JCHR inquiry into the treatment of asylum seekers

September 2006

Summary

In this evidence, we draw the Committee’s attention to the following issues relating to the treatment of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland.

	Northern Ireland presents unique issues in relation to the treatment of asylum seekers, including: o the adverse impact of the lack of a Public Inquiry Office in Northern Ireland; o the impact of a land border with another EEA state; o the legal status of Irish-born children of asylum seekers; o the policy of removal of asylum seekers out of the juridical area to Scotland or England (paras. 2.1 – 2.50).
	Concerns over the provision of accommodation and financial support for asylum seekers (paras. 3.1 – 3.7).
	Problems associated with inadequate and/or delayed provision of health care to asylum seekers and particular issues presented by those asylum seekers with mental health needs (paras 4.3 – 4.5).
	The failure to respect the rights of children of asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors (paras. 5.1 – 5.2) with particular emphasis on the detention of the children of asylum seekers (para. 5.3).
	The impact of removal from Northern Ireland to detention in GB on asylum seekers and their families (paras. 6.1 – 6.5).

1. Introduction

1.1  Law Centre (NI) is a public interest law non-governmental organisation. The Law Centre works to promote social justice and provides specialist legal services to advice organisations and disadvantaged individuals through our advice line and our casework services from our two regional offices in Northern Ireland.  Five specialist lawyers carry out our immigration and asylum work and we represent in a substantial number of all immigration appeals in Northern Ireland.  We are the main advisers on immigration law in Northern Ireland.  We operate an advice line five days a week and answer queries in relation to all aspects of immigration law.  We also facilitate the Immigration Practitioners’ Group which consists of lawyers and voluntary sector organisations. It meets regularly to discuss all aspects of immigration law and practice in Northern Ireland.  This submission has been informed by the work of our immigration practitioners.   

1.2  Below we highlight some of the unique issues pertaining to Northern Ireland in the treatment of asylum seekers and respond to the particular issues raised by the Committee with reference to examples from our casework.  These case studies are intended to convey some of the ways in which we believe the treatment of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland fails to comply with the obligations assumed by the UK under international human rights law.  We have allocated fictional names to these case study examples in order to protect the privacy of those concerned. 

2. The Northern Ireland Context

2.1 It is difficult to establish the exact number of asylum seekers and refugees living in Northern Ireland. In 2004, the Refugee Action Group estimated that there were perhaps around 2,000 refugees here. This number included those who had received refugee status, those who had claimed asylum in other parts of the UK and those who had claimed asylum in Northern Ireland.[1]

2.2 In its figures for the first quarter of 2006, the Home Office has stated that it was supporting 135 asylum seekers through National Asylum Support Service (NASS), with an estimated 10 others receiving subsistence only support from NASS.

2.3  For a number of reasons, Northern Ireland has different issues in the treatment of asylum seekers compared to the rest of the UK.  Geographically, it is the only part of the UK to share a land border with another EEA state.  This can lead to individuals who are legally seeking asylum in the Republic of Ireland finding themselves, unwittingly or unintentionally, in Northern Ireland, resulting in their detention.  Northern Ireland is also unique within the rest of the UK in that a child born in Northern Ireland may be eligible for dual citizenship (of both the Republic of Ireland and the UK).  This entitlement means that a child born in Northern Ireland may, legally, be an EEA citizen, residing in another EEA country from the one where they are a citizen. The child may, therefore, be entitled to rights that the child of an asylum seeker born in Wales, England or Scotland would almost certainly not be able to access. However, the Home Office has at times appeared to be unaware of these rights and has removed children who are EEA citizens and may be legally entitled to remain in the UK. 

2.4 Northern Ireland is also somewhat distinct from the rest of the UK in the provision of Home Office/IND services to asylum seekers.  Unlike the rest of the UK, there is no Public Enquiry Office in Northern Ireland.  We understand that the existing NASS agent in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM), will discontinue its work of providing services to asylum seekers from the end of March 2007 and there is some uncertainty as to how Home Office services will be delivered in Northern Ireland after this time.  While there is increasing uncertainty on future provision of services to asylum seekers within Northern Ireland, the Home Office is nevertheless currently investing significant resources to establish a sizeable enforcement presence in Northern Ireland from 2007.   Law Centre (NI) believes that the provision of the full range of Home Office services to asylum seekers in Northern Ireland, including the establishment of a Public Enquiry Office, is vital to meet the needs and human rights of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland and to expedite the processing of asylum claims.

