The Independent Asylum Commission (IAC) on Thursday issued its interim report on its nationwide citizens review of the UK asylum system.
In 2006 the then Home Secretary, John Reid, included the asylum system in his condemnation of a department that was ‘not fit for purpose’.
The Interim Findings provide a provisional assessment of whether the UK asylum system is ‘fit for purpose’ yet.
The Commission will publish its final conclusions in May, June and July 2008, and will make credible and workable recommendations for reform that safeguard the rights of asylum seekers but also command the confidence of the British public.
The Commission says that the system ‘is marred by inhumanity in its treatment of the vulnerable’.
How we decide who needs sanctuary
• The Commission commends the strenuous efforts being made by the Border and Immigration Agency to deal with asylum claims more effectively.
• Despite these efforts, a ‘culture of disbelief’ persists among decision-makers.
Along with lack of access to legal advice for applicants this is leading to perverse and unjust decisions.
• The adversarial nature of the asylum process stacks the odds against asylum seekers, especially those who are emotionally vulnerable and lack the power of communication.
Section 1: How we decide who needs sanctuary
At the difficulty of accessing the asylum system for people who need sanctuary.
• That the lives and welfare of people in need of sanctuary are put at risk as a consequence of policies designed to prevent illegal immigration to the UK and Europe.
• That some new arrivals have extreme difficulty claiming asylum in-country due to the limited number of Asylum Screening Units and the inadequacy of their opening hours.
• That some asylum seekers are penalised when they arrive in Britain with a forged passport or without any passport having done so for understandable and non-criminal reasons.
At the unacceptably poor standard of some initial asylum decisions.
• That there is inadequate understanding among decision-makers of the different circumstances faced by asylum seekers who are seeking sanctuary from persecution.
• That there is a lack of consistency in the quality of first-instance decision-making and that the workloads of New Asylum Model case owners may be too high.
• That the high rate of cases won on appeal indicates a high rate of poor initial decisions.
Section 2: How we treat people seeking sanctuary
Nations are commonly judged by the standards of humanity with which they treat people who are seeking sanctuary from persecution.
The Commissioners are disturbed to have found much evidence of shortcomings in the treatment of asylum seekers – from the use of administrative detention to inadequacies of support.
While all asylum seekers are in a vulnerable situation, the Commissioners are concerned to find that some individuals, such as children, disabled people and torture survivors, have additional vulnerabilities that are not adequately recognised or reflected in their treatment.
The Commissioners express concern:
• At the cost of detention
• That insufficient reasons for detention are given, that individual circumstances are rarely stated and the decision to detain is not transparent and accountable.
• That the levels of suicide and self-harm in detention centres are unacceptably high.
• That detention is unacceptably open-ended and administrative with some individuals ‘parked’ in detention for substantial periods.
• At the inappropriate detention for many convicted foreign prisoners alongside asylum seekers, which adds to the trauma of asylum seekers who have committed no crime.
• That there is poor and inadequate access to legal advice and representation for detainees. . .
• That access to medication and psychiatric care is at present inadequate and should be improved.
• That health care is not provided to detainees by the National Health Service.
• That staff are not adequately trained to ensure the health and welfare of detainees. . .
• At the use of the detained fast-track system, the high rate of negative decisions, the criteria for assigning a case to the fast-track system, and the lack of time allowed to prepare cases and appeals. . .
• That recommendations made by reports from the Chief Inspector of Prisons into detention centres are frequently not implemented.
• That there is an inconsistency of operating standards across the detention estate.
• That, while we have encountered examples of staff acting in a proactive and positive manner, we have also found many examples of the opposite, and staff still do not receive adequate training in important issues such as mental health, religion, and racism.
• That complaints are not soundly and independently investigated.
• That the contracting out of detention services reduces transparency and accountability . . .
• That detainees are frequently moved between different centres unnecessarily, and often a great distance from family and friends; that this also results in the loss of belongings. . .
• That reporting procedures can be traumatic and inhumane, for instance by requiring those in receipt of vouchers to purchase tickets for bus and train journeys to get to reporting centres.
• That asylum seekers face destitution at the beginning of their claim because of lack of access to Asylum Screening Units
• That some asylum seekers experience destitution (homeless and lacking money for basic food or other necessities) due to maladministration.
