Home Affairs Committee
Executive Summary:
Notre Dame Refugee Centre (NDRC) is the only bi-lingual (French/English) refugee advice service in central London. We principally support asylum seekers and refugees from Francophone African countries, but our doors are open to all. Our clients arrive from all over London, many without a fixed address. We received a total of 6,823 visits to our twice weekly Drop In cafes between Sept 11 and Aug 12 (the last financial year), 670 more than in the previous year.
We are seeing sharply higher numbers and demand as other refugee community organisations and advice agencies close. We see very many destitute clients. We strongly believe that reform is needed in:
- — The process of claiming asylum
- — The treatment of applicants
- — Post treatment outcome.
There are fundamental flaws in the asylum process that lead to suffering and poverty. People who come to the UK seeking safety and a better life are very often thrown into acute poverty. In particular we draw the Committee’s attention to our experience of:
1. The high prevalence of destitution among asylum seekers: the vast majority of asylum seekers, and failed asylum seekers, visiting NDRC are destitute.
2. The system of support to asylum applicants: the destitution suffered by so many asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers is in many cases caused by slow and inadequate support.
3. The way in which the credibility of women, mentally ill, victims of torture and specific nationalities within the decision making process is questioned
4. The lack of balance in media reporting on asylum issues.
Background: Notre Dame Refugee Centre
NDRC is an independent registered charity (No 1122110) set up in December 2007. Until then, it was an independently managed project set up in 1996 by Notre Dame de France Church, Leicester Square, in response to the Immigration and Asylum Act adopted that year. We welcome all refugees, regardless of age, gender, ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation. We strive to ensure that they have suitable accommodation, sufficient food and resources to live with dignity.
The Centre has four part-time members of staff—an administrator, Director, Senior Advice Worker and a Second Advice worker. We provide a top level advice service with an Advice Quality Standard mark in asylum and immigration matters, housing, and benefits at OISC (Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner) levels 1 and 2. A volunteer trained to OISC level 1 supplements the work of our paid advisers. Together, they see more than 70 clients/week and have more than 600 on-going cases. Sessions are offered at twice weekly Drop In cafés and by appointment on other days.
Our emergency support includes:
- — a twice weekly Drop in café offering up to 90 people at each session a hot meal and warm welcome
- — food parcels, travel costs and clothing for the destitute
- — emergency grants from specialist funds.
Our on-going support includes:
- — an advice service on asylum and immigration matters, housing, and benefits (OISC level 1 and 2)
- — English language lessons and support for people looking for jobs
- — fortnightly health clinics with Project London
- — counselling sessions.
Evidence
At our twice weekly Drop In cafes, we see hundreds of asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers. Our staff and volunteers have extensive first hand knowledge of the problems that they face, both professionally and anecdotally. We see that there is a lack of support elsewhere and we strongly feel that this should change so that vulnerable asylum seekers can have the resources to live with dignity in the UK.
Our clients report that they face hostility and discrimination elsewhere. “We feel safe and secure here. People outside have a different idea about immigration.” Users’ consultation Oct. 2012
We draw the Committee’s attention to our experience of the following issues:
1. The high prevalence of destitution among asylum seekers
2. The system of support to asylum applicants
3. The way in which the credibility of women and victims of rape within the decision making process is questioned
4. The lack of balance in media reporting on asylum issues.
1. The high prevalence of destitution among asylum seekers
1.1. The vast majority of visitors to NDRC are destitute asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers. They are destitute by virtue of their situation: the only exceptions are people who live with partners who may have their papers, but these cases are few and far between.
1.2. Over the past 12 months we have seen increasing numbers of destitute visitors as many small agencies close due to funding cuts. There were 4,513 visits to the Centre by destitute clients between September 2011 and August 2012, compared to 4,137 in the same period in the previous year. Our advice workers currently see more than 70 people a week. Our advice team is fully booked and cannot always see all clients seeking support.
1.3. Between December 11 and December 2012, our advice team applied to emergency grant making bodies on behalf of 78 destitute, homeless, clients (eg the Vicar’s Relief Fund, the Mary Strand Trust and the Prisoners of Conscience Appeal Fund) for a total of £12,093. This represents levels of acute need. The grants covered a range of needs—from travel to living expenses and clothing.
1.4. Our senior advice worker gave 1,156 appointments between September 2011 and August 2012 (compared with 878 in the same period in the previous year). Asylum seekers and refugees attending these appointments were seeking support they were unable to find elsewhere ie
- — information about legal rights and entitlements and referrals for legal representation
- — advocacy on their behalf so they could better access existing systems of social support, including housing, benefits, employment and education
- — help to secure emergency asylum support from the UKBA ie accommodation and essential living needs whilst the claim is being processed
- — representation for those refused asylum support at the Asylum Support Tribunal.
