Examination of Witnesses (Questions 44-59)
MR RICHARD
DUNSTAN, MS
RENAE MANN,
MS SALLY
DAGHLIAN AND
MS TWIMUKYE
MUSHAKA
4 DECEMBER 2006
Q44 Lord Plant of Highfield: Good afternoon.
First of all, I would like to explain that Andrew Dismore, a Member
of the House of Commons, is the Chair of this Committee but is
involved in a debate in the House of Commons. He has some amendments
to a Bill and he is obliged to be down in the House of Commons
at this time, I am afraid. We would like to proceed reasonably
quickly to the evidence. Could you say who you are and which organisation
each of you represents, and then if one of you wants to make some
short general statement, that is fine, but please make it reasonably
brief. If not, we will go straight into the specific questions
that we have to ask you. If we can start with Mr Dunstan.
Mr Dunstan: My name is Richard
Dunstan. I am a Policy Officer for Citizens Advice, which is the
national body for the Citizens Advice Bureaux in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland.
Ms Mann: My name is Renae Mann.
I am the Co-ordinator of the Inter-Agency Partnership, which includes
six voluntary sector agencies that provide independent advice
and support to asylum seekers and refugees across the UK.
Ms Daghlian: My name is Sally
Daghlian. I am Chief Executive of the Scottish Refugee Council.
We are a national charity providing advice and support to refugees
and asylum seekers in Scotland and seeking to ensure that Government
meets its obligations, legal, moral and humanitarian, to refugees
in Scotland.
Ms Mushaka: My name is Twimukye
Mushaka. I represent the Refugee Policy Forum which is a consortium
of refugee community organisations in Scotland. The majority of
our members are asylum seekers, so I represent the people that
the subject of the matter is all about. Thank you.
Q45 Lord Plant of Highfield: Thank
you very much. Do you have a general statement that you would
like to make or shall we go straight into questioning?
Ms Mushaka: As asylum seekers
and refugees in Scotland, we recognise that this is an historic
opportunity for us to be heard directly by the Committee because
it is not common for our voices to be heard in high circles like
this. We represent torture victims, rape victims and families
torn apart by persecution and harassment. We welcome the opportunity
to be able to share what our experiences have been of living in
the UK as an asylum seeker. Our members tell us that they have
not had access to justice because they believe the asylum system
is very complex and it does not take into account some of the
barriers that we encounter, like access to legal representation,
lack of respect to gender-based persecution, language barriers
and the quality of new country information that the Home Office
uses to determine our cases. We believe we are able to make a
contribution to this process and we welcome the opportunity to
respond to other committees by request in the future.
Q46 Lord Plant of Highfield: Thank
you very much. Perhaps I could start the discussion with a question
to the Inter-Agency Partnership. You suggested that there is a
growing number of refused asylum seekers who are completely destitute,
can you give us any kind of estimate as to how many asylum seekers
are homeless in the parts of the United Kingdom where you are
working?
Ms Mann: Certainly. I will start
by saying it is very difficult to ascertain conclusively the total
number of destitute refused asylum seekers or, indeed, the total
number of destitute asylum seekers regardless of whether they
are in the system or not. Neither the Home Office nor other agencies
collect this data on a day-to-day basis. I would say the most
recent and most reliable estimate at this stage is in Refugee
Action's recent report on destitution. In that they extrapolate
data collected by a number of local surveys and estimate that
at least 20,000 destitute refused asylum seekers are in the UK
today. The IAP agencies have also documented the number of asylum
seekers who they have supported between April and June this year
who were destitute due to bureaucratic weaknesses in the way the
Home Office administers the asylum support system. That includes
both people who are currently in the system and those who are
outside of the system. The total number was 3,170 people for that
quarter alone.
Q47 Lord Plant of Highfield: Does
anyone wish to add to that?
