Latest News from Positive Action in Housing

Anil Dawar guardian.co.uk, Thursday March 27 2008

The UK’s asylum system is “marred by inhumanity” and “not yet fit for purpose”, the most comprehensive study ever conducted into its workings has found.

A report published today by the Independent Asylum Commission found the treatment of asylum seekers coming to this country fell “seriously below” the standards of a civilised society.

The year-long study of the work of the Border and Immigration Agency, led by former appeal court judge Sir John Waite, said the system denied sanctuary to some in need and failed to remove others who should go.

It called the treatment of some asylum seekers a “blemish” on the UK’s international reputation.

The Border and Immigration Agency has refuted the report, claiming it operated a “firm but humane” system.

The commission was established in 2006 after the then home secretary John Reid branded the immigration system “unfit for purpose”.

It took testimonies from every sector of society, including former home secretaries, policy makers, charities, asylum seekers, police, local authorities, and citizens.

The findings highlighted three particular areas of concern: The use of detention centres, especially to hold children, pregnant women and torture victims; the often brutal handling of removals; and the use of destitution as a tool to drive claimants out of the country.

Waite said: “The overuse of detention, the scale of destitution and the severity of removals are all areas which need attention before the system can be described as fit for purpose”.

Commenting on the common practice of locking up refugees, the report said: “The detention of asylum-seekers is overused, oppressive and an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer,” and branded the detention of children “wholly unjustified”.

“The system still denies sanctuary to some who genuinely need it and ought to be entitled to it, is not firm enough in returning those whose claims are refused and is marred by inhumanity in its treatment of the vulnerable.”

Waite went on to call for “a thorough re-examination” of the detention and bail system, which treated asylum seekers as criminals.

“The justification for such a system is the fear of absconding, and that fear is, in our opinion, grossly exaggerated,” he said.

Border officials, the report found, did not give enough consideration to factors such as post-traumatic stress in initial interviews.

“Some of those seeking sanctuary, particularly women, children and torture survivors, have additional vulnerabilities that are not being appropriately addressed,” it said.

Other issues highlighted in the report included the fact that many genuine claims were being overlooked because of cuts in the legal aid budget which have made it more difficult to find lawyers for complex cases.

And some private security firms were described by the commission as carrying out removals with “unnecessary violence and carelessness”.

Government figures reveal there were 23,430 asylum applications in 2007, the lowest for 14 years, and a quarter of the record set in 2002.

Today’s report presented the commission’s interim findings. Further reports will be published in May, June and July, including recommendations on reform of the system.

Donna Covey, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “This is an important set of findings from an independent commission, which presents overwhelming evidence that the asylum system is still not fit for purpose.

“We must treat people with basic decency, and the system must get asylum decisions right – they are a matter of life and death.”

Responding to the report, Lin Homer, head of the Border and Immigration Agency, said: “The claims made in this report are not based on any thorough knowledge. I totally refute any suggestion that we treat asylum applicants without care and compassion.

“We have a proud tradition in Britain of offering sanctuary to those who truly need our protection, and anyone seeking asylum can have their case reviewed by an independent judge.

“We operate a firm but humane system, supporting those who are vulnerable with accommodation and assistance.

“But we expect those that a court says have no genuine need for asylum to return home voluntarily, saving taxpayers the expense of enforcing their return.

“We will enforce the removal of those who refuse to comply, always ensuring first that it is safe to do so.”

Related Articles
‘Inhumane and oppressive’: the final verdict on Britain’s asylum policy

BBC NEWS ONLINE

The UK’s treatment of asylum seekers falls seriously below the standards of a civilised country, says a report. The Independent Asylum Commission heard from hundreds of witnesses, including asylum seekers who said the system had been unfair to them.

Germain Naruhana gave evidence to the commission in Leeds. He claimed asylum from the DR Congo in 2005. He says his father was beheaded by political opponents after the family spoke out against abuses. He has lost contact with his wife and three children. He says an asylum judge told him his story was not credible.

Afshin, who is originally from Iran, spoke to the Independent Asylum Commission about his experiences in the UK, where he has lived for the past 12 years.

He says he waited five years for a decision on his case - a refusal.

“If someone would tell an Iranian that in a Western country they treat you like this, they wouldn’t believe you - because they think there is so much humanity there because we have such a brutal government.”

Shoherah Muhummad, originally from Somalia, gave evidence to the commission in Leeds.

She says she struggled to get adequate legal representation to help her to prepare her case before asylum assessors.

“I was running around not knowing where I was going. The only thing that has been going through my head was why did I come to the UK - I made a very big mistake.”

BBC NEWS ONLINE

The UK’s treatment of asylum seekers falls “seriously below” the standards of a civilised society, a report says.

The Independent Asylum Commission, led by an ex-senior judge, said the system denied sanctuary to some in need and failed to remove others who should go.

It said the treatment of some asylum seekers was a shameful blemish on the UK’s international reputation.

But the Border and Immigration Agency has rejected the report, claiming it operates a “firm but humane” system.

The Commission spent a year researching the report and spoke to former home secretaries, policy makers and asylum seekers.

It was established in the wake of calls from community organisations and charities for an authoritative examination of asylum after former Home Secretary John Reid branded the immigration system “not fit for purpose”.

Sir John Waite, co-chairman of the commission and a former Appeal Court judge, said this particular issue was a “blemish” on the UK’s reputation.

The report praised immigration officials for recent reforms to how they manage asylum applications - but it warned that a “culture of disbelief” was leading to “perverse and unjust decisions”.

The commissioners said policymakers were at times using “indefensible” threats of destitution to try to force some asylum seekers to leave the UK.

‘Poor understanding’

Another commission member, Lord Ramsbotham, a former chief inspector of prisons, told the BBC that officials considering asylum claims often had a poor understanding of an individual’s circumstances.

“We are concerned at the level of the treatment of children, the treatment of women, the treatment of those with health needs, particularly mental health needs, torture survivors.”

But he acknowledged: “The system is improving all the time, and we commend the strenuous efforts by Border and Immigration Agency to deal with these claims more effectively.”

“We are a country with a basic instinct of fair play - it’s rooted deeply in our national character,” Sir John told the BBC.

“The system denies fair play to asylum seekers not out of malice but because of a lack of resources.”

The head of the Border and Immigration Agency, Lin Homer, said: “I totally refute any suggestion that we treat asylum applicants without care and compassion.

“We have a proud tradition in Britain of offering sanctuary to those who truly need our protection.

“We operate a firm but humane system, supporting those who are vulnerable with accommodation and assistance.

“But we expect those that a court says have no genuine need for asylum to return home voluntarily, saving taxpayers the expense of enforcing their return.

“We will enforce the removal of those who refuse to comply, always ensuring first that it is safe to do so.”

‘Uncivilised’

Sir John said the commissioners were concerned over the detention of asylum seekers, including children and the “hopelessly confused” public perception of asylum and its place in the immigration system.

The hearings had also come across torture victims and pregnant women being fast-tracked through the system, despite official guidelines saying this should not happen.

Overall, the treatment of asylum seekers fell “seriously below the standards to be expected of a humane and civilised society,” said the report.

Figures show there were 23,430 asylum applications in 2007 - the lowest for 14 years - and a quarter of the record set in 2002.

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne described Britain’s asylum system as “broken.”

“The asylum process combines incredible complexity with systemic incompetence and is not fit for purpose.”