—about identity and kinship—cause unnecessary anxiety and distress for asylum applicants who are already traumatised. We also raise concerns about the sometimes obstructive and intimidating behaviour of Case-owners, and call for UKBA to establish an independent mechanism for anonymously identifying and flagging such behaviour.
(iii) We highlight the negative psychological and emotional impact of the 5 year review system, as well as its effect on family life and economic prospects.
(iv) We note that support levels for asylum applicants across the board are too low and have not kept pace with cost of living rises. This situation is exacerbated by poor administration, delays and bureaucracy, leading to some individuals and families being left for significant periods without support. This represents a failure on the part of UKBA to recognise the context in which most asylum seekers are living: that there is no safety net, no other source of income or alternative accommodation. Our testimonies (see appendix) powerfully illustrate how asylum seekers struggle to live on the support provided by UKBA, and the severe vulnerabilities and health risks associated with being forced into destitution.
1. Introduction
1.1 This submission has been developed by a group of representatives and stakeholders from across Blackburn who either have direct experience of asylum, or provide support to people who are in the process of claiming asylum. The group includes people at various stages in the asylum process and from a range of nationalities, a local councillor, two representatives from different departments within Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, and representatives from the Asylum and Refugee Community (ARC) Project, which provides advice and support to asylum seekers and refugees living locally and is delivered by the Methodist Circuit in partnership with the Children’s Society Young Refugee Programme. The group held two meetings to discuss the key issues of relevance to the Inquiry.
1.2 From 2000 onwards, destitute asylum seekers have been dispersed to Blackburn with Darwen by the United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA)—(formerly known as NASS, IND and BIA) and accommodated by the approved accommodation providers.
The numbers of asylum seekers being dispersed to Blackburn with Darwen has fluctuated over the last 13 years due to a variety of factors. The total number has been as high as 650 individuals (2005 to 2007); currently the figure is much lower, 250 individuals.
The figures for January 2013: Total number of asylum seekers in the Borough = 243;
Total number of single adults = 36; total number of family units = 64; total number of individuals in family units = 207; total section 4 singles = 11; total section 4 family units = 3 (family individuals = 8).
These figures relate to 26 different nationalities; 21 languages (first) other than English.
The Annual Population Survey estimates the local population at 138,000 in 2011, of whom approximately 10,000 (7.25%) were non-UK nationals. The population was down by 1,000 on 2004 levels. The number of non-UK nationals was up by 4,000.
In 2011 there were 7,496 school children educated in Blackburn with Darwen (35.24% of the total), whose first language was known or believed to be other than English.
1.3 We welcome the opportunity to give evidence to this Inquiry. We wish to raise issues relating to the assessment of credibility within the decision making process, the 5 year review system, the system of support to asylum seekers, and destitution.
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.
2.1 We believe there are many ways in which the assessment of credibility within the decision making process is flawed, preventing those fleeing persecution from having their case heard fairly. Beginning with the first asylum interview, the experience of applicants is coloured by whether they are proficient in the English language, or forced to use an interpreter. One lady found that her interpreter at initial interview was unable to translate her local dialect correctly and others have found their interpreter deliberately obstructive or misleading, only selectively feeding back certain information, which has a direct effect on how credible their account appears. A Lebanese lady reported that UKBA deliberately refused to take on board the fact that certain things get lost in translation, such as local idioms and colloquialisms. She said she was at risk because “Everybody knows everybody in my country,” and UKBA took these words literally, later refuting her claim, and arguing that this could not be true.
2.2 We also believe that UKBA fails to recognise the impact of the traumatic experiences that many asylum seekers go through prior to fleeing their own country, and on their journey to safety, on a their ability to remember specific details and give an ordered account. This causes ‘inconsistencies’ to creep in and if there are enough apparent inconsistencies in a single narrative, this is used as a basis for refusal. Representatives from ARC Project, who have worked with many unaccompanied young asylum seekers over the years, pointed out that young people in particular struggle to remember events in the past or put them in logical order, particularly if these occurred when they were in their young teens.