Mr Dunstan: I would certainly
endorse what Renae says about the difficulty of getting hard and
fast statistics in this area. I would add that there is also a
constantly changing situation in that someone who is destitute
one week may not be destitute the following week but may become
destitute again. People are moving in and out of employment in
many cases so that employment is frequently of an informal and
temporary nature. Someone may have work for several weeks and
have an income of some kind, even if work is extremely lowly paid,
and then they also have accommodation for a short period perhaps
provided by a friend or another asylum seeker but, again, that
may come to an end. It is constantly changing. People are moving
in and out of accommodation, in and out of employment and that
makes it doubly difficult to come up with hard and fast figures.
Ms Daghlian: The Scottish Refugee
Council carried out a small snapshot survey in February this year
and identified at least 154 asylum seekers and their dependants
who were destitute at that time. Again, it is very difficult to
research what is known to be a hidden and shifting population,
but this data was compiled from our own experience and that of
other agencies and groups supporting people who are destitute.
That group included 24 asylum seeking children from 16 families.
I think that is particularly shocking. Children are not meant
to be destitute within the system but often find themselves destitute,
for example, because a child had been born after their parents
had refusal on their asylum claim, so they are not then within
the system. What we are very aware of from our staff and from
the refugee community is that it is a growing problem that people
are living in a twilight world without access to any form of support
or entitlement to work, and that very understandably pushes people
right to the margins to survive.
Q48 Lord Plant of Highfield: Again,
a question I think primarily to Renae Mann, but do come in if
you have something to add. In your evidence, you say that since
the Limbuela case many asylum seekers have been refused
assistance under section 55 if they have accommodation and that
this may be inhumane and degrading treatment under Article 3.
What changes would you suggest to avoid these potential human
rights breaches?
Ms Mann: We would argue that all
asylum seekers, including people who are appeal rights exhausted,
should have access to section 95 support until their case is fully
determined. That is where the person needs their case reviewed,
whether they are integrated into the system following a positive
decision or where they decide to voluntarily return. Such a test
should not be applied to anybody because the reasons why a person
might not apply within what is deemed to be a reasonable time
might not be within their control.
Mr Dunstan: As agencies, we have
never understood, and we still fail to understand, the linkage
the Government makes between any time delay between arriving in
the country and making an asylum application and the needs of
that person in terms of welfare support when they do come and
make their asylum claim. We simply fail to understand why section
55 is still applied even though, I think it is fair to recognise,
it is applied in relatively small numbers compared with how it
was initially.
Q49 Lord Plant of Highfield: Richard
Dunstan, if I can ask you primarily, you told us that there is
a large number of refused asylum seekers including disabled and
mentally ill people who are completely destitute. The Government
may argue that they could avoid destitution by leaving the UK,
as it did with the section 9 provisions. Can you elaborate on
how to balance respect for human rights with an effective asylum
system?
Mr Dunstan: That is the $64 million
question, of course. I would certainly like to be able to hold
up a blueprint for an asylum system for you today and I am sure
you would like me to also but it is not that simple. I think organisations
such as ourselves can do little more than set out some fundamental
principles that we would like to see reflected in a properly fair
and efficient asylum system and those are relatively easily stated.
I would suggest there are five. The first is early access to good
quality legal advice and representation. The second is high quality
decision-making, and by that I would include a good dose of both
humanity and pragmatism. The third is swift and effective integration
of those granted status. The fourth is a proactive imaginative
and well resourced approach to voluntary assisted return and other
alternatives to enforced return, which I think everyone, including
the Government agrees, is the least favourable option. The last,
but by no means the least important, is adequate welfare support
throughout that process, right up until the point of departure
in the case of a negative decision. We would say that destitution
as a coercive tool of policy has no place in a properly fair and
efficient asylum system.
Q50 Lord Plant of Highfield: Has
anybody got anything to add to that?
Ms Mann: We fully support everything
that Richard has just said.
Ms Daghlian: There are particular
groups who have been refused but, for example, who cannot return
and cannot go back to their countries even if they wanted to.
We think it is unacceptable that they should be left effectively
without status and without any means of support and be denied
the opportunity to legally support themselves.
