Home Affairs Committee

Please find attached Glasgow North West Framework for Dialogue Group’s submission to your inquiry.

We have attached our the Evidence we are submitting to the inquiry along with a Questionnaire Feedback Report554 and a Case Study, the latter are separate attachments. We trust the inquiry will be able to use the information to inform their investigations. We would appreciate if the inquiry following its investigations could advocate a radical change to the current asylum system as it is not working for the service users ‘The Asylum Seekers’. Asylum Seekers ask the Inquiry to recommend to Government a new humanitarian system that respects the human rights of asylum seekers while they are in this country and throughout their asylum claims.

Evidence

We are a refugee community organisation of asylum seekers and refugees providing mutual support and representing the views of our members to service providers, the local community, local and national Politicians, Government Officers and Ministers. We started up in August 2004 and last year became a constituted group. We have a current membership of 80 asylum seekers and refugees. We are very close to the problems and issues of asylum seekers and refugees. Our meetings provide members with opportunities to raise their issues and to seek the help and support of some of our committee members.

We welcome this opportunity to give evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry under the terms of reference. We are submitting evidence under most headings of the inquiry to give the Members of Parliament on this Inquiry an insight in to these areas of asylum policy under consideration from the perspective of asylum seekers and their experience

Our evidence has been collated using three methods:

A Case Study of an Asylum Claim

A Focus Group with six of our Committee Members

A Questionnaire conducted with 38 of our members

The Effectiveness of the UK Border Agency screening process

We are not giving evidence on the Detained Fast Track; it does not exist in Scotland

Please refer to Our Case Study of an exiled Political Prisoner from Cameroon ‘The Story of an Asylum Claim’. It is an example of the poor outcomes from Screening Interviews held too quickly with asylum seekers undergoing serious trauma and loss when they arrive and who are not well enough to undergo Screening Interviews under current timescales. This may apply to many cases. People experiencing trauma and loss do not disclose until much later.

The Focus Group Participants identified the following issues they believe undermine the outcomes during the Screening process:

The absence of Child Care Facilities at Screening Units adversely affects outcomes in the following ways:

It is not possible for women or couples accompanied by children to disclose during interview in the following situations:

Victims of Rape and Sexual Violence female and male.

There are many countries where the use of rape is a weapon of war and of torture. They will not want their children to hear this and will not disclose.

Women fleeing the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to protect themselves and their female children will not disclose in the presence of a child.

Women fleeing domestic violence will not disclose

Bad experiences generally, would not be disclosed. No parent wants to break down in tears in front of their children.

Children cannot sit a long time without becoming restless and making demands on their parents. This is a distraction during screening.

Babies need to be changed and fed at specific times. Young and older children need food and drinks.

Babies and young children may need a nap during the day.

As interviews can last a full day with only short breaks

Sending people to a different City for their Screening Interview

The practice of sending asylum seekers to a Screening Interview in a city different from where they reside affects outcomes as it increased the stress level of people. They have usually never been there before and do not know anyone. Focus Group participants reported having sleepless nights because of this whether they have had to stay overnight or not. Loss of sleep impedes their ability to provide the answers to the questions asked at Screening Interview..

Interviews are far too long

There is an issue about the length of time screening interviews last

It detracts from outcomes as people become tired and stressed and make mistakes adding to the stress of the situation.

One member of the Focus Group reported her screening lasted the full day from 9.30am till 4.30pm in the afternoon with a half an hour break.

There are no in house Hospitality Facilities:

Breaks during Interviews are not long enough to give enough time for asylum seekers travelling in from another city for a screening interview to find the shops where they can purchase food and drinks particularly if they have ethnic dietary requirements.

How People feel they are treated and perceived Interview Techniques

It is affecting the outcomes of Screening Interviews the Focus Group participants said they are treated very badly. They are asked the same questions over and over again. It was generally felt that the Home Office Officials interviewing are trying to trick trying to make them make mistakes.

There is an attention to detail, dates was the example given that is unrealistic.

Focus group participants were unanimous Asylum Seekers experience the interview like a torture.

Focus Group Participants would like the Inquiry to ask the Government the following Questions about the Screening Process.

• — Are Home Office Officials at Screening Interviews instructed to treat them in this way to try to get them to make mistakes?
• — Are the Officials working to targets as they do in ‘Immigration’?
• — Are there quotas for the number of people given asylum each month, year?