2.3 UKBA’s reliance on dates to assess the credibility of a claim is also inappropriate, firstly because of differences in the weight and importance given to dates in other cultures, and secondly because some people work by a different calendar, meaning that errors often creep in when working out dates. An Ethiopian man said: “When they asked me about a date I had to first think of when it happened, then convert it from the Ethiopian calendar. I didn’t want to make a mistake so I took my time, but then they accused me of making it up because I didn’t tell them immediately.”
2.4 We feel that some of the other credibility questions that UKBA commonly uses cause unnecessary anxiety and distress for asylum applicants. For example, several people have been accused of lying about their nationality (this is particularly common for asylum applicants from African countries). Applicants are forced to do a language test, which are expensive and delay the decision making process, only to find that their nationality is later confirmed. A Cameroonian lady spoke about how UKBA queried her relationship to her brother, claiming that they didn’t look alike so couldn’t be blood relatives. When she offered to take a DNA test to prove otherwise, she said that UKBA dropped that particular query and moved on to other questions. She spoke about the emotional impact of being accused of lying about something as fundamental as your identity and your kinship. Several people have experience of UKBA Case-owners claiming certain files have been lost if they realise they cannot find the evidence to prove a the applicant wrong. One lady reflected: “It’s a game they want you to lose at any cost.” Another member of the group said: “The way the plan is designed is to catch you out. They write the rules and they know the destination.” In light of this, we feel that throughout the decision making process, asylum applicants are all treated as guilty until proven innocent.
2.5 This raises the question of how accountable UKBA itself is. We have concerns that Case-owners often act on their own instincts. An advocate spoke about a Case-owner who appeared to have had taken against an applicant, and behaved rudely towards her from their first encounter. The asylum applicant felt the Case-owner’s plan was to destroy her case, and every encounter from that point onwards was negative. When the advocate spoke to the Case-owner directly, she was co-operative and behaved completely differently, only to be obstructive and intimidating again towards the client when the advocate was not present. One man reflected on how the burden of proof that you are obeying the system always falls on the shoulders of the asylum applicant, never on UKBA: “They force people into a corner. They claim you’re an illegal immigrant by saying your visa application has run out before you managed to apply for asylum. I tried to book an appointment 2 months before my visa ran out, but it’s difficult to prove you phoned to book an appointment.” Many asylum seekers are understandably anxious not to complain about their Case-owner or other UKBA employees. We recommend that UKBA looks to establish an independent mechanism for anonymously identifying and flagging up unprofessional Case-owners and mal-administration which can have a negative impact on appeal outcomes.
2.6 The issues highlighted above are exacerbated by lack of access to quality legal representation, particularly at the appeals stage. We feel that poor communication from the appeal court can prevent cases from being heard fairly. For example, the court often communicates only with an applicants’ solicitor and if a message isn’t diligently passed on the asylum applicant can miss the date of a hearing. Threatening and intimidating behaviour at the appeal court towards asylum applicants prevents them from explaining or giving their full story, and from responding to credibility questions. On top of this, we feel there’s a discrepancy between those who are educated/not educated, those whose first language is English/not English, in how successfully there are able to present their case at the appeal court, and the resultant appeal outcome.
3. The effectiveness of the 5 year review system introduced in 2005.
3.1 We feel that the 5 year review system introduced in 2005 amounts to the automatic route to integration being removed. After an often protracted period awaiting a positive decision from UKBA, those granted asylum still have an uncertain future here in the UK. Based on personal experiences of people within the group, we know this has a negative psychological and emotional impact, as well as a negative effect on family life and economic prospects.
3.2 Firstly, travel restrictions mean that in the case of serious illness or other family or friend events, people are not able to travel to meet with family in a safe third country. Being cut off and isolated from a family or a friend that means a lot to you or needs you can cause mental health problems. Being on a Humanitarian Protection travel document for instance means people are allowed to travel but with limitations: a good number of countries do not accept it; there is the cost of visas where it is accepted; and the cost of travel to London for the visa application where there is not representation of the Embassy in the region where the applicant lives. It costs £250, whereas the Refugee Status travel document costs around £70 only and allows you to travel anywhere in the Commonwealth. These differences in the cost seem arbitrary, and there is a need for more discretion and flexibility on this issue.