• That there are administrative delays in receiving support, for example catching up with changed addresses.
• That there is no legal aid for asylum support hearings.
• That there is no support available while waiting for a decision on support.
At the treatment of children in the asylum system
• That children continue to be detained.
• That the UK reservation on Article 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child currently means that there is a lower level of protection for children seeking asylum.
• That vital decisions on unaccompanied asylum seeking children are taken without the presence of someone who represents the rights of the child.
• At the lack of access to legal representation for unaccompanied asylum seeking children. . .
• At the culture of disbelief and related practice of age-disputing unaccompanied children who seek asylum. . .
• That children and young people face exclusions from normal activities in which other children participate, such as travel or opportunities for tertiary education.
• That the threat to deny support to families of refused asylum seekers and to take their children into care remains part of Government policy.
At the treatment of women in the asylum system
• That a woman’s claim may often, to her detriment, be made together with that of her husband or partner, instead of being given independent consideration.
• At the lack of understanding and recognition that women may have particular problems in accessing help and support.
• That the Government’s own gender guidelines are inconsistently observed.
• That women are being wrongly selected for detained fast track against the guidelines in the Asylum Policy Instructions.
• That the detention of pregnant women has a negative impact on their health and well-being.
• That women’s cases based on sexual violence are not properly presented under the fast-track system. . .
At the treatment of those with health needs in the asylum system
• That there is confusion and inconsistency over entitlement to health services.
• That charging for secondary care is having a detrimental effect on the health and well-being of refused asylum seekers and may pose a health risk to the wider population.
• That asylum seekers with health needs dispersed across the UK may suffer a break in continuity of care through dispersal.
• That HIV/Aids treatment is denied to refused asylum seekers who cannot pay for treatment and the implications for this in terms of public health.
• That there is a high level of mental illness among asylum seekers and that the asylum system fails to recognise this and in some cases exacerbates or causes stress.
• That disabled asylum seekers are not entitled to disability-related benefits.
• That the accommodation provided for disabled asylum seekers is sometimes unsuitable.
• That vulnerable groups such as older and disabled detainees are not adequately protected in detention.
At the treatment of torture survivors in the asylum system
• That torture survivors are often not identified by the system.
• That torture survivors are being detained despite Border and Immigration Agency published guidance to the contrary.
• That torture survivors are being fast-tracked against Border and Immigration Agency guidelines.
• That, because of dispersal, torture survivors frequently do not have access to organisations such as the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.
• That there is a lack of understanding among Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) decision-makers of the reasons why a torture survivor might fail to disclose their experiences.
• At the lack of recognition and understanding that expert medical reports may be slow to arrive, or be altogether absent. . .
Section 3: What happens when we refuse people sanctuary
At avoidable inhumanity in the treatment of refused asylum seekers
• That returns targets such as the ‘tipping point’ can lead to inhumane return decisions and actions.
• That unnecessary violence and carelessness has been used in the conduct of enforced returns, with vulnerable mothers and children targeted, loss of belongings and a lack of accountability on the part of those charged with enforcing the return.
• That improper force is used by escorts in the removal of some refused asylum seekers.
• That many refused asylum seekers cannot return home for periods of time because of problems of documentation, yet still face harsh treatment in the UK.
• That there are high levels of destitution among asylum seekers despite the existence of an asylum support system.
• That destitution is being used as an instrument of policy to force refused asylum seekers to leave the UK and dissuade others from entering.
• That destitute refused asylum seekers include very vulnerable people including heavily pregnant women, torture survivors, the mentally and physically ill, and older people.
• That many refused asylum seekers cannot access health services . . .
• That refused asylum seekers are vulnerable to illegal working, exploitation, and criminal activity and becoming victims of crime. . .
• That there is often inadequate time for a refused asylum seeker to contact their lawyer before being subjected to an enforced return and that BIA staff play a ‘cat and mouse’ game by arranging removals at times when it is difficult for lawyers, social workers or other potential helpers to be contacted.
• That there is no monitoring of what happens to those returned once they have left the UK. . .
• That charter flights are used to return refused asylum seekers to countries or areas of countries that may be unsafe such as Iraq, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan.