The Use of Country of Origin Information and Operational Guidance Notes determining the outcomes of asylum applications

There is a problem when Country of Origin Information is not fully inclusive of the situation that people have fled. We discussed this issue in our Focus Group. It affects outcomes for people as it becomes very difficult, perhaps impossible?, to corroborate their stories of persecution and discrimination in their countries of origin for their asylum claims.

The example we discussed in our Focus Group was ‘Xenophobia’ in South Africa. This issue does get coverage in the British press yet there is no information about it currently in the Country of Origin Information for South Africa.

There would be better outcomes for people if the Country of Origin Information had to be inclusive of all situations. Improving the numbers getting positive decisions improves outcomes and helps people move through the asylum process more quickly.

Could the Inquiry please ask the Government why Country of Origin Information is not fully inclusive of all situations and recommend in their report that in future they should be.

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.

We would refer the inquiry again to our Case Study for evidence about assessments of credibility and appeal outcomes.

We think the point made above about screening too early is relevant again here. Disclosure is a key element in outcomes. Under the present arrangements the same point made earlier applies early screening prevents disclosure in many cases also people’s health prevents disclosure.

We would ask the inquiry to consider the impact on all of the above groups of adverse credibility rulings because of the impact on the outcomes for asylum seekers. It is extremely difficult to win an appeal if there is an ‘Adverse Credibility Ruling’.

Both our Case Study and Our Focus Group threw up interesting areas of inquiry in connection with the status of different types of evidence.

Our Focus Group participants want to ask the Inquiry why ‘Medical’ evidence Submitted by asylum claimants and perhaps as evidence in appeals is not considered legitimate evidence. They think the enquiry should ask the Government why professional judgements used in reports written by GP’s Psychologists, Psychiatrists appear to be mistrusted. Our Focus Group members are shocked that professionals would be mistrusted.

We would refer the inquiry again to the Case Study as this situation is played out in it.

The Focus Group would also ask the inquiry to consider suggesting to Government that there is a need to expand the capacity of the organisation called ‘The Medical Foundation’. They are not able to meet demands for medical reports. Victims of Torture who are not able to get a medical by the Medical Foundation have a great disadvantage.

We would like to refer the inquiry to our questionnaire feedback pages 1 & 2.

24 of our members responded Yes to credibility issues with their case.

5 of the members in this group put it down to being women

8 put it down to their mental health

9 put it down to being victims of torture

6 put it down to a nationality issue

One of the members responded that they belong in all the groups.

Nine of these members respondents believe being in these groups has a negative impact on their claims.

We also asked about medical evidence submitted with asylum claims.

9 of the members in our questionnaire answered this question.

A number of questions in the questionnaire ask participants about their Asylum Claim History.

Only one member responding said they were successful with their original application.

The Feedback Report on the Questionnaire results groups some of the responses to different questions together to try to flesh out a bigger picture. Please refer.

Please see the questionnaire feedback report.

The Effectiveness of the Five Year Review System

Outcomes for people

Only 3 Members participating in our questionnaire Have Refugee Status.

Our Focus Group participants would like the Inquiry to consider asking the Government to reinstate ‘Indefinite Leave to Remain’ for people granted Refugee Status’.

Only giving refugees five years leave to remain puts their lives and the lives of their children on hold.

Our Focus Group participants also made the point it is so much worse for people with discretionary leave to remain or humanitarian. The length of time granted in three years and more recently some people have been granted 2 and a half. The lives of the families are affected adversely. It affects the aspirations of children and it affects adversely the ‘employability’ of adults.

The process of being in the asylum system for many years because single people and families have to keep reapplying makes people ill and dysfunctional. By the time they finally get ‘Indefinite Leave to Remain’ after having had to apply several times they are ill and not able to lead full and active working lives.

It is worth mentioning to the Inquiry that there are still legacy cases people who have been here 12 years and more and have no Leave to Remain yet. Could the Inquiry please recommend to the Government that when leave is granted to these cases it is indefinite and not 2 to 3 years. There lives have been on hold for long enough.

Whether the System of Support to asylum Applicants (including section 4 support) is sufficient and effective and possible improvements.