1.5. We anticipate higher levels of need in the coming months. Numbers are increasing as other organisations supporting asylum seekers and refugees cut back services or close (eg Refugee Council, Refugee Migrant Justice, Immigration Advisory Services and Law for All). In 2011–12, we received 6,823 visits to our twice weekly Drop in Cafes, a rise of 670 on the previous year. This increased demand also reflects long delays by the UKBA (UK Border Agency) in processing case backlogs (Guardian 22/11/12).
1.6. We see many clients who have waited for years for a Home Office decision on their cases. This, in many cases, results in destitution. Living in poverty, and uncertainty, also takes a heavy toll on the mental health of asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers.
1.7. We are unable to get information from the Home Office on the progress of outstanding older cases (formerly known as ‘legacy’ cases). Delays in processing these cases naturally results in destitution.
Recommendations
- — More funding is needed for specialist advice services on asylum matters so that people can progress their cases.
- — Swifter action is needed by the Home Office to process cases.
- — Increased transparency is needed from the Home Office on progress with outstanding older cases.
2. The system of support to asylum applicants
2.1. We repeatedly find that our clients face unacceptable delays in receiving Section 4 support. We apply for emergency grants to small trusts (eg Vicar’s Relief Fund, Mary Strand etc) to support these clients who otherwise live in destitution.
2.2. Once Section 4 support is granted, we struggle to make contact with accommodation providers if clients experience problems eg damp, rodent infestations etc.
2.3. We struggle generally to make contact with the Home Office about our clients’ cases. There is only one general number for the Home Office, which takes all enquiries. This leads to long delays, confusion, and high levels of frustration for callers.
2.4. The Azure card system (rather than cash) makes life difficult for our clients. Without cash, they are unable to travel to essential appointments eg to report to the Home Office, to solicitors or to doctors. We therefore provide travel grants to clients so that they can do this: we also approach small trusts for emergency grants. It seems ironic that the Home Office, having identified clients as destitute and therefore providing them with Azure cards, does not acknowledge that they need funds to travel to appointments necessary for advancing their claims.
Recommendations
- — We suggest that cash payments would be more effective (ensuring that clients could travel to essential appointments)
- — We suggest that mechanisms are put in place to hold accommodation providers to account
- — We suggest that rapid improvements in channels of communication with the Home Office are put in place eg direct numbers for departments dealing with asylum matters.
3. The lack of balance in media reporting on asylum issues.
3.1. We repeatedly see asylum seekers caricatured in the media—as money grabbing fortune seekers, intent on living on benefits with no intention of forging new lives here. Those living on the margins of society, who ironically have come to the UK with the intention of finding safety and a better life, are in fact demonised.
3.2. This does not only happen in the tabloids. We were disappointed that BBC Panorama programme (‘Immigration Undercover’—January 2013) also showed such attitudes. The programme researcher approached us:
- — to ask for contact with our clients ‘to show the desperate situation in which asylum seekers lived’
- — to ask for permission for their team to meet a client of ours (who they had already filmed outside the Centre) at the Centre so that he could sign a release sheet, giving permission for the filming.
We declined on both counts as there was a very evident lack of clarity as to the programme’s background and purpose. We suspected that its true intent was to expose the ‘bogus asylum seeker’. This turned out to be the case. The programme descended to tabloid levels of journalism, with a camera pointed into interviewees’ faces as a reporter confronted them with ‘the facts’.
We have subsequently written, with the Red Cross (also approached by Panorama), to complain to the BBC about these poor standards of journalism but at the time of writing (15/4/13) have received no reply.
3.3. We anticipate that with the coming elections, and the rise of the political right (UKIP promises to field 2,000 candidates nationally in the forthcoming local council elections) the demonization of the ‘outsider’—whether asylum seeker or migrant—will continue.
Recommendation
- — We suggest that every effort is made to ensure that up-to-date statistics and facts about asylum seekers and the asylum process are prepared by government communications departments to counter this demonization.
4. The way in which the credibility of women, mentally ill, victims of torture and specific nationalities within the decision making process is questioned
4.1. Our Centre counsellor sees many women suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Some, particularly those from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), have experienced torture and/or rape. Clients show signs of anxiety and depression, including nightmares, insomnia, panic attacks and paranoia. Many are reluctant to talk openly about their experience due to shame and associated stigma.
4.2. We believe that Post Traumatic Stress disorder can lead to women failing to make full statements giving a true picture of their experience and situation. One client, raped in the DRC while in detention, had her first asylum claim refused in September 2010 by an immigration judge who made adverse credibility findings. The case went to appeal and was refused by a First-tier Tribunal Judge in July 2012—but went to a further appeal in February 2013, with a second judge admitting that post-traumatic stress disorder had played a part in the client’s original statement and the first judge had not borne this in mind. This judge accepted that the manner in which evidence is given may be affected by mental, psychological and emotional trauma or disability. There is now going to be a further appeal.
Recommendation
- — We strongly believe that Post Traumatic Stress disorder experienced by women who have experienced rape and/o r torture should be considered during the decision making process.
Notre Dame Refugee Centre
April 2013