Ms Mushaka: Our perception is
that Britain is a democratic society, one which takes the issues
of human rights very seriously, and to deny somebody the basic
right, to shelter, food and clothing in an environment like this
where we have not had any experience of it in the past is to undermine
the very principles of protection. Voluntary return to many of
us is not an option, it can only be an option if your life is
not in danger. If your life is in danger and you face the prospect
of death, then there is no way you can accept voluntary return.
That is the difficult position we face.
Q51 Lord Plant of Highfield: To Sally
Daghlian, we have been told about the suffering of asylum seekers'
children in relation to measures such as the section 9 pilot and
detention which have been introduced to encourage refused asylum
seekers to leave the United Kingdom. Can you suggest what measures
IND could take to encourage refused asylum seekers to leave the
UK without interfering with their human rights?
Ms Daghlian: I think the very
first thing that needs to be done is to understand why people
are reluctant to leave and consider whether they have been well
served by the system. There are many people who at the moment
have got to the end of the asylum process but have not been well
represented legally. For example, the recent Refugee Action research
on destitution looks specifically at the legal cases of people
who had been refused asylum and gone through the process and had
identified some very serious weaknesses in the way their cases
had been dealt with and presented. I think there is no doubt in
our experience from the people who we work with that only very
genuine fears of persecution allows people to continue living
in the UK in what are very difficult and very distressing circumstances.
However, we agree entirely that the integrity of any asylum system
means that those who do not need protection from persecution or
who do not have other humanitarian grounds on which to stay should
return to their countries of origin. We think what is needed is
much more individual casework support to explore with families
and individuals the issues which are preventing them from returning
home or the things which they fear. For example, there are many
people who have been in the UK for a number of years who will
have genuine worries about how they will reintegrate into the
communities they have come from, who will worry about where they
are going to live, what is going to happen to their children,
indeed people coming from some countries face persecution when
they return because they have left. I think government has to
understand that people are not just being difficult but have a
lot of concerns which need to be addressed. We would support a
model which allowed people to do some research, to have some support
from caseworkers which would help them to go back with dignity.
However, we have to make sure that before that happens we have
really filtered out the people who have got protection needs.
That is the big problem at the moment, there is no confidence
in the system. All of us who are working with asylum seekers and
refugees hear and see cases on a regular basis which cause us
real concern. We are pleased that the Government is improving
decision-making. At the moment we have a situation, for example
in Glasgow, where the Home Office estimates that 80% of NASS accommodation
is full of families who are, in technical jargon, appeal rights
exhausted. That means there are 1,000 families who are in absolute
fear of the knock on the door, who are terrified of being removed
from their houses early in the morning or, in compliance with
the requirements to register at the immigration service on a regular
basis, they are in fear that when they go they may be detained.
These things are happening, and I am sure Twimukye will want to
talk to you about the experience of those whole communities living
in fear and the effects, in particular, on children and on schools,
including the indigenous community who have taken asylum seekers
to their hearts and are now engaged in trying to support people
and prevent them from being wrenched from the communities. There
are two things Government needs to do: make sure that it is not
going to try and return anybody who is going to face possible
persecution, so there needs to be an independent review of cases.
Ms Mushaka: I want to reiterate
the voice of mothers who are fearful of their children returning
to countries which they have no memory of, especially children
who were brought into this country when they were still very young
and children who were born here. Returning them to their parents'
country of origin means, in effect, they are essentially being
exiled because they know the UK as their country of birth. To
return them to an environment which they have no knowledge of
is something that mothers fear. Whether these children will be
expected to adapt to the environment back home, to live in insecure
situations, to live in the fear of persecution and harassment
and face the abuse that their parents may have encountered is
something that any mother would not want to subject their children
to if they had the chance to avoid it. We have also had the experience
where mothers and children are not sleeping in their houses even
though it has been properly given to them because they fear that
the Home Office is going to come at any time. This creates a lot
of insecurity in the community because your life is not the same,
you are always on the run but, at the same time, the security
of you staying in the country is not guaranteed and that is a
dilemma which many of our members face.
