CSO8 pointed out that the system was particularly challenging for those with a disability or additional learning requirement: “[for]somebody with a disability, getting the right type of housing, getting the right care, getting the right access to services, getting the right benefits, all of that I found, personally for me, to be one of the bigger challenges… trying to work through the special educational needs system is horrendous” (CSO8). Referring to health and social care, PB2 pointed out that while the system was hard for everyone to navigate, particular groups found it especially hard: “We have a really complex integrated health and social care system in Northern Ireland. Navigating it is really hard for everybody. It’s really hard for a newcomer. It’s probably even harder for example women and girls on the move” (PB2). CSO1 gave an example of the way in which complex and siloed service provision could make it difficult to address needs holistically without significant support from the voluntary sector: “We had a young person who worked with us, who was living in a hotel, unable to access a school placement, unable to access the bathroom because they were a wheelchair user… And it took us to draw together all those various people to make it happen. So, they did get their school placement, they did get their wheelchair, they did get appropriate accommodation. But there was nobody, kind of, drawing all those services together. So, it’s very hard to navigate that disconnected system that we have” (CSO1). W1 participants said there was a lack of information available for both public service staff and asylum seekers and refugees to navigate public sector system. NI Direct was generally seen as poor and, although it has been updated a bit recently, it was often out of date. It could be hard for people to find information and when they google, they often find information which is about England where entitlements and services are different. For example, the position on charging for maternity services is less generous in England – people in Northern Ireland may find information relating to England and then simply assume they don’t have an entitlement in Northern Ireland when that is not the case. Generally, W1 participants raised the concern that not enough information was available to individuals to inform them about their rights or how to navigate public services. W3 participants said that ‘understanding what services do’ and their entitlements was a barrier for asylum seekers and refugees. It was acknowledged that more information was needed or not consistently provided, although it was also noted that that The Executive Office was organizing information ‘fairs’ for those in living hotels and those who had been dispersed. One of the issues raised related not only to the availability and quality of information but its timing: W1 participants said that asylum seekers could be bombarded with information when they arrived but that this was at a time when they would be unable to take in what was being shared.
There was a need for more meaningful, ongoing help throughout the process, with advice being provided rather than only information. Having key workers with the right skills and knowledge was needed. W1 participants said that due to trauma/ confusion/tiredness the information provided was not being retained. CSO8 noted: “… as keyworkers, we might give lots of information but trying to take that in, we’ll find that months later, we’re still repeating the same information, trying to find ways to get a family to retain the information. It’s so big, it’s so much to take in” (CSO 8). CSO8 pointed to the need to take a trauma informed approach to the provision of information and advice: “I’ve heard people say, ‘they’re not listening to me, like, I’ve told them that three times already’. And that’s not coming at it with a trauma informed approach… it’s maybe not their priority to hear the ins and outs of how the health system works when they can’t sleep all night without nightmares or flashbacks” (CSO8). PB3 commented that there was a need not only to improve the availability of information but also to focus on its delivery at a local level: “there’s been a lot of work around getting information out there… but having that more localised information service or, like, information sessions more localised as well would be really useful” (PB3). PB3 noted however that improving the situation was challenging: “people being placed into hotels are not able to obtain all this information at that point in time. You have to think about their trauma… the difficulty is information needs to be up to date and it needs to be accurate… we need to think about things, what is going to be sustained, can it be updated, and can it be, I suppose, accessed for anybody within the region at any point in time” (PB3). W1 participants said that better information was needed not only for asylum seekers and refugees but also for public service staff, who could be unclear on rights and entitlements. There could be a lack of knowledge among some frontline staff about what to do when an asylum seeker or refugee presented – often key frontline staff (like receptionists) just didn’t know what to do. There could be a “system says no” approach due to a lack of knowledge of what asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to in terms of accessing devolved services. This could lead to individuals facing “a brick wall” . CSO7 gave the following example: “I’ve gone along to a GP surgery with someone to get them registered and I’ve had an office manager saying, no, sorry these people have to pay for their health… I think a lot of the time people are going on their own, they’re getting turned away and that’s it. They just accept that…” (CSO7). Charges for healthcare could also be a problem according to W1 participants – asylum seekers and refugees had an entitlement to healthcare but often were issued with charges due to ignorance or assumptions being made. An example was given of women going in for maternity treatment and then receiving charges. At the same time, W1 participants said some organisations adopted good practice, for example, guidance sheets for staff in some GP practices. They also noted that some GP surgeries were really good at training staff and making them aware of needs and entitlements of asylum seekers and refugees.
Final report of the of Ombudspersons and the Protection of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (OPRAS) project | 29
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software