3.3 Children and young people can be excluded and forced to miss out on educational opportunities as a result of the 5 year review system and travel restrictions. For example, children miss out on educational trips abroad (because, for example, France doesn’t accept Humanitarian Protection status travel document or because when a family’s case is up for review, UKBA holds their documents for a protracted period). Refugees also have more limited access to student loans for higher education. Those with discretionary leave to remain may be unable to access a student loan and may even be classed as International Students at some universities. We feel strongly that this goes against the local culture in Blackburn of inclusion and social cohesion, and prevents people from being able to contribute to society and fully integrate.
4. Whether the system of support to asylum applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements.
4.1 We feel that support levels for asylum applicants across the board are too low and haven’t kept pace with cost of living rises. Beyond this, the main challenge with regard to support is how it is administered; with simple human error, delays and bureaucracy leading to some individuals and families being left for significant periods without the support to which they are entitled. We feel that this represents a failure to recognise the context in which most asylum seekers are living: that there is no safety net, no other source of income or alternative accommodation.
4.2 The UKBA information system is antiquated and doesn’t automatically update all records if an address or another detail is changed in one part of the system. This became apparent when Serco took over as the new provider of the asylum seeker housing contract, and delays in registering people’s ARC card at their new address meant they were unable to access their support. This caused distress for asylum seekers who tried to use their cards and found they wouldn’t swipe. The ARC (Asylum and Refugee Community) Project supported many individuals to apply for Emergency Support Tokens during this period. This was a planned transition, and we feel there should have been more warning, or the option for people to have been advanced their support in order to cover a period when they might be unable to access it. The ARC card often gets scratched or damaged and fails to swipe correctly. If the ARC card isn’t activated, travel tickets to go to a UKBA Reporting Centre (ie Dallas Court in Manchester) to have it sorted out are often not received. We also feel that administrative errors at UKBA can lead to unnecessary costs, for example causing people to have to travel to unnecessary appointments.
4.4 We are concerned that UKBA does not appear to have a deliberate policy of issuing letters explaining why they won’t give support, preventing this decision from being successfully challenged. This is particularly the case when an asylum applicant contacts them directly, rather than going through an advocate, and demonstrates that when an asylum seeker does not have access to representation they are treated poorly.
4.5 The specific things asylum seekers cannot afford when living on Section 95 support include mobile phone top up, travel tickets, and sufficient food for the week. People are often forced to choose between these and buying food and clothes. Lack of access to phone credit means people must rely on support projects where they can use a landline to keep in touch with solicitors, home office, GPs, pharmacy, and schools. We feel that a person’s ability to survive on the meagre support they receive depends entirely on how much awareness or access they have to other sources of support (eg clothing available from charitable projects, food parcels etc), which demonstrates that current support levels are so low they must be supplemented. In this context, those who are newly arrived or who have limited social networks are additionally vulnerable.
4.6 For families going through the asylum process, the low support rates mean their children are often excluded from educational activities, after school clubs, and sports activities because of the cost of taking part. This prevents talent from being developed and causes social exclusion.
4.5 We feel that the way in which Section 4 support is provided creates many unnecessary restrictions and makes asylum seekers additionally vulnerable. Despite Section 4 being designed as a short term means of support, many people are forced to live on it for a long time. The Azure card can only be used in certain types of supermarket, which restricts the type of food people can access. For example, they cannot access halal meat, or must pay inflated rates at mainstream supermarkets. The Azure card cannot be used to buy mobile top up or for travel, both of which are essential for keeping in touch with solicitors and attending appointments.
4.7 Again, the card is easily damaged and this can cause confusion and humiliation for the person using it. The Azure card makes people vulnerable, eg they are forced to survive by swapping use of their Azure card for cash, on often unfavourable terms. They may also be forced into the grey market and working illegally or open to sexual exploitation (this is particularly the case for women and young men who may get into inappropriate relationships in order to survive).
4.8 We endorse the recommendations of the recent Children’s Society Inquiry into asylum support (http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-lobbying/parliamentary-work/parliamentary-inquiry-asylum-support-children-an-1).