Please refer to our Questionnaire Feedback Report. Here are some extracts for the Inquiry’s information

If you have any ideas on how benefits for asylum seekers can be improved can you tell us about them please:

26 people contributed the following ideas

• — Facilities provided in the flats should be in good condition. The Azure Card should be replaced with cash and Section 4 benefits should be increased to something affordable to live on.
• — The benefit is not enough. Therefore you need to consider the benefit be improved and the cashless support be changed by cash so that we can buy whatever we want.
• — The amount needs to be more. The amount of benefit for those who are disabled or suffer from mental health should be increased to allow them to live like a normal human being.
• — That is not enough at all, we are as a couple without kids. It was very difficult to live on, after refused there is not money at all.
• — This is very little money we can’t afford our simple needs like food and clothes.
• — No good at all, we are as a family without kids there is not any chance to buy thins that we need especially foods and clothes.
• — Assess again to basic need of asylum seekers who are humans too and address them accordingly and reasonably.
• — Cash is best option
• — I am sorry it needs to be improved.
• — This is not enough for mums because due to children they had many problems. They should give more money to asylum seekers.
• — In terms of money, I think if they can increase our weekly payment because its not enough. The same money we use for transport going to the Home Office every week and some of us we get two buses. The other issue is when we have problems in the houses when we report it they took time to consider us.
• — We can’t handle asylum benefits because this is not enough for us
• — Cash is better
• — The ideas of benefit for we asylum seeker it is not enough for us daily living. The first thin we can be happy if they can increase our benefit. It is very little money which we can not manage by ourself. We use the same money to go to the reporting center, buying bus pass, buying foods, going to hospitals and many other things etc. If they can increase the benefits at least it can be helpful for us.
• — More benefits for disabled asylum seekers and more sick people are not treated well also, so more benefits for asylum sick people too.
• — The amount of benefit for those who are disabled or suffer from mental health should be increased.
• — If the Government can give Asylum Seekers work permits some Asylum Seekers are highly skilled and educated so they can work not to depend on benefits.
• — Increase them please. Provide good accommodation in good condition.
• — Cash is better than a card system as cannot buy necessary items as per culture.
• — Facilities should be improved like beds. If you are sick you need a double bed especially elderly people with joint and other problems.
• — The Azure card should be able to be used in any shop were you need your shopping.
• — Cash is a better process.
• — Allow asylum seekers to work as well.
• — Asylum benefits should improve in all areas such as money should increase all the time because the cost of living is going very high all the time. Accommodation as well should be improved and the way asylum seekers are being treated should improve. Asylum Seekers should be allowed to work all the time because of cost of living is getting high.
• — Benefits for asylum seekers should be improved by putting an increase of money because the groceries are too expensive instead of the Azure care people should be given cash.
• — Cash is the better option.

Please provide any other comments about your experience of asylum benefits that you wish to make us aware of?

18 people provided the following feedback:

• — Firstly as a woman it is a torture and slavery to put us in to a vulnerable situation. We are begging for a proper life for human beings because we deserve one. We are begging for food when we can be given the right to work and feed ourselves. Destitution is completely slavery. I love to see lawyer’s fight more for our rights. Why are we denied the right to stay to start a new life after living in this country for over 8 years. This is total slavery to humans
• — Cards don’t work all the time. Then we’re given numbers to phone when we have no English. By the time we found someone to speak to us we lost little money that we’re given for us. These cards cannot be used on the buses. A lot of times we go to supermarket to shop with cards but at the till the card don’t work causing embarrassment.
• — Not enough at all.
• — Not enough.
• — As children go up expenses go up but benefits go down.
• — Don’t force asylum seekers that they should go back especially pregnant mums and children. This is effect on mental health.
• — As kids grow up benefits decrease
• — Don’t force pregnant woman
• — This space is not enough for me, I wish to write a book about it.
• — The cards don’t work all the time. There is no one to help us sort problems with the cards. By the time we are seen a weeks money (voucher) is lost.
• — Humiliation accompanies vouchers.
• — The benefit is not sufficient as kids are very demanding and wants to live a normal life like their fellow Scottish friends in school.
• — As kids grow up benefits go down. ( 3 people expressed this opinion)
• — The money or Azure card asylum seekers get is not enough because items keep increasing in price every other week.
• — Since they can’t increase benefits for asylum seekers I suggest they should give people permission to work.
• — I can not afford to satisfy the children’s needs especially when they are schooling.
• — Only rely on charity shops to purchase what ever you need.
• — Azure card users need money for bus fares. How are they supposed to get this money.

