W1 participants compared the way in which the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme and Ukrainian schemes were coordinated. Although it was recognized there were weaknesses in these systems, they worked better as a blueprint for how to coordinate at central and local multiagency level. Some participants commented that data and information sharing by the Home Office and Mears had improved but was still challenging. W1 participants also pointed out the Home Office’s large turnover of staff, which meant that appropriately senior staff were not present at meetings and could lack local knowledge. An example was provided where the Home Office insisted on using housing in an area that was likely to pose a safety risk to individuals. CSO1 noted that a lack of good quality communication from Mears was still undermining the ability of public services to provide appropriate devolved responses: “there’s… no proper communication, between Mears, and the housing executive… education is not being communicated with by Mears either… I have a sympathy for them, because they’re not getting the core information from Mears, that allows them to provide the service” (CSO1). A common theme raised by participants was the short length of time provided by the Home Office for people to “move on” from Mears accommodation once refugee status was granted. W1, W2 and W3 participants noted that while the notice period was supposed to be 28 days, this could often be much shorter (as short as seven days) turning “transition into crisis” . In December 2024 the “move on” period was extended to 56 days on a trial basis until June 2025, although it remains to be seen whether in practice this period is adhered to. 26 PB4 noted that “The realities of that [move on period] since last summer haven’t been certainly 28 days. Often a lot less. Less than seven days in a lot of instances” . This meant that it was hugely challenging to find alternative accommodation, especially for individuals and families with more complex needs. CSO2 described the length of the move on period as a “nightmare” . W3 participants noted that a “move on” group had been set up with colleagues from Housing, Education, Health to address some of these issues.
The use of a private contractor for asylum accommodation W1 participants noted that the involvement of Mears as a private company raised difficult questions in terms of oversight and remedies, with lines of accountability and statutory responsibilities unclear. CSO1 commented: “… there’s something… we’ve been trying to interrogate… but we can’t get, and that is the nature of the contract between Mears and the Home Office, and what the duties are in there…. They are a for profit organisation, and they’re about making profit. And some of their practices were, you know, total breach of people’s rights, and then the issues are, how do you hold them to account if they are a private company?” (CSO1). PB4 highlighted the different approach they would take as a public service compared with Mears: “Our primary concern is people and helping people. Sometimes I think some of the decisions that are made there are driven by the fact that the funding stops for people and let’s get them moved on… We have I think greatly improved our relationship with Mears as well over the last year… But ultimately I think Mears are a profit driven organisation and that’s what their key consideration is” (PB4). CSO9 said they were concerned about key services to children being “mediated” through a private company: “… the service offer, was all being mediated through Mears… it was that involvement of a private third party, like an intermediary, which has no other equivalent in our devolved space, no child has to do that” (CSO9). Issues related to the policy and practice of devolved public services W1 participants noted asylum seekers and refugees tended to experience “softer support” when engaging with devolved public services compared to the Home Office. A number of participants identified areas of good practice as well as areas where challenges in public service provision created access barriers: “… it is really worth highlighting that there’s some public services out there that do an amazing job… the public services in general aren’t all big, bad wolves, there’s some here doing amazingly. And if there could be shared learning there between services, I think that’s an opportunity for learning and progress” (CSO8).
26 https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/refugee-council-welcomes-change-to-the-move-on-period-for-refugees/ [Accessed 14 March 2025].
20 | Access to Public Services and Access to Justice for Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Northern Ireland
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software