5. The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.
5.1 We strongly feel that if the decision making process were more reliable, and if more people felt the right decision was made first time, there would be far fewer people experiencing prolonged periods of destitution. Difficulties contacting UKBA and receiving a decision protract the situation, and without access to legal representation, asylum applicants can be unclear about what does and does not qualify as ‘new evidence’ to support their claim.
5.2 Individuals and families who are granted asylum often become vulnerable to destitution during the move on/transition period. Some are forced out of their accommodation and into homeless shelters, particularly if their 28 day move on period coincides with the festive season when housing offices dealing with applications for homeless accommodation are closed. We feel the 28 day transition period should be extended and greater flexibility should be shown when people are asked to leave their accommodation.
Appendix 1
Case Studies and testimonies
The case studies and testimonies gathered below provide additional context and evidence to support the points raised in the main submission.
Testimony 1
This testimony touches on a number of the issues mentioned above, including credibility criteria, access to support, and experience of destitution.
I am from Ethiopia and I’ve been in the UK for 6 years, 5 of which I have been destitute.
At my first appeal, my solicitor said he couldn’t represent me so I made my appeal myself. I had 7 days to complete it and submit it to the Judge. This was refused and I decided to make a High Court Appeal. During this time, UKBA pushed me out of my supported accommodation, which was wrong as my case was still ongoing and under consideration at the High Court. I sent them a fax of copies of my legal papers and although I should have qualified for Section 95 support, UKBA told me to apply for Section 4 support.
Because I was forced to move out of my accommodation and could not check my post regularly, I don’t know what the High Court Appeal outcome was. For a while I would go back to see if there was any post waiting for me but the house is no longer NASS accommodation, so I can’t go and check.
I have always tried to keep in touch with UKBA. At the end of 2009 they gave me a new form to fill in and confirmed I’d be treated as a ‘legacy case’. They sent me a letter 13 months later saying my application had been refused but they didn’t give me any reason why. I knew it was just a generic letter because it was just the same as many other people received.
I rang UKBA to ask for more information and they told me they couldn’t explain the reasons for my refusal because there is no Case-owner responsible for my case as it’s too old.
I tried to contact a solicitor who was recommended to me in Nottingham, to ask them to write an enquiry letter about my case. He would charge me £150, but I couldn’t afford to pay him. UKBA don’t take you seriously or treat you with any respect if you don’t have a lawyer. They don’t answer your letters.
I rang UKBA to tell them I had found fresh evidence through Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The information came out 3 months after my case was refused. UKBA claimed this wasn’t new evidence as it came out in 2008.
I asked for support in the meantime, but UKBA told me I have no right to access support. A lady at the UKBA office in Liverpool actually told me I’d have a better chance of accessing support if I had a child. I couldn’t believe she was actually suggesting I’d have a better chance if I settled down and had a family here in the UK. I have a wife back home, and I made a vow to her. I believe in vows and I don’t plan to start a relationship with anyone else. I’m not going to have a child just to stay in this country.
UKBA believed part of my story. They believed I was from the political party I told them I was part of, but because I was low down in the structure they said I couldn’t be at risk. They applied their own logic about how politics works, based on a democratic political system here in the UK. In Africa it’s completely different. They even said if I was a member of the party I said I was from, I would travel to the party office in London to attend meetings and because I don’t go there they say I can’t be a committed member. They forget how much it costs to travel to London. How can I do that?
I live with different friends, and they give me food. Some days I don’t eat. I have to move about and go to friends who will have me. I do odd jobs for them: tidy their gardens, sort the rubbish. They give me £5 here £10 there. They know they can’t pay me, just give me charity.
I’ve worn the same jacket for 3 years. I don’t have even the basics: shelter, clothing, food. I had a good job in Ethiopia. I lived above the average life-style. I don’t want to take benefits here. I just want a National Insurance Number so I can work to support myself and contribute.
I feel worn down, like nobody listens or cares about me. I made a difficult journey. I travelled across Libya and across the sea. I saw my friend die right there in front of me. Nobody does this unless they have to.
Testimony 2
This testimony touches on a number of the issues highlighted in the main submission, including credibility criteria, access to support, destitution and its impact on health.
