A welcome change: Michael Bartlet on the Quaker Asylum and Refugee Network

‘Refugees are the human face of international injustice.’

Refugees are the human face of international injustice. For two decades, the Quaker concern for this issue has been expressed through Quaker Asylum and Refugee Network (QARN). QARN does not run its own projects, but we network with many NGOs that are working on issues of migration and refugees. Many of our members are involved in activism, while others are more meditative, each according to their capacity. We offer support to Britain Yearly Meeting, and persist in reminding our Society of its minuted recognition that asylum is a concern.

So what are these main concerns and priorities? Firstly, QARN members have been concerned for some time about Migrant Help, a charity funded by the government to support migrants. The quality of this support is sometimes admirable, with dedicated workers putting in lots of effective effort. In other cases, the standard appears deeply unsatisfactory, and many of those dedicated workers have unmanageable workloads. Following the tragic death of a resident living in government-contracted accommodation, for example, residents were grieving and worried about their own safety. A Friend from QARN appealed to Migrant Help to provide support, but it was not able to offer this because its contract obliges it only to support individuals, and not more generally. We campaign for such organisations to show some compassion rather than only fulfilling their contractual obligations.

It’s convenient for government to delegate its responsibilities in this way. QARN members have great concern that Migrant Help, while holding charitable status, has allowed itself to become dependent on government funding, which effectively gags the organisation from exposing the real impact of government decisions on people seeking asylum. 

Another injustice we are seeking to address is the issue of renewal fees for those seeking the right to remain. Asylum seekers who have been granted leave to remain are subject to exorbitant fees four times in a mandatory ten-year route to settlement. This currently affects around 170,000 people. The cost of fees vastly exceeds the true cost to the Home Office of administering the system. The fees incorporate an ‘Immigration Health Surcharge’, which is now being increased by sixty-six per cent, ostensibly to pay for a projected pay rise for junior doctors.

The current renewal charge, enforced every two-and-a-half years, is £3,636, of which £2,588 is that health surcharge and is levied even on individuals who are already paying their taxes. It’s legal, but is it honest? It might be fairer and more fruitful to welcome qualifying ex-asylum seekers into membership of our society as quickly and cheaply as possible. Some fee is reasonable, but we want to see this reduced to match the true cost of administration. And we want the Home Office to carry out its job on a reasonable timescale. We know of many, many cases where delays have meant that an ID card has expired, and former asylum seekers’ jobs or benefits were lost.

Another part of our work involves lobbying the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI). The ICIBI is responsible for holding the Home Office accountable for its performance in relation to immigration. It reports to parliament on its findings. The chief inspector has been very vocal about his frustration at the lack of engagement with the home secretary. We have had contact with the ICIBI over a number of years, initially in relation to the asylum accommodation at Penally Camp and Napier Barracks. We worked with some residents of these camps to bring deep concerns to the chief inspector’s attention.

More recently we have asked for an inspection into how the Home Office ensures the accountability of organisations that act on its behalf. The government pays huge sums to contractors such as Serco, Clearsprings, Mears and Mitie. We know that these, and the Home Office, have at times claimed ignorance of the facts when appropriate care of people seeking asylum has been woefully lacking. We want an inquiry to examine whether there is an effective system in place for proper oversight of work undertaken. Contact with the ICIBI also gives us the opportunity to encourage its staff when appropriate.
Many of our members are involved with various NGOs and other groups that help refugees and migrants to find decent affordable housing, and monitor housing conditions. Thank goodness that the Home Office seems to have withdrawn from the absurd and very-damaging practice of giving asylum seekers just one week’s notice that they are being evicted – though even a month’s notice presents huge problems. And, because of inefficient systems, eviction notices are still often served based on one week of notice.

This year, there’s an election coming. QARN members have been giving thought to what needs to change after that election. Firstly, we recommend working constructively with other countries to assist refugees, since wealthier countries take a much smaller share of refugees worldwide. We also want an investment in legal help so that people seeking asylum can properly present their case (currently, more than two-thirds of asylum seekers have to wait over six months for an initial decision). Then, the ban on asylum seekers working should be lifted. We further recommend that the system of online, fee-free permission to travel to the UK that we used for Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals be extended.

We also call for a radical amendment to the so-called Illegal Migration Act. The right to a fair hearing of an asylum claim should be reinstated. Alternatives to detention, which are better and cheaper, should also be sought. We seek a reduction in visa renewal fees, to cover only the cost of administration, and a fee waiver for the application for permanent residence – along with a reduction in the number of years’ wait to five.

The general election gives Friends opportunities. Will you, with us, work for the restoration of protections for refugees, and for Britain to uphold its obligations under international law? Together we can suggest alternatives, help refugees get a voice, and correct the lies.

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment