CSO10 agreed and commented on the need for both a recognition of people’s needs and an understanding of public perceptions: “ I’m conscious that, although there can be a need, even a growing need in that, it’s not as simple as saying, ‘okay, well let’s direct some funds or a new programme that way’ because it can have a lot of unintended spill over on perception about difference of treatment” (CSO10). CSO11 commented that there should be conversations about all communities in need at the same time to ensure that a “ divide and conquer” mentality was avoided: “You cannot focus on ethnic minority and leave your people. You cannot. So it’s identifying what is missing in the local groups… if I was a local, I’m going to complain myself, ‘what about us? What about my culture, does it mean [it] doesn’t count?’ So that divide and conquer mentality needs to leave” (CSO11). PB2 noted that the best approach was to ensure services were universally accessible rather than advocating for bespoke services and provision for asylum seekers and refugees: “We need our health service to be responsive to the needs of refugees and asylum seekers; we need our health service to be culturally competent; we need our health service to be warm and welcoming and open. That’s what we need; we don’t need a separate stream for refugees and asylum seekers. Because, again, this is Northern Ireland, we saw what segregation does” (PB2). CSO4 also commented on the particular context of Northern Ireland as a factor in relation to ensuring perceptions of fairness between all groups and communities: “But there is always that sense in Northern Ireland that it’s quite divided still, so somebody will want to ensure that they are not being disadvantaged… And I get that as well, but I think there are different needs, different needs completely” (CSO4).
CSO4, discussing the difficulties asylum seekers and refugees faced around transport noted the need for additional support, but suggested that the response needed to be universal rather than just for one group with particularly high needs : “… it needs to be fair and equitable, so if a refugee child and his parent or her parent are getting a bus pass to go to school, so should a non-refugee parent, it needs to be equitable, otherwise – well, it could never go through, but it’s also unfair” (CSO4). PB8 said that they treated unaccompanied asylum seeking and refugee young people as they would any other looked after child: “…. we see our unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as first and foremost, children in need, who need to be “looked after” and have their individual needs assessed and addressed and not being an isolated siloed group from looked after children, because they’re all entitled to a service under the Children’s Order and the leaving and after care legislation… we shouldn’t be treating them significantly differently from other Looked After Children where is does not pertain to specifically assessed needs” (PB8). PB6 also highlighted issues around developing bespoke as opposed to universal provision: “…there was… a suggestion at one point around creating… a standalone qualification for ASR [asylum seeker and refugee] children… there were a number of issues around that but I think one of them was, you know, in terms of equity and having a qualification that is open to all… it’s a fine line to tread between providing these additional supports… and helping them overcome those barriers to access education versus being seen to provide treatment that that is preferential” (PB6).
Final report of the of Ombudspersons and the Protection of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (OPRAS) project | 31
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software