2.5 Finally, asylum seekers in Northern Ireland are subject to removal across the Irish Sea, most commonly, to the Dungavel Removal Centre in Scotland, following initial detention by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).   This not only separates them from their legal representatives and places them in a new juridical area but also separates them from any friends, family and community they may have begun to establish in Northern Ireland.

2.6 As throughout the UK, asylum seekers form one of the most vulnerable groups within Northern Ireland.  Law Centre (NI) has sought to challenge the treatment of asylum seekers by Government in Northern Ireland through a range of legal avenues, including judicial review, to protect the rights of those fleeing persecution in their country of origin.

3. Access to accommodation and financial support

3.1  Lack of Public Enquiry Office: The provision of support for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland has been adversely affected by the closure of the Public Enquiry Office in 2001.   Asylum seekers often have to claim asylum through a third party and can experience many problems due to delays in obtaining an interview; this can seriously impact on their ability to access services and support at a later stage.  One of the most common situations Law Centre (NI) deals with is assisting asylum seekers whose attempt to claim asylum on entry into the UK through Northern Ireland has been delayed due to the lack of the Enquiry Office. This delay has, on occasion, resulted in a claim for asylum being refused on the grounds, inter alia, of the time delay between entry and interview.

3.2 Accommodation:  Since April 2000, the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland has been the responsibility of the National Asylum Support Service.  Accommodation has been provided by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, initially under a 3 year contract that has now been extended for a further 12 months until early 2007.   There is currently some degree of uncertainty over future provision of accommodation within Northern Ireland.  This arises both from the uncertainty associated with the need for renewal of the Housing Executive contract next year and from the current Review of Public Administration in Northern Ireland which has yet to set out the policy for future provision of all accommodation across Northern Ireland.

3.3  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is at present providing 82 designated accommodation units for those claiming asylum.[2] Forty of these units are occupied by single asylum seekers in (generally) multiple occupancy housing, while forty-two units are occupied by family groups.  The accommodation for a family group varies with the size of the family but all are self-contained units.  The Housing Executive also tries to maintain a reserve of housing stock to meet any sudden influx of asylum seekers. Those asylum seekers who are living in Northern Ireland are currently concentrated within Belfast and the Greater Belfast area as this allows asylum seekers to more easily access services.

3.4  We understand the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, in partnership with, the NASS agent, NICEM, do try to ensure that accommodation is tailored suitably to the needs of the most vulnerable persons, particularly family groups and those suffering from health problems, including mental health problems.

3.5  We consider that continued investment in accommodation suitable to the needs of asylum seekers, including families and those with special requirements would not only positively meet the needs of our clients, like Christopher, but would also be a more cost effective means of accommodating asylum seekers: it currently costs almost six times more per week to detain a family group than it does to provide them with suitable accommodation.[3]  We discuss the particular issues relating to detention at Section 5 below.

3.6 Financial Provision:  In relation to the provision of financial assistance Law Centre (NI) recognizes and welcomes the provision of ‘hard case’ support to failed asylum seekers who are otherwise in danger of destitution.  However, the current process of applying for ‘hard case’ support is lengthy and the delays in processing these claims, can lead to asylum seekers becoming destitute, homeless and utterly dependent on charity.

3.7  Law Centre (NI) would welcome reform of the process for allocating ‘hard case’ support.  The current system can be too protracted. Law Centre (NI) has experience of decisions on whether to provide support taking six weeks. Given that the allocation of assistance under this provision is determined on the basis of the claimant facing real destitution within fourteen days, a process that takes many weeks to navigate has the potential to deprive claimants of basic human rights.

Benjamin

Benjamin, a young man from North Africa arrived in the UK in 2003. He claimed asylum in 2004 after suffering a severe bout of mental illness. His initial application for asylum was rejected. This meant Benjamin was forced to remain as a voluntary in-patient in a mental hospital while ‘hard case’ support from NASS, including accommodation was pursued. The process of applying for support was held up repeatedly by errors in the handling of the application by IND. As a result Benjamin had no option but to stay on his ward surrounded by individuals suffering from serious mental disorder despite being assured by doctors that he was fully recovered from his illness.  After a couple of months Law Centre (NI) was able to arrange funding for Benjamin that allowed him to leave the ward.

4. The provision of healthcare

4.1 Asylum Seekers experience similar health problems as the rest of the population. In addition, they are also liable to suffer from a range of particular, physical, mental and emotional health problems, caused by the conditions they have fled from, the abuse and poverty they have suffered and the conditions they have experienced while fleeing and encountered when reaching the UK.  In the UK in 2005, 2,786 victims of torture from over 100 countries were referred for the first time, to the Medical Foundation.[4]  These new referrals were coping not just with past trauma, but with the pain of exile too.

4.2 The NHS was established on the principles of quality care that meets the needs of everyone, that is free at the point of need and based on a patient's clinical need, not their ability to pay.  These continue to be the guiding principles of the NHS.  Policy guidance from the Northern Ireland Department for Health, Social Service and Public Safety in June 2003 outlines that asylum seekers should be provided with the same access to healthcare as other citizens and that healthcare providers should be mindful of and sympathetic to their particular needs.[5]  Law Centre (NI) welcomes this commitment and wishes to see the commitment fully reflected in health care provided to all those seeking asylum in the UK.  This has not, however, been our experience in a number of cases with asylum seekers in Northern Ireland.  Our concerns, focus on the lack of adequate health care, often associated with a delay in accessing health care; the particular problems experienced by asylum seekers presenting with mental health needs; the lack of health services to failed asylum seekers; the impact of removal and detention on the health of asylum seekers and the potential impact on the health of asylum seekers arising from the threat of deportation. These concerns are illustrated in a number of case studies set out below.

4.3 We have seen many cases where the provision of healthcare to asylum seekers has fallen significantly short of what would be accepted as a minimum standard of care under international human rights standards (eg International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12).  We believe that many of the problems faced by asylum seekers in accessing health services would be resolved by the allocation of greater resources towards services that meet the specific needs of asylum seekers.

Bernadette

Bernadette, a young woman from sub-Saharan Africa was trafficked into the UK by a European man called ‘John’ in return for her being his ‘girlfriend’.  He subsequently abandoned her.  As a child Bernadette had been subject to sexual abuse before being sold to a local chieftain as a bride.  On arrival in Northern Ireland, as an unaccompanied minor, delays in the provision of services by social services meant that Bernadette had to wait many months before being able to see a GP.  When she was finally able to see a GP she was diagnosed as being HIV positive and suffering from serious mental health conditions brought about by the traumatic nature of her experiences.  Despite these factors the Home Office still tried to proceed with the removal of Bernadette to her country of origin where there was insufficient health provision to meet her clinical needs

4.4  One area of particular concern is the provision of treatment of asylum seekers with mental health conditions.  The Refugee Council has highlighted the issues involved:

Refugees and Asylum Seekers commonly experience significant mental health problems … Once in the UK, the stress caused by poverty, living in a hostile environment and attempting to adapt to a new society can themselves cause or contribute to significant mental health problems.[6] We have considerable experience representing asylum seeking individuals with mental health issues.  Our clients often suffer from trauma, depression and shock and have to come to terms with the loss of or separation from loved ones. 

Colin

Colin was an Iranian Kurd living in an Iraqi refugee camp who fled to Northern Ireland after his family were killed and his home destroyed.  Colin is currently on medication as he suffers from depression and insomnia as a result of his experience in Iraq. He has not found the medication helps him but when he goes to the GP he finds it extremely difficult to talk to him as they have to communicate using the Language Line system. The GP has repeatedly increased Colin’s dosage as Colin cannot explain to him his concerns.  Investment in better services for the provision of health care for asylum seekers across Northern Ireland, targeted at meeting their distinct needs, would have a significant impact on the experiences of individuals like Colin.

4.5  We consider there to be a pressing need for increased awareness among service providers of the specific issues asylum seekers present with, the targeting of services to match the needs of asylum seekers eg counselling services, and greater allocation of resources to frontline services. (For example, we are aware of only one counsellor currently providing services to asylum seekers in Northern Ireland and this service is provided on a voluntary basis).

4.6 Moreover, we also have experience of the difficulties facing people who have a failed asylum claim in accessing the most basic of health care.  This has included pregnant women seeking pre and post natal care; access to GPs for the children of people with a failed asylum claim and the lack of provision for individuals coping with the implications of having fled their country of origin while suffering from serious, even terminal, medical conditions such as HIV/AIDS.

4.7 Finally, we have general concerns about the apparent disregard, in a number of instances, by the Home Office of its obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in assessing the deportation of asylum seekers.  The threatened deportation of an HIV sufferer to a country lacking the capacity to guarantee suitable medical support, for example, in Bernadette’s case, raised Article 3 (ECHR) issues. 

4.8 We recommend that priority should be given to providing training and information for health care providers; improving access to support services such as interpreters and better treatment, including counselling, for the specific issues faced by asylum seekers. This would significantly improve the experience of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland.

5. The treatment of children

5.1 The United Nations convention on the rights of the Child (UNCRC) requires state Parties to ensure that ‘in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration [our emphasis].’[7]  Further, the Convention behoves states to protect the rights set out in the Convention for each child within its jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind’ (Article 2(1)).  These rights include the right to be free from arbitrary interference with his or her privacy or home (Article 16); the right to education (Article 28); the right to be protected from physical or mental violence, injury or abuse (Article 19); the right to the highest attainable standard of health (Article 24) and the right of a child ‘not to be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child’ (Article 9).  Moreover, the Convention obliges states to afford ‘appropriate protection … in the enjoyment of the rights’ in the Convention to children seeking refugee status (Article 22).  While the UK has assumed obligations under the Convention as a matter of international law, we have been deeply concerned by the UK’s retention of its wide-ranging reservation to the Convention in respect of immigration matters.  The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has argued that this reservation is ‘against the object and purpose of the Convention’ and has highlighted the ‘unequal enjoyment’ of rights by asylum seeker and refugee children in the UK.  The Committee has recommended that the UK adopts the ‘best interest of the child’ as a ‘paramount consideration … notably… in immigration practices’ and we would urge re-consideration of the merits of maintaining this extensive reservation in place.[8]   It is further recalled that the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights must apply to all persons within a state’s jurisdiction without discrimination on any ground (A. 14). 

5.2  The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has argued that:

children who are subject to immigration control are currently treated as migrants first and foremost. Their needs and vulnerabilities as children are routinely ignored… While children are living in this country, they must be afforded equal rights and treatment under UK law. The emphasis should be placed on ensuring that the policies and practice of immigration control is compatible with our national and international obligations towards children as one of the most vulnerable groups in our society.[9]

Law Centre (NI) has provided legal representation in a number of cases where we considered the treatment of children of asylum seekers or of unaccompanied asylum seeking minors engaged the states’ obligations under international human rights standards.  Our concern is focussed on the adequacy of services for children of asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors and the detention of children.  These are highlighted in the cases of Evan and Sara’s Children set out below.

Evan

Evan was an unaccompanied asylum seeking minor from China who arrived in Northern Ireland at the age of 14. Despite speaking little English and there being a Chinese community in Belfast, Evan was placed with a non-Chinese family in the rural Northern Ireland and did not go to school for over a year after his arrival, because of delays in the assessment of his personal education needs.

5.3  We have been pleased to note the significant reduction in the level of detention of minors in the last six months.[10]  Nevertheless, we would argue that all detention of asylum seekers should be halted, and an immediate cessation of the practice of detaining children.  We note that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has recorded its concern that ‘the detention of [children claiming asylum, either with their families or on their own] is incompatible with the principles and provisions of the Convention’[11] (Article 37(c)) and we would recommend an urgent review by the Home Office of this practice and the need to maintain a reservation to the Convention in respect of Article 37(c).  The case of Sara’s children illustrates the need for an urgent response to this practice. 

Sara’s Children

Sara’s two young girls came to Northern Ireland with their mother after fleeing Eritrea, Sudan and Malta.^* In the course of their stay in Northern Ireland the two girls started school and, following their mother’s marriage, began integrating into the community.  One morning at 7am after dressing in their school uniform they were preparing for school with their mother, a large number of immigration officials and police officers appeared at their front door.  The two girls were separated from their mother and taken to a PSNI detention suite in Belfast prior to removal to Scotland where they were placed in social services care. At no point were they allowed to see their mother or their step-father. After being in social services care for four days without any contact with their mother or step-father they were returned to Belfast and reunited with their step-father after Law Centre (NI) had successfully challenged their removal.  Their r remained in detention in Dungavel for a further week. The impact of such a brutal and arbitrary process on two girls aged ten and younger was extremely traumatic and both are currently undergoing counselling.

6 - The use of detention and conditions of detention and methods of removal of failed asylum seekers

6.1 Due to the absence of a holding centre in Northern Ireland, asylum seekers in Northern Ireland were, until recently, detained in prison.  Law Centre (NI) and other organizations campaigned vigorously against the practice of detention in prison and strongly welcomed the decision to abandon this practice in January 2006.  However, we are deeply concerned that his practice has been replaced by the process of removal to Scotland or England, following initial detention in PSNI detention suites.  The majority of those claiming asylum in Northern Ireland who are subject to detention, are detained in the Dungavel Removal Centre in Scotland.