Q52 Baroness Stern: My questions
are about accommodation. The first question is to Mushaka, if
you would be happy to answer this. You told us in your evidence
that asylum seekers on NASS support are moved around and given
housing which is due to be demolished. You say there are unannounced
inspections of NASS accommodation. Can you tell us what effect
this has on the asylum seeker's family and private life?
Ms Mushaka: We live in houses
which are due to be demolished and what it means is the investment
in this accommodation is non-existent. Most of our houses are
damp, most have facilities that are not up to the qualified standard
one would expect to be comfortable, but because we are asylum
seekers we are given this accommodation on a no-choice basis so
we have no negotiation. I will give a case in point in Glasgow.
One accommodation provider, the YMCA, for instance, cannot install
washing machines in all the rooms because the water supply is
poor and they see no value in investing money in a building which
is going to be demolished soon. The contradiction of this is we
have been living in this accommodation for the last five years
and with the new NASS contract it is possible that people are
going to stay for another five years. How long can we continue
to live in these conditions that they, as housing planners, deem
sub-standard and unsuitable for habitation for the long-term?
We have cases also where children are beginning to get asthma
and they had no asthma when they went into this accommodation.
We have had cases where people have mental illnesses because of
the fear of being confined in one area because the security and
environment around is not conducive for people to just go out
and participate in other things. The problems we face are many,
but the excuse of saying, "The house is going to be demolished
so we cannot invest in it" is unacceptable, in our view.
If this is going to be demolished, why can we not be re-housed
in places that are going to be more suitable for human habitation?
Back to your question of unannounced visits, this is common practice.
The ideal situation would be where the project officer writes
a letter and says, "I am going to come on this day at this
time for this reason", but that does not happen in most of
the cases. People are confused, sometimes thinking "the Home
Office is coming to take me instead of the normal routine visits".
What we also find uncomfortable is the intrusive nature of these
house checks. Somebody will come and go to the bedroom and inspect
the wardrobes. We have had questions being asked about how you
got the computer, for instance and, in my view, in today's world
the computer is a necessity and not a luxury. Why we are subjected
to these kinds of questions, they are very distressing and it
also sends out the message that we are expected to live below
a certain standard which is unacceptable.
Ms Mann: I would like to say something
about the quality of section 4 accommodation in particular. The
Inter-Agency Partnership has no comment at this stage about section
95 accommodation quality, but section 4 accommodation quality
as it currently exists, before the move to target contract provision,
is generally of a very low and variable standard. We have received
many case examples demonstrating this low quality. One example
involved a woman who lived in accommodation where the ceiling
had fallen through and we could not find anybody in the Home Office
who would take responsibility for resolving that problem. We have
had many case studies where people have not had the support or
had any inspection whatsoever while they had been staying at accommodation
for a significant period of time. While we are hopeful about the
move to the section 4 accommodation provision by target contract
providers, there is a very strong view within the Home Office,
particularly amongst bureaucrats, that section 4 support recipients,
clients, do not have the same rights, or should not expect the
same standards, as people in section 95 accommodation. We would
be very concerned if the same issues were to continue under the
new accommodation regime.
Q53 Baroness Stern: Can I move on
to a question to Richard. You said in your evidence that refused
asylum seekers now receive section 4 accommodation for lengthy
periods, which was not what was intended when the scheme was introduced.
Can you give us some idea how long asylum seekers experience these
conditions? Can you comment on the impact of this on their human
rights?
