Asylum seekers held in temporary Home Office accommodation are being threatened, according to testimony from residents. They have allegedly been told by staff employed by private contractors that their asylum claims will be harmed if they “misbehave”. Such “misbehaviour” includes going on hunger strike or speaking out about the conditions of the temporary camps.
The temporary facilities are disused military training barracks which were developed under the instruction of Home Secretary Priti Patel to keep those who are waiting for a decision on their asylum claim. Reported by The Guardian, there have been numerous allegations at various sites on poor treatment and threats to the residents. One man said that he was told if he complained about the food, he would be added to a “blacklist” that the private contractors then share with the Home Office, which would “affect his claim.” Others were told their asylum claims would be affected if they did not return to their accommodation by 10pm. A man staying in Napier barracks, which is holding 400 men and is in a lockdown following a large COVID-19 outbreak, said that they were told by staff that their “asylum claims would be harmed if they pressed ahead with a hunger strike over camp conditions.”
“If you request something that you believe is your right, they [staff] threaten you and say we will tell the Home Office, and it will affect your claim,” he told the Guardian.
Another resident held in the same site revealed via a Whatsapp message that staff had said if they told the media about any concerns with the accommodation, their asylum claims would be impacted. Similar threats have apparently been made at Penally barracks in Pembrokeshire, a camp where 200 asylum seekers are being held. “One claimed that between 30 and 40 individuals linked to an organisation set up by residents to assist others had received letters warning that any misbehaviour would be reported to the Home Office,” reports the Observer.
“Systemic” problem
In a statement given to The Guardian by Maddie Harris from Human for Rights Network, it appears such allegations have been ongoing and frequent. “We have consistently heard from asylum seekers that their asylum applications are being weaponized by private contractors tasked with running these accommodations on behalf of the Home Office,” she said. Refugee groups have described the threats as “systemic”, calling on the Home Office to stop private contractors from abusing their powers.
In December 2020, over 60 community organisations working with migrants and refugees held in detention facilities urged ministers to consider alternative accommodation to the disused army barracks following reports on the poor conditions of the sites. After the Home Office took control of the facilities as temporary accommodation, reports emerged of poor access to healthcare, denial of access to lawyers, overbearing use of confidentiality agreements and concerns over safety and privacy. One confirmed suicide has occured at one of the sites.
The organisations were led by the Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees (AVID), who wrote a letter to immigration compliance minister Chris Philip. The letter highlighted the “parallels between the barracks and the UK’s system of indefinite immigration detention”, and called for community based alternative options. It also warned that the isolated locations of the barracks have left residents exposed to abuse by far-right supporters, as the locations are easily found. The signatories of the letter included Refugee Action, Detention Action, Care4Calais, Migrant Rights Network, Kent Refugee Action Network (Kran), Doctors of the World UK, Choose Love/Help Refugees, Liberty, Jesuit Refugee Service UK and Samphire.
Director of AVID Ali McGinley said: “There is no shortage of evidence that the UK’s system of immigration detention does very little other than cause long lasting damage: to the individuals held, but also to their families and communities. We’ve seen this first hand over many years. Choosing to ignore this by replicating the worst injustices of this system in the barracks accommodation is irresponsible, dangerous and puts many more people at risk.”
The Home Office has stated that the sites are only temporary for one year, and that asylum seekers will eventually be moved to other accommodations such as houses or flats whilst their claims are being considered, However, official figures show that in September 2020, 76% of people awaiting a decision on their asylum claim had been waiting for more than six months, up from 58% from the year before. Not only have the conditions within the camp worsened due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the processing time for applications has also been affected as there is a long backlog, thus alternatives need to be considered.
In response to the claims, Chris Philip said: “We expect all asylum seekers in receipt of asylum support to abide by the conditions of that support and current UK law. The government takes the wellbeing of asylum seekers extremely seriously. We are required by law to house asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, and we provide safe, warm, Covid-secure suitable accommodation where they receive three meals a day while their claims are being processed.”
But many of those residing in the camps are still left unable to feel safe and under constant threats by staff, despite government assurances. Co-head of legal protection at the Helen Bamber Foundation Jennifer Blair has warned that the mental health of the residents was reaching “crisis point”, and that there are regular reports of self-harm or suicidal behaviour.
The Home Office has a duty of care to ensure asylum seekers are safe and looked after, and not have their claim to asylum threatened under any circumstances. It must work with private contractors to prevent staff from abusing their responsibilities and causing mental or physical harm to any of the residents.
The post Private contractors threaten UK asylum seekers with deportation for “misbehaving appeared first on International Observatory of Human Rights.
This post was originally published on International Observatory of Human Rights.
