CSO6 commented that clients frequently complained of racism when they had trouble accessing a service. They gave an example of the attitude encountered from some public service staff: “And they [public service staff] will say… ‘they were very aggressive, that… refugee was aggressive’. And I said, ‘maybe that’s frustration as opposed to aggression’. And then you don’t really get anywhere, and that is me talking to them, so I realise there’s a barrier even with me trying to talk to them… Now that has come up time and time again” (CSO 6). CSO8 relayed the following experiences of racism they had witnessed: “There can be a bit of an innate and I suppose undercover racism I suppose to a lot of stuff… Because like, for example, we’ve seen that actually Ukrainians were much more easily accepted than, say, Syrians and Afghans. But equally, things like just language, you know, languages we have heard - ‘These people’, which bugs me, ‘are very demanding’. ‘These people ask too much’” (CSO8). The availability and quality of interpretation The availability and quality of translation and interpretation services was a very commonly discussed theme. W2 participants reported a need for translation services when accessing public services, however, pointed out that provision was very variable between services. There was variation from service to service and location to location and providing interpretation or translation could be seen as “a hassle” by public service providers, leading some asylum seekers and refugees to end up not using the service. W3 participants agreed that while interpretation was available in theory, in practice it could often not be arranged, especially at short notice or out of hours. Especially for less common languages, interpretation services were not always be readily available. PB3 commented: “The other barrier, which is huge, is the lack of interpreters. Especially in trusts outside of Belfast as well, where people are not really able to travel, for example, to Colerain or to the north coast, just because they don’t drive. And then the lack of interpreters for some specific languages as well” (PB3). W2 participants noted that in practice family members or friends were often relied on to provide interpretation on an informal basis, which was inappropriate for the often sensitive and personal matters that needed to be discussed with public service providers. PB6 noted: “… you wouldn’t be asking your own five-year-old child to phone a doctor or phone some other health professional or other professional to have a discussion. But that’s the situation they’re being put in, unfortunately… I’m not sure if it’s a safeguarding issue but it’s definitely not ideal” (PB6). W1 participants raised the issue that interpreters in the health sector were better paid and that this could lead to competition between public services. An example was given where an interpreter had been booked for a week – multiple agencies and the family had been arranged to attend – with the interpreter cancelling 30 mins before as they had been requested to attend a health appointment.
W1 participants noted that access to make an appointment with a GP could be particularly difficult, as interpretation would not be available at the point at which someone called to make an appointment. CSO8 said: “…it’s all well and good the doctor being able to access it [interpretation] but even to get to the point of getting an appointment, we know how chaotic that is these days. So, it needs to be, you know, equitable the whole way through the process, not just at some point, not just at, like, the end appointment result, you know” (CSO 8). W1 participants suggested that voluntary and community organisations were funded to assist with making GP appointments, although it was acknowledged that not everyone would have access to these groups. PB2 noted: “The only way it works… is that you actually look at the community and voluntary sector to make that initial contact and fund them. I thought that was happening for refugees and asylum seekers in Northern Ireland but it doesn’t appear to be the case” (PB2). CSO1 noted that there was a default for communication with asylum seekers and refugees in English rather than in their own language: “It seems to happen time and time again, without any consideration that they might be receiving information that they cannot read or understand, either in written form or what they’re told verbally” (CSO1). PB1 noted that, especially in areas with less experience of dealing with asylum seekers and refugees (or indeed other newcomers) some ignorance of the availability of interpretation services might be expected. However, this did not explain all of the issues with regard to the lack of availability of interpretation reported in some cases: “I always veer on the side of okay, if you don’t know about the interpreting service the first time that’s an error; the second time is not an error. I’ll leave it at that… Health and social care is reflective of society: there are people within health and social care who hold attitudes that wouldn’t sit well with my value base” (PB2). PB2 commented that it was frustrating that knowledge of the availability of interpretation services was still lacking in some areas: “I get frustrated all the time when I hear people saying to me, ‘I didn’t know we had an interpreting service’… for someone to tell me that they’ve never met someone who doesn’t have English as their first language is like…” (PB2).
Final report of the of Ombudspersons and the Protection of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (OPRAS) project | 27
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software