UKBA should treat asylum people as human not like wild animals. Stop harassing asylum people we are just like you. Treat us with respect and listen to us. You treat your dogs and cats better than asylum people. Benefits should be raised. How can somebody live with £35.62 per week you are not serious. Change the way you work asylum people should be allowed to work because we have family to take good care of as well

The prevalence of destitution amongst asylum applicants and refused asylum seekers.

There is evidence probably available from the Refugee Survival Trust for Scotland and Oxfam for England of this growing problem. It is surely not acceptable in Britain to make people destitute in the way asylum seekers become destitute. Could the enquiry please look in to why this is the case and recommend to the Government that people should not have their accommodation and benefits withdrawn while they are pursuing a legal case.

Benefits should be seemless. People should move from NASS benefits to Section 4 without gaps.

Please refer to the quesionnaire feedback. Relevant feedback is copied below.

Questions specifically on experience of Destitution Questions 36–40

Question 36 asked have you been a destitute asylum claimant?

• — 12 respondents ticked yes ( 1 of them said for 3 ½ years)
• — 18 respondents ticked no
• — 8 respondents didn’t tick any

Question 37 asked have you been a destitute refused asylum seeker?

• — 13 respondents ticked yes
• — 15 respondents ticked no
• — 8 respondents didn’t tick any
• — 1 respondent wrote n/a

Question 38 asked please tell us if being destitute had an impact on your health?

• — 15 respondents ticked yes
• — 8 respondents ticked no
• — 15 respondents didn’t tick

Question 39 asked respondents to tick to indicate the type of impact on their health they had experienced:

• — 1 respondent said their short term mental and physical health had been affected.
• — 1 respondent said their short term physical health and long term physical and mental health had been affected.
• — 2 respondents said their short term mental health had been affected
• — 4 respondents said their long term physical health had been affected
• — 4 respondents said their long term physical and mental health had been affected.
• — 2 respondents said their short term mental health had been affected
• — 2 respondents said their long term mental health had been affected

Question 40 asked respondents who had been destitute to make additional comments if they wished:

• — We are told to apply for support through refugee council in the fact that we are destitute the home office keeps refusing to offer support, many people are mentally affected. The self esteem drops to zero. Its like being on life support. When hope is given then its taken off with negative information. Can the home office tell the world how they are looking after foreigners in their own country. Can their children or relatives be allowed to be treated as slaves. Migration is not a crime.
• — I was destitute for more than two years.
• — This is not life at all, nobody can survive. If we are safe in our own country we never stay in here without any money.
• — This will not be allowed at all to treat people like that. We are here for protection not to be ill treated and to be mentally ill.
• — I will be mad with this system. I’m thinking about it all day and night. This is not a life at all.
• — I do not know how to spell in English.
• — It did impact on my health physically and mentally plus I don’t have somewhere to live or many very appropriate services.
• — I was helpless in a foreign land
• — I became homeless and my support was stopped completely
• — I was affected mentally and I am an amputee as a result of a long term illness, it made my condition worse.
• — Diminish self-confidence
• — Miserable
• — Draining
• — Mental Torture
• — killing
• — Suicidal
• — Kids separated from their friends
• — My comment is please don’t let anyone be destitute. It has very bad health and mental effects. It can even lead to suicide.
• — No expenses (money) with 3 children and two adults. Very stressfull situation.

Whether the UKBA or third sector organisations should be able to highlight concerns regarding legal practitioners to the solicitors Regulatory Authority

Our Focus Group participants believe there are many good lawyers working in the field of Asylum Law. The problem is the legal aid budget if not enough. It is different in Scotland from England. If there was a larger budget for Legal Aid Lawyers would be able to provide more of their time to asylum claimants and help them to build a decent case. Could the Inquiry please make this recommendation to the Government.

Whether the Media is balanced in their reporting of asylum issues.

The Focus Group participants agreed the media is not balanced in their reporting and would ask the inquiry to consider this in the light of the Lord Levinson Inquiry and the Inquiry held in to Asylum back in 2007. The label ‘scroungers’ still sticks and as the economic crisis deepens local people may become more resentful. There is a lot of racism on the buses in Glasgow resulting from this negative reporting.

