5. Issues relating to the resourcing and capability of civil society and advice providers Misinformation and poor information W1 participants all had experience of Migrant Help providing inaccurate advice. Often advice was provided based on knowledge of UK systems rather than those in Northern Ireland. An example was provided that Migrant Help was of the belief that the local councils organize education provision, not being aware of the Education Authority’s statutory role. W1 participants noted that some solicitors without immigration knowledge were giving out advice, some of it very poor. PB8 was also concerned with the availability of good quality legal advice and representation: “… trying to get a solicitor just recently can be a nightmare… for instance there is one very experienced firm in Northern Ireland that has been doing asylum claims for years who have now said, “we have taken a business decision that we’re not taking on Legal Aid work anymore” … There are quite a few new faces coming forward, but it’s difficult sometimes to be absolutely sure as to the quality… Do they have experience of dealing with young people and engaging with young people?” (PB8). CSO2 said that there was misinformation in some community groups with regard to housing entitlements, particularly with regard to the consequences of rejecting a suitable offer of housing: “… people in the community get confused and give unhelpful advice… because they have refused a suitable offer of accommodation the housing executive doesn’t have to make another offer of accommodation for, I think it’s 40 days... there’s no solution to this other than you have to somehow keep your head above water and come back in 39 days” (CSO 2). W2 participants said that word- of-mouth, unreliable information about what was accessible and what wasn’t could contribute to a feeling of uncertainty. PB2 suggested that there was misinformation not only within community groups, but also in the approach taken by some more formal advocacy groups: “I think there is maybe quite a lot of misrepresentation by some of the support and advocacy groups that x service is not available… and y service is not available…, or that people can just [ignore] policies and procedures because the user is a refugee and asylum seeker. And I think that has taken hold by and large in Northern Ireland in a way that it hasn’t in GB or the way that it hasn’t in the south of Ireland” (PB2).
PB2 commented that some CSOs could have an unduly negative view of public service provision: “Part of me thinks we have – I’ve got to be really careful here – in Northern Ireland we have built up a huge industry around refugees and asylum seekers, it’s in their interests to ensure that the good does not get mentioned, and that the bad practice, that the exception is somehow portrayed as the rule” (PB2). PB5 commented in similar terms: “… unfortunately some of the campaigners, lobby groups, they thrive on, in a sense that’s your raison d’être is to attack government and attack representatives of government right down to frontline staff who’ve got nothing to do with migration policy or immigration decisions, but are in the frontline trying to support” (PB5). Lack of resourcing, capacity, and effectiveness of civil society organisations W1 participants noted that there was currently insufficient support to enable people to navigate public services. What support there was, was often patchy, time limited and issue specific so people were having to liaise with multiple organisations and individuals, making the experience even more difficult. PB7 said that the growth in the number of asylum seekers and refugees in Northern Ireland had put additional pressure on voluntary and community organisations that were already stretched: “… the majority of people who are coming as refugees or asylum seekers are coming with very little resource. So they are presenting to community organisations for help in a whole range of things from practical needs around maybe food or clothing or that sort of thing, right up to obviously help to access… it can be quite a high concentration of people in one area, you know… they respond really well, but that’s a real pressure on them” (PB7). PB7 noted however that the issue did not only relate to lack of funding but also to capability especially in grass roots community organisations: “… it wouldn’t matter if we turned round tomorrow and dumped a million pounds on top of a community organisation in area A, if it doesn’t have the capacity, the capability, the connections, the wherewithal to do that, that wouldn’t help” (PB7). W1 participants noted that civil society organizations were also under strain because they were picking up problems caused by lack of funding and capacity within public services. PB3 said: “we’re relying a lot on our community and voluntary organizations, who again are really stretched in that capacity” (PB3). W1 participants said that much of the system was currently running on goodwill and finding fixes outside of existing policy and funding, but this was not sustainable. CSOs often had experience only in particular areas and could not provide holistic advice to asylum seekers and refugees due to lack of expertise. The lack of funding of CSOs meant that there was a lack of skills, capacity, and knowledge within the voluntary sector to meet needs and provide advice and support. W1 participants raised concerns about the lack of regulation, and quality control oversight of the advice asylum seekers and refugees are receiving.
Final report of the of Ombudspersons and the Protection of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (OPRAS) project | 41
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software