I am from Eritrea. I came to UK in July 2005 and I claimed asylum on the same day. I am here alone. I’m a failed asylum seeker, living under Section 4 support. I used to live in Yorkshire, but now I live in the North West.
UKBA didn’t believe what I said. They believed I was a soldier in my country, but because I showed them a card confirming I had done 18 months service in the army, they claimed I was demobilised. Everybody in Eritrea is given one of these cards but it doesn’t mean you are free. Military service is demanded by the regime in my country and even a hint of disloyalty is severely punished. I had evidence showing that the Eritrean Government fined my parents a lot of money for me leaving the army (I had the receipt), which shows that I was not free. They didn’t give me an opportunity to explain. They claimed I was just here to improve my life.
I have tried to make them change their minds. I made a fresh claim in 2008 and this went to court in 2009. All that the Court and Home Office did was repeat what they said about me in 2005. I had proof that my parents had had to pay a large fine to the Eritrean government. They treated this with contempt and I don’t know where this important evidence is now.
Not being believed has made me feel very, very bad. It makes me broken hearted.
I lived for 8 months without support in 2006 because my application was refused.
I went to a charity every day to eat breakfast and dinner. I used to sleep with different friends; one week with one friend another week with other friend, sleeping on the floor. I remember some charity organisation at that time gave support to failed asylum seeker in Sheffield every week (about £20 pounds). Being destitute caused me a lot of distress. It made me ill, sick and gave me pain. It made me develop Diabetes.
Now I am living on the Azure card. I have £35 a week. I’ve been living on this for 7 years and it’s a very hard life without cash.
Oh, it’s very hard to explain how I feel about the support I get from the Home Office. £35 is a very small amount for an adult person, especially for me because I’ve been diabetic since 2006. I need to buy healthy food but this is such a small amount of money. I get my clothes from charity organisations.
I have to use the money carefully, a small amount at a time. It is not enough.
There are a lot of problems at my house. When I speak to the housing provider to fix them they take weeks or up to month, even for easy things. In the house where I live now, I am on Section 4 support and every time they mix us with new asylum seekers on NASS Support. I am here waiting for 4 years in the same house, and the new asylum seekers come into the house and get their papers and leave within a month. This means a lot of people coming and going, and from time to time this makes me feel banished. It’s not only for me that I say this, but for every one where they mix new people with old cases.
It’s a really difficult life. The only way I see all this improving is if I get freedom and can look after myself.
Testimony 3
This testimony shows how poor interpretation can have a negative effect on a persons’ claim, and demonstrates how having no access to support puts refused asylum seekers in very vulnerable positions.
I’m from Eritrea and I claimed asylum in the UK in 2008. I was sent straight to detention, then dispersed to Liverpool. I waited one month for my asylum interview.
In my asylum interview, my interpreter said he was finding it difficult to translate and he mixed up some of the details. The Interviewer heard what he said but didn’t write it down.
They made their decision to refuse me within a month, but it took 6 months for them to contact me. You normally have 2 months warning before a court date, but I had just 7 days. No letter came through to me, though my Case-owner claimed they posted it. I was dropped by my solicitor so I had no representation in court.
Two days before my High Court hearing, I managed to get a solicitor, but he only had one day to prepare any fresh evidence.
They questioned my nationality and said I wasn’t Eritrean and that I wasn’t a soldier. I showed a photo of me in the army and then they believed me, but they said I’d been de-mobilised so I came out legally. They said I’d just come here for medical treatment. But there’s nothing wrong with me and I’ve never even been to the doctor while I’m here.
I’ve had no support for 3 years. I’ve lived with friends and I used to live with my English girlfriend. To survive I have to find illegal jobs. I worked for a Pakistani man for two days but he refused to pay me.
I was also attacked by an Asian man who had 4–5 people with him. When I went to the police to report the crime they knew I was an asylum seeker because I go to report there, and they said to me “you shouldn’t come here. You’ve no rights to report crime here.” I felt like they didn’t care what happened to me. I felt discriminated against. It feels like in this country I’m alive but dead.
Agencies and Individuals from Blackburn with Darwen
April 2013