Could the Inquiry suggest the Government runs a positive image campaign in the media about asylum seekers.

The prevalence of refused asylum seekers who are tortured upon their return to their country of origin and how the UK Government can monitor this.

The Focus Group participants considered the example of South Africa.

If people are returned to South Africa Asylum Seekers get a minimum of 6 months in prison. This prevents a successful return. The financial impact on a family was discussed in this type of eventuality.

Focus Group participants want to ask the Inquiry when the Government has this information and it is a known fact, why are people sent back there?

Focus Group participants also discussed the countries on the white list as there are countries on this list that torture people on their return.

Could the Inquiry ask the Government to make every effort to ensure they are not returning people to be tortured. This a breach of their Human Rights.

Please also refer to the feedback in the Questionnaire copied below:

Question 42 asked do you know anyone who was tortured following their return:

• — Yes 21
• — No 7
• — Didn’t Tick 10

Question 43 asked what country where they from

• — Pakistan 7
• — Zimbzbwe
• — Congo
• — Uganda
• — Kenya
• — African Country
• — Iran 3
• — Sri Lanka 2
• — Malawi, Blantyre
• — Iraq 2
• — Iraq—Kurdistan
• — Mozambique
• — Iran/Afghanistan/African Countries 2

Question 44 asked how did you find out this information

• — Group meeting 2
• — By other people
• — She was arrested with immigration the time she went to the reporting centre
• — Meeting
• — Friends
• — Fellow passengers that was on the same flight
• — Other asylum seekers got to hear about it
• — Through my friends in Sri Lanka
• — I found it from Malawi Nation News. My friend wrote me a letter warning me that if I go home they will torure me in silence before I die because I am a lesbian.
• — Meetings and groups
• — From people who come from Sri Lanka
• — It was myself, It was a very bad experience. I stayed a long time in Detention. There was an impact on my family and children and the health of my children. Being removed and badly tortured affected my ability to nurture one of my children who was 4–5 months at the time. It has left them profoundly disabled.
• — I was in Iran and I saw it by myself
• — TV—On-line
• — TV News
• — People we met here and through the internet

Question 45 asked do you know what the current arrangements are for monitoring whether returned asylum seekers are treated well:

• — Yes 7
• — No 19
• — Didn’t tick 12

Question 46 asked for suggesions how the UK Government could monitor the return of refused asylum seekers to their country of origin?

• — They must not return anyone because of been in UK. All people should be granted leave to remain. Not matter what people granted Leave to Remain, it is not a crime to be asylum seekers.
• — Find out if they are still alive after their return because some take their life because of rejection and no one to turn to for support after deportation.
• — I think from the Embassy. The family welfare form does not give the true picture of the situation of refused asylum seeking families. Therefore they ignore important factors and go ahead to deport people unfairly.
• — People will be suicidal because of that. I am surprised how the UK Government make decisions like that.
• — This is not fair at all. They have to monitor very well.
• — They should monitor very carefully before they take any steps.
• — Need to keep in touch with them on regular basis (every six months), and have accurate statistics, including every returnee.
• — They have different organisations from UK, working in many countries, through these organisations they can ask for reports or send many journalists to the country they deport people.

APPENDIX 1

A Case Study of an exiled Political Prisoner from Cameroon who is now a British Citizen and lives in Glasgow, UK

The British Citizen in question became a refugee on the 8th of February 2006 following three and a half painful years living as an asylum claimant and a destitute ‘refused’ asylum seeker. He became a British Citizen in 2012 after ten years living in the UK, six of these years as a Refugee. He has agreed to give the story of his asylum claim as a case study for the Inquiry in to the Asylum Process as he wants to make the Inquiry aware of the Injustice and Inhumanity in the Asylum System. His claim was dealt with under pre April 2007 Asylum Policy.

We have chosen to tell the story of his claim because credibility issues are at the heart of it and because, as we understand it, the terms of reference of the inquiry includes, “the assessment of the credibility of ‘Victims of Torture within the decision-making process and whether this is reflected in appeal outcomes”. The man in this story was a Victim of Torture.

