The most frequently cited example of challenges around coordination and joined up planning related to mitigating the impact of frequent housing moves (either caused by the Home Office’s dispersal policy or people being moved due to an absence of suitable housing in areas of their choice). W2 and W3 participants said that there was limited data-sharing across councils, Trusts, and other public bodies in the event of relocation. The movement of individuals was a huge challenge, for example, the Department of Education could set up support for individuals in temporary accommodation who were then transferred to the other side of the country. A barrier was that information didn’t always transfer when such housing moves were made. CSO4 said that there had been insufficient planning for the impact of the dispersal policy: “So in terms of community infrastructure, in terms of peoples’ cultural competence, even public services, it was challenging and there was no dispersal policy that was put in place by our Executive” (CSO4). CSO2 gave an example of this lack of planning, noting that their organisation had received many requests for help when the dispersal policy was implemented: “…we would get… calls from the council, often from good relations officers in councils… [They would] say ‘help, we’ve 28 men have suddenly been dropped into our council area, we don’t know anything about them, could you come and give us some training. We don’t the difference between an asylum seeker and refugee’ … it’s zero, very limited understanding of the issues, which is unsurprising because they’ve literally never done this work before” (CSO2). W2 participants said that one of the biggest challenges was the transition between asylum seeker and refugee status. Families and individuals were “left to their own devices” once refugee status was granted, often leading to relocation based on availability of accommodation. Relocation meant changing schools for families, changing Trusts, and losing continuity of access to health care and education. CSO10 described the impact as follows: “… when you move from one status to another, you know, that has implications… it creates real social problems. So, I go from maybe not having the best of accommodation, but now having none or having to stay on your sofa or, you know, just not being able to afford things. Then I’m having to move which there goes my GP or my son’s school and all those kind of things” (CSO10). PB3 highlighted the challenge as follows: “… it is like a postcode lottery. And services are different in each location… their access to services are different in each location, in each area, and that must be incredibly confusing. Because people are moving very frequently to lots of different areas of the region” (PB3). W2 participants were critical of the absence of planning for these issues, since the transition was predictable and many issues could be prevented. There needed to be better planning to avoid interruptions in care and schooling and to ensure that support was in place to replace family and community support that was lost when relocation occurred.
Lack of lived experience and representativeness in policy making CSO11 pointed to the lack of representativeness among public service employees: “When I walk into a library, is there somebody other than the white face that I will see? When I go to The Executive Office, everybody there is white, and you or The Executive Office working for me and others” (CSO11). CSO3 suggested that the lack of involvement of people with lived experience in setting policy created barriers in terms of creating accessible services: “… they don’t have people who have the experience to say, you know what, this is important to us, you need to work on this thing. That’s the whole thing about cultural change… it’s a big unit at The Executive Office, about 30 people staff, but we still struggle … if you don’t talk to lived experience people, people to the system, there’s some things you’re never going to find out” (CSO3). CSO6 also emphasised the importance of hearing from people directly and ensuring that their contributions were valued and led to change: “… they [policymakers] need to do more actually on that and they need to be at the grassroots, they need to be hearing what’s happening right here… have they spoken to the refugees? … They have to have their voice at the table, they have to be heard” (CSO6). W1 participants highlighted barriers to involving asylum seekers, as they could not be compensated for their time. Where asylum seekers and refugees were being included, they did not always feel listened to and did not see any change. CSO6 said that currently involvement in policy felt like “one way traffic” . CSO11 agreed: “… this conversation should start from the grassroots upwards… the key players should be the people who are from ethnic minorities themselves, should be the asylum seekers, the refugees themselves, should be at the table, not people purporting to represent us at the table, you know what I mean” (CSO11). PB2 and PB3 referred to an example of good practice in seeking to ensure that the unmediated views of asylum seekers and refugees were heard in service development and policy making. They discussed a Department of Health Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) project currently underway that was co-designed with asylum seekers and refugees: “It’s PPI, patient and public involvement with refugees and asylum seekers, asking… what the issues are, … what the barriers are. And it’s being done independently and… not going through the gatekeepers and … not going through the support organisations; … going directly to … service users” (PB2).
24 | Access to Public Services and Access to Justice for Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Northern Ireland
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software