6.2 This forced removal outside the jurisdiction is not only traumatic for individuals and family groups but also deprives asylum seekers access to their legal representatives in Northern Ireland.  The Law Centre has built a high level of expertise in representing asylum seekers in Northern Ireland, with particular specialism in the European law aspects of the rights of Irish-born children. For asylum seekers with Irish-born children, the loss of this expert legal advice is particularly troubling.  We understand the policy of removal will continue to be applied following the establishment of a new Enforcement Office in Belfast in the summer of 2007.[12]

6.3 Law Centre (NI) has serious concerns about the provision of services for asylum seekers following detention.  In our experience, this has included failure to routinely provide interpretation services and access to legal advice.  Moreover, the removal of asylum seekers out of Northern Ireland to Scotland means that a different legal representative has to take on a case with a very short timeframe, which can have serious consequences for the individual.  Given the experience of our clients in Dungavel Removal Centre, we have further reservations about the adequacy of legal provision made available to our clients while being held there.  We consider that the removal of asylum seekers to Dungavel engages the guarantees under a number of provisions of the ECHR, including Articles 3, 6 & 8.

Sara

Sara, from Eritrea, fled with her two children from the civil war in Eritrea and was officially recognised by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees as a refugee in Sudan. After being detained in Malta she fled to Northern Ireland, where she met and married another asylum seeker.

Under the terms of the Dublin Convention the Home Office subsequently made a decision to remove Sara to Malta without informing the Law Centre, who had been acting as Sara’s legal representatives in relation to her asylum claim.  The Immigration Service called at her home just after seven in the morning and lifted her and her two children who were in their school uniform getting ready for school. Sara and her children were separated and placed in two prison vans. At the police station, Sara tried to commit suicide. No medical assessment of her condition was made, no doctor or other clinician called and she was not taken to hospital. Sara, separated from her children was removed to Dungavel Removal Centre in Scotland. On arrival Sara was not re-united with her children, who were placed into social services care. The authorities in Dungavel were not told about Sara’s suicide attempt and as a result, another 24 hours passed before she received medical attention as part of the routine procedures applied to new detainees.

Law Centre (NI) was granted an emergency High Court injunction suspending their removal and compelling the Home Office to transfer the family back to Northern Ireland. The children were brought back to their stepfather after four days with Sara being reunited with them a week later.

6.4 The treatment of Sara and her children raises many issues. No regard was given to the health and well being of Sara and the children before removal. If Sara’s GP had been consulted she would have advised of the risk of self harm if Sara was removed from NI and separated from her husband. The lack of medical assessment and treatment following her suicide attempt was a clear breach of her human rights, the authorities in Dungavel should have been told of her suicide attempt so she could receive treatment and be monitored. The approach of the immigration service in this case reveals flaws in their procedures and a cavalier approach to the vulnerabilities of those being removed. 

6.5 Irish Born Children: There are a number of other cases where families have been removed from Northern Ireland unlawfully and we have successfully arranged for their return.  In light of this we believe it is likely that at some point Home Office/IND officials will attempt to remove a family group that includes one or more Irish Born Children. These cases are particularly complex and will raise very sensitive issues within Northern Ireland. Yet officials at Home Office/IND still do not appear to recognise or have any safeguards in place, for the protection of the rights of these children.

7. Treatment by the media

7.1  Research by the UNHCR showed that four out of the five national tabloid papers in the UK have appeared to follow a determinedly anti-asylum approach to reporting over the five years from January 2000 to January 2006.  Fortunately, in Northern Ireland the prevailing attitude of the media is more sympathetic to asylum seekers. This is, in large measure down to work done by local organisations with the media including the publication and joint launch by the Refugee Action Group with the National Union of Journalists of Forced to Flee which set out dispassionately facts and myths on asylum seeking.

7.2 Over the period from January 2005 to September 2006 using the same approach, as the UNHCR study, to print media in Northern Ireland found that stories relating to asylum seekers and refugees were predominantly more sympathetic. Of 30 stories from the Belfast Telegraph (the leading regional daily paper) in the period from January 2005 to September 2006, 29 were sympathetic to the plight of asylum seekers with the other being neutral in tone.  A 2002 survey by Amnesty International on attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers in Northern Ireland[13]  showed a generally sympathetic attitude towards the plight of asylum seekers. Given these findings, it is clear that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the UK where asylum seekers continue to be welcomed.

8. Conclusion

8.1 Northern Ireland raises a number of unique issues in the treatment of asylum seekers.  Unfortunately, as evidenced, these are not acknowledged by Home Office/IND.  Their failure to recognize these issues could lead to potential violations of an individual’s human rights.  We would also argue that the state must assume its obligations under international human rights law to guarantee the rights enshrined therein to everyone within its jurisdiction without discrimination.  The benefits of treating asylum seekers in Northern Ireland in a manner compatible with these obligations would not only be cost-effective but would also bring positive benefits to Northern Ireland, culturally and economically.