Another reason we want to tell his story is its relevance today. Asylum seekers under the new system post April 2007, the ‘New Model Asylum System’ continue to have ‘Adverse Credibility Rulings’ and we think the inquiry should look in to the causes of this ruling as they will find they affect all the groups under examination by the inquiry. They keep asylum seekers in the system for years. Being given an ‘adverse credibility ruling’ in the early stages of his claim made it very difficult, under the law, for the man in our story to prove he was a refugee. In his particular case, it came about because there was inconsistency in the information recorded during screening with his oral evidence at the Substantive Interview and witness statement. It is very difficult later to overturn this ruling at appeal if mistakes are made.

We would also ask the inquiry to consider the difference it might have made to this man’s life story (and the time it took his asylum claim) if he had been given time at the beginning after his arrival to get help to deal with his trauma before any serious assessment of his legitimacy as a refugee took place. Traumatised Asylum Seekers are more able to disclose Key events later. We would also ask the inquiry to look into why asylum seekers who have no English ‘have’ to sign Screening Interviews when they have no way of verifying the information recorded is correct if they don’t speak or read the language themselves. Interpreters and Officials can make mistakes and this practice would appear to have jeopardised this man’s claim at the very start.

Although this study is about this man’s asylum claim we do need to share some information about his case to give it context. We ask the Members of Parliament reading the following information to imagine the state this man was in when he arrived in the UK both physically and mentally and to empathise with him and his family. His family smuggled him out of Cameroon for his protection. They send him to the UK for Sanctuary because they have a high regard for Britain and its democratic traditions and its human rights.

The Story of his Claim

The man arrived at a Scottish Airport and travelled to Glasgow by train on the 9th of September 2002. He had been smuggled out of Cameroon and only days earlier been rescued from an army camp where he was being held a Prisoner in a cage and had been starved beaten and tortured for many months. When he arrived in Scotland his physical psychological and emotional condition was very poor and he spoke no English as he is from the French speaking part of Cameroon. The Scottish Refugee Council ‘SRC’ was easy to find, it was near the Train Station. He went there as soon as he arrived and asked for asylum. An advice worker for the SRC who spoke French dealt with him. They gave him £5 for food and asked him to return to the Refugee Council the following day. He left by taxi to a temporary accommodation hotel where he stayed that night and possibly he thinks for the next five weeks. It is hard for him to think back to his arrival in Glasgow and the first weeks of his stay. He does it reluctantly because we have asked him to. He would really prefer not as these memories are hard and painful. In order to empathise with his mental and emotional state back then it helps to think about our own experience of personal loss and what it felt like when we have grieved over the death of a significant family member, it is helpful to get some kind of perspective about him and multiply it by 6 and more. This man had just left his family behind in a country that was not safe. He left a father, an uncle, a wife, and two very young sons. He would most definitely have been grieving his mother. She died while he was in the Army Camp in Cameroon. Government Soldiers had beaten her causing her death the day the authorities took him. It had not been possible to let him know about her death while he was in the army camp and he learned of her death as they were smuggling him out of the country.

On his second day in Glasgow he remembers returning to the Scottish Refugee Council. An advice worker who spoke French took care of him and he got directions to one of the legal practices nearby in Glasgow. He remembers he went to the legal practice the same day. He made a future appointment and an application for legal aid was progressed.

His Screening Interview at UKBA in Brand Street took place within the first two weeks of his arrival.

His memories of his Screening Interview are not vivid and it is similarly difficult for him to think about it, even today. He remembers it involved a Home Office Official with an interpreter to translate. He also remembers that before the start the Official through the intermediary of the Interpreter informed him that no one was going to hurt him and that he was safe. The interview lasted perhaps three hours, he’s unsure but it was a long time.

We asked him about the questions. He remembers the Official asked about how he managed to come in to the UK, about his flight from Cameroon and his arrival in Glasgow who paid for his ticket, why he fled Cameroon and came here. The Official took notes and at the end of the Screening Interview he was asked to sign the form the official had been completing during the interview and provided with a copy. This might have been helpful if he could read in English.

It is difficult for him to think back to his first Screening Interview or to put in to words what he feels about this experience. When asked does he remember how he felt at the interview he replies I was very very very stressed and shakes his head. Asked why he signed the form when he was not able to read its contents and verify the information as true. He is still unable to say. He says the interview took place too soon. He was in a bad way.

