THERE are no “safe, authorised routes” to the UK for asylum claimants, even for those whose families are here, it has been claimed.
And Steve Valdez-Symonds, from Amnesty UK, told an online conference that the UK receives “very few” asylum claims, compared to close neighbours such as France.
He was speaking at a Westminster Policy Forum, when he said the UK Government's new immigration proposals would worsen the situation.
Valdez-Symonds said: “This country receives very few asylum claims, even compared to its nearest neighbours like France, and hosts very few refugees.
“But the few who do come, come by journeys that are not only dangerous, they often involve serious trauma and exploitation.
“So many refugees therefore arrive in this country already with serious mental health and other needs, over and above those that in any event result from having left behind one's home and family in painful circumstances, and possibly having been tortured or abused before deciding to flee.”
Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty’s refugee and migrant rights programme director, said refugees were in need of and entitled to receive asylum, which meant a place of safety – much more than simply “mere escape from persecution”.
He said it had to address a refugee’s psychological need for certainty, not only that they are safe today, but that they will be safe tomorrow and beyond, which raised immediate difficulties regarding their status, which is unknown when they arrive, and a summary of the often traumatic experiences they have lived through.
The asylum system did not aid this as much as it could, he said, and the new Nationality and Borders Bill contained several measures to make the situation “profoundly worse”.
He said the bill set out to intentionally delay the resolution of claims, making the system “far slower and less efficient”.
“The distress and uncertainty will be profound,” said Valdez-Symonds. “The bill, in clauses 11 and 24, also sets out to expand the use of detention and or mass holding of people in detention-like facilities, and this is going to be re-traumatising for many people.”
These were things that service providers, he added, were “going to be very hard pressed to overcome in trying to do something positive in integrating or helping a refugee, integrate in such an unwelcoming place as this country is about to become”.
Glasgow is one of the largest migrant dispersal centres in the UK with around 5000 asylum seekers, and Councillor Jennifer Layden, the city council’s equalities and human rights convener, said the new Bill would make their work more difficult.
She referred to earlier remarks from Glyn Williams, director general of the Home Office borders, immigration and citizenship systems policy and strategy group, who had referred to “genuine refugees” and “queue jumping”.
Layden said: “We cannot be using language, such as ‘genuine refugees’, and ‘people queue jumping’. I believe that this does not help with integration.
“Also, it leads to further traumatisation and can put individuals within cities at risk of hate crime, and other things happening to them.”
She said she also had serious concerns about Home Office-sanctioned accommodation for refugees, and added: "We believe that there should be good quality accommodation that is within the community and that will help with integration of asylum seekers and refugees.
"We need to move away from these contracts with private companies to one where local authorities can bid into these contracts, and be able to provide accommodation.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here