Mr Dunstan: That is absolutely
right. The section 4 regime, or "hard case" regime as
it was then known, was certainly not designed for the kind of
case and the length of support which is now happening. I cannot
remember whether it was in our written submission or in the report
we published in June, certainly in one or other we published some
Home Office figures on the length of time that people are spending
on section 4 support from, I think, February this year. That showed
that of those then on section 4 support something like 60% have
been on section 4 support for more than six months and almost
one-third have been on section 4 support for more than a year,
which is an extremely long period to spend on a very much reduced
level of support, in particular with no cash which causes all
sorts of problems of its own. I have not seen any more recent
figures from the Home Office since the foreign national prisoners'
fiasco. The Home Office has become extremely reluctant to give
out any kind of management information or statistical information
of any kind. I have not seen any more recent figures but I also
have not been given any reason to believe that those time periods
have reduced or changed at all significantly.
Q54 Baroness Stern: Could you say
something specific about the impact of this on people's human
rights?
Mr Dunstan: Section 4 support
is set at a much lower level than even section 95 support, which
itself is set at a lower level than income support. I think the
figures are income support is £57.45 a week, section 95 is
£44.22 a week and section 4 is £35 a week. That might
be manageable for a very short period of time, as I say, which
was the original intention, but for long periods that leaves individuals
in particular unable to purchase replacement clothing. Over such
periods of time clothing wears out. They may not start off with
appropriate clothing if they arrive in the summer and are on section
4 support, by the time winter comes they may not even have a winter
coat. On that level of support, particularly where that support
is provided in vouchers rather than cash, and they cannot use
vouchers in many places to buy clothes at all, it makes it extremely
difficult. I am no lawyer but that to me seems like a fairly clear
breach of human rights.
Ms Daghlian: In our experience,
not only is the level of vouchers very low but people are unable
to access what I think we would regard as fairly basic requirements.
We have had examples of people with children being unable to buy
nappies for their children, that the supermarkets and outlets
have refused to allow them to use the vouchers for those purposes.
I am not sure whether it is enshrined in legislation, but I am
sure that most of us would consider that it is a human right to
be able to clothe our newborn babies in nappies. We have many
examples of people, for example heavily pregnant women, having
to walk very, very long distances to access either medical care
because they cannot use these vouchers for transport and for other
circumstances, for example walking to get to the shops where you
can exchange your vouchers.
Ms Mushaka: Can I also add to
this submission that section 4 support is stigmatising to the
user, the fact that you have no access to cash while others do
already makes a distinction of who you are and what your position
is in society. Part of the problem that our members have shared
with us includes the inability to buy the culturally appropriate
food that we are used to and this is not commonly available in
the major supermarkets where these vouchers are supposed to be
used. We have had experiences where people have had, as a matter
of making ends meet, to exchange their vouchers for less value.
For instance, if you have a £35 voucher someone will give
you £20 cash and you lose the £15 just to try and get
around and buy what you want to eat rather than just subjecting
yourself to a life which is very difficult. We have also had women
complaining that they are not able to purchase feminine hygiene
materials that they may need. We do not know how true that is.
Some supermarkets are quite open but others may not be, it depends
on who the provider is. If there was one principle that applied
to everybody and would possibly make their lives more bearable,
we want to suggest and recommend that the voucher system is abolished—when
I first came we were on vouchers—why is it being reintroduced
at this point in time? That is something we want the Government
to reconsider. The second point is about making sure that people
are able to continue to live a meaningful life even though they
have reached the end of the process.
Q55 Baroness Stern: I wonder if I
can ask my last question to Renae. In your evidence, you have
highlighted some details about section 4 accommodation, no heating
or facilities for new babies, disrepair and no locks in shared
accommodation, for example. What action do you think should be
taken to ensure that accommodation does not result in human rights'
breaches?
Ms Mann: We believe section 4
should be abolished. The Inter-Agency Partnership agrees that
section 95 should be provided to everybody until their case is
fully determined, in that they have been moved onto alternative
mainstream support if granted status ur until they leave the country
if their claim is successful. To reiterate the points that Sally
made earlier, that support should be provided based on an understanding
and recognition that perhaps sometimes the asylum determination
system does not always make the right decision and so before making
a decision about whether or not somebody should be returning or
leaving the system they should be filtering the cohort of people
who are at the end of the process, provide a legal review of their
asylum claim and if the person then should be returning, give
them independent intensive casework support that does a risk assessment
for the entire family or individual and identifies the safety
and sustainability of voluntary return for them. We have submitted
this in response to section 9 earlier this year and we would be
very happy to share that with you.