His memory is more vivid when we discuss his ‘Witness Statement’ another key component of evidence in any asylum claim. He is indignant he gave it with no legal professional present during his first appointment with the Legal Practice. He seems certain one of the Secretary’s at the practice took it from him through the intermediary of an Interpreter. He also, same day, deposed his copy of his Screening Interview with them and it was misplaced. He did not see his Lawyer at all during the first appointment.

It was several more weeks before his Substantive Interview took place. He remembers it took place at the end of November 2002, about two months after his arrival. It took place in Liverpool, not Glasgow, involving a journey lasting several hours and taking three different trains to get there. He knew absolutely nobody there and his Legal representative did not assist him at the Substantive Interview. He thinks it is possible to have a legal representative at the Substantive Interview, he has heard that other people have and that does make sense. A Home Office Official (not the same one as before) interviewed him and another Interpreter was present to translate. The Interview lasted several hours and he remembers feeling very very very stressed during it.

The response from the Home Office came in January 2003 it was disappointingly a letter refusing his claim for asylum on the grounds of an adverse credibility ruling. There had been a discrepancy in the evidence provided by him somewhere between the Screening and the Substantive Interviews. It was a very bad ruling to have.

He visited his legal practice with the letter of refusal and they lodged an Appeal of the decision on his behalf. His GP examined him for torture and reported his findings in a medical report for the Appeal. His Appeal went ahead at the tribunal in Glasgow. He is unsure of the date this took place. He had a legal representative at the hearing, this was the first time he met his Lawyer.

The outcome of the Appeal was a disappointment for him. The tribunal ruled in favour of the Home Office again. His Appeal did not succeed on two grounds. One of the grounds was adverse credibility (as before), the second ground was that the GP’s Medical Report of Torture could not be accepted as evidence as he was not a specialist in the field of ‘Victims of Torture’. He visited the legal practice to discuss the tribunal’s decision with his Lawyer to no avail then within days received a letter from the Lawyer at the practice informing he would not be representing him his claim effectively finished. This legal practice has since closed down. He was very ill after this news.

A friend made an appointment for him with a Lawyer working in Asylum Law in a Practice nearby where he was living. The second Lawyer agreed to act on his behalf as she thought there was a flaw in the previous decision on the second ground, the rejection as evidence of the Medical Report. A second Appeal date came through and this time it was in a Video Court.

A letter from the Home Office in July 2004 advised him his second appeal had not been successful. Shortly he would also receive letters, because he was now ‘Appeals Rights Exhausted’, from the Housing Provider and the National Asylum Support Service, NASS, advising him he needed to get out of his accommodation in a matter of weeks and that his benefits would stop. He also received news from home of his father’s death.

Going home to his father’s funeral was obviously out of the question. The local church he attended organised a service for him. The church was fortunately able to find someone to accommodate him and the church gave him financial help when it could over the next year and a half, the length of time the authorities made him destitute.

It had been possible to have a number of key pieces of evidence sent from Cameroon. In August 2004 his Lawyer acting on his behalf lodged a Fresh Claim. It took more than one year for the ‘Fresh Claim’ to be acknowledged by the Home Office. When after almost a year he still had no news from the Home Office he asked his local MP for help to track down the claim. Not long after she had made enquiries into the whereabouts of his fresh claim in the system, he received a letter from the Home Office acknowledging his Fresh Claim. He was given a date for an Interview in Liverpool. It had also been possible, in the intervening period, to get him a medical by the ‘Medical Foundation’, the organisation made up of specialists in the field of Victims of Torture. The head specialist and medical authority at the Medical Foundation in London examined him. The Medical Report was able to provide evidence consistent with his story about the torture he had endured in the army camp in Cameroon.

The Second Interview at the Home Office in Liverpool took place sometime in the Autumn of 2005. It was a Substantive Interview. He did not have a legal representative at it. The Home Office Official asked him to sign the record of the interview and he said he was still not able to read in English. His Lawyer acted on his behalf on his return and took this up with the Home Office. A date was set for a last tribunal Hearing (Appeal) in Glasgow in December 2005.

On the 8th of February 2006 he received the letter from the Home Office granting him Refugee Status. On the 19th of January 2006 he was contacted by NASS and offered new accommodation and NASS Benefits were also resumed.

Glasgow North West Framework for Dialogue Group

April 2013

©Parliamentary copyright

Prepared 11th October 2013