Lord Plant of Highfield: Nia Griffith,
MP for Llanelli, has the next question on financial support.
Q56 Nia Griffith: Can I thank you
for the comments you have made already about financial support
because I think you have told us quite a lot already. I think
this question is particularly for Richard. You say that when an
asylum seeker's claim ends they will lose their NASS support and
be evicted, even if it is clear that they have qualified for section
4 support as in the case of a pregnant woman. To what extent do
you think a move to the new asylum model would solve this and
other administrative problems with support?
Mr Dunstan: The new asylum model
clearly offers the potential to close that gap which exists under
the current arrangements. The Home Office has itself said that
under the new asylum model it intends to align negative decision-making
with departure from the UK, whether that is enforced or voluntary.
We would hope that would eradicate the situation where people
fall into this trap of destitution in between. That is all well
and good and, of course, at this stage it remains to be seen to
what extent that will be achieved under the new asylum model,
but that will not address the position of the existing population
of failed asylum seekers who are not going to be dealt with under
NAM. Therefore, as well as proceeding with NAM, the Government
needs to consider the position of that population.
Q57 Lord Judd: We understand that
if the National Asylum Support Service refuses support an asylum
seeker has the right to appeal to the Asylum Support Adjudicators
in Croydon, down there on the outskirts of London. In your experience,
does this arrangement provide destitute asylum seekers with a
fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention
on Human Rights or does it not?
Ms Mann: I think I would refer
to the earlier evidence given by the Immigration and Legal Practitioners
Association a couple of weeks ago. We do not have any conclusive
evidence on this but anecdotally in case studies I have received,
particularly through the Asylum Support Appeals Project, it is
that often people are attending their adjudicator hearings without
representation and that is one of the key problems and barriers
to receiving an appropriate hearing when they are presenting to
appeals. Anecdotally, no, we do not feel that people are getting
the treatment they deserve because they are not getting the legal
representation they need to be able to present their case appropriately.
Q58 Lord Judd: Do you think they
can get access, I mean physically is it possible for them wherever
they are?
Ms Mann: It is very difficult.
The Asylum Support Appeals Project attempts to fill some of those
gaps by providing people with legal representation on the day,
but their resources are very limited and there are many, many
holes in terms of where there is availability or access to legal
practitioners across the UK.
Q59 Lord Judd: I meant physical access?
Ms Mann: No.
Mr Dunstan: I want to be careful
what I say because I do not want to say anything which implies
a criticism of the Asylum Support Adjudicators themselves. I have
to say, whilst we may not always agree with the individual decisions
that they reach, in many ways the ASA is a model of a tribunal
system, except for two things and I think these are really important.
The only hearing centre is in Croydon, whereas appellants are
distributed throughout the country and that is clearly a barrier
to justice. There is the option to claim travel expenses but they
do not, for example, include food. I have seen cases where people
have had to travel from Hull, for example, to hearings in Croydon
early in the morning. They had to travel overnight and were put
up in accommodation somewhere but the accommodation did not include
food, so they had to go to the appeal hearing without having eaten
either dinner the night before or breakfast that morning. It seems
quite incredible to me. The second major barrier to justice within
the system is the absence of Legal Aid for advice and representation
at the hearings. There is now the ASAP which provides free representation
to a relatively small number of appellants. That is a voluntary
sector project and the representation is provided on a pro bono
basis by solicitors and barristers. There is no justification
for there not being Legal Aid in this area of law. Whatever the
Government says about it having started off as a relatively straightforward
area of law, that is no longer the case. It is an extremely complex
area of law interacting as it does with the responsibilities of
local authorities. There is clearly a very strong case for introducing
Legal Aid here.
| 
