I attended UKCoD?s Deaf People from Overseas Conference today with Sumita Paul from work. We learnt quite a few things and I thought I would tell you as well, raise some awareness of the issues surrounding Deaf asylum seekers and refugees who come to the UK.

What is the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee? Basically, an asylum seeker is someone who has just arrived in the UK without entry clearance and has made an application to the Home Office for permission to remain. They do not have any rights as such; they are not allowed to work, nor claim benefits. They often have to stay in accommodation that has been specially built for them, and they do not have access to cash to buy clothes, food etc. They are wholly dependent on the state.

A refugee is someone who has been granted some kind of permission to stay in the UK. This could be permission with conditions attached such as being allowed to work and claim benefits up to a certain date, or being granted indefinite leave to remain.

Really, Deaf people from overseas are a forgotten group of people. Some of the horrors they have faced in their native countries are often too horrific for us to contemplate e.g. one speaker told us of some individuals who have seen terrible things. For example, witnessing father being beaten up by soldiers, a public firing squad, babies being hacked to pieces and thrown onto a fire etc.

Sadly, when they do finally arrive to the UK, their problems do not end there. They face communication difficulties because of language barriers ? often they have little or no language skills; they may come from hearing families and have never been able to communicate with their parents, brothers or sisters, aunts and uncles etc. Many have had no form of education, perhaps because their parents could not afford to send them to school or because there is no provision for Deaf children. This means when they come to the UK, they cannot understand BSL/English Interpreters, and there are no interpreters who can understand their sign language; that?s if they know any sign language. Even international sign language may be a problem. The only option they have is to use Deaf interpreters, who unfortunately are not recognised as professional interpreters by CACDP etc. They are specially trained to modify their BSL and International Sign Language into a form that suits a Deaf aslym seeker or refugee to maximise communication.

They also have culture shocks as they adjust to life in the UK, as well as having to find their way through the maze that is the UK legal system, relating to immigration, welfare benefits etc.

We were particularly inspired by Peter Merrifield?s talk ? he is the Head Teacher of Oak Lodge School. He told us the story of Jasmine, who is Deaf. She was born in Somalia, and her mother died during her birth. Her father died a few years later, leaving an older sister (hearing) and her to fend for themselves. One day, when Jasmine was 8 years old, she left to collect water, and never returned. Her sister looked for her for several weeks, and eventually gave up, thinking her dead. The sister eventually came to the UK. At a Somalian Club in London, a person she spoke to mentioned a deaf girl at a refugee camp. The sister contacted Red Cross who searched for 18 months for Jasmine, and found her, and brought her to the UK to join her sister when she was 13 years old. What had happened was that she, for some reason or other, found herself trekking 600 miles to a refugee camp in Kenya, where she was taken in by a group of mothers who looked after orphaned children. She came to the UK and attended Oak Lodge School. She became a very assertive young woman and is now a hairdresser in North London. This was particularly inspiring and I won’t forget this story in a hurry.

All categories – eligible provided they are in receipt of state benefits for Learning and Skills Council funding. Means tested state benefit i.e. Income Support, Job Seekers Allowance. Also NASS Assistance and assistance from Social Services

Dependents are also entitled to free education.

Those in receipt of Job Seekers Allowace ad Income Support – study for no more tha 16 hours per week.

Remission of fees does not apply to courses classified as “self financing” or “full cost”.

The immediate questions that spring to mind, in the case of Deaf applicants is:
a) there a requirement to say this in English?
b) if this can be signed in their own country signed language, or BSL, who will translate the meaning to the Deaf applicant, so it can be signed appropriately?
c) will funding be provided so that a Deaf applicant can be taught to sign the above?
d) will an interpreter be provided at the ceremony, and will they actually be interpreting appropriately? Or will they be reading from a standard card? Will a relay interpreter be provided?

Another requirement for citizenship is to learn English. English Language will be assessed through the testing of 6 topics. The target will depend on what level of English was present on arrival, and there is a need to show improvement. If fail, then the applicant will be able to re-sit.

Teaching Deaf people English, the usual curriculum requirements do not always fit. For example, sometimes homophones are taught at the start of an Adult Basic Education curriculum.

Homophones focus on words that sound the same, like caught and court, or pair and pear. There are many other examples. Such concepts can be alien to profoundly deaf people, and therefore its inclusion in such a curriculum to teach spelling, will not teach Deaf people English.

Another major concern is over Deaf people’s access to suitable specialised English courses, which is likely to be an issue under the dispersal system. Dispersal, as already touched upon, will not make specialist courses for Deaf people viable because of low concentration of numbers.

Communication support in Education usually takes place via Commuication Support Workers or Educational Interpreters. Natural questions lie around whether these persons will have the competency in respect of language skills, and whether communication or interpretation is a step far enough. Access to the teaching of English can go beyond purely working in 2 languages or more.

Trying to fit Deaf people into the same box is in effect discriminatory, and policy wise does not achieve intended outcomes, and policy in this area should be revised, or the very least, built upon.

Topics that must be covered in respect of Learning about Britain include: where to obtain help; employment; utilities; law; Multi Cultural Society; Institutions

Questions:
a) Will there be suitably qualified interpreters to allow Deaf applicants to access this education programme?
b) Will interpreters be familiar with the Deaf person’s home country sign language?
c) It is current practice for Commuication Support Workers to be used in Further Education, and will these members of staff have sufficient skills to commuicate? Will there be a recogition by education providers of the role of Deaf Relay Interpreters?

The Learning about Britain component is very much focused on mainstream services, and whilst I am supportive of inclusion, the fact remains that Deaf people are significantly marginalised within society. Therefore, to give a Deaf person information about where to obtain help, is going to be a fruitless and pointless exercise unless this is backed up with information on the Disability Discrimination Act and their legal right to an interpreter (as many mainstream service providers will be clueless); and/or information on specialist services for Deaf people. Eg, specialist advice services, where they can gain information direct in a signed language.

The above programme is likely not to be comprehensive enough for Deaf people in the sense that it assumes a lot of prior rights. A Deaf applicant may
not be accustomed to being treated as an equal citizen, full access may be an alien concept for them, therefore to expect this to just happen automatically is pointless. It is not something that a short course can tackle either, and should be encouraged longer term via advocacy. Such an option cannot be compulsory, this could effectively be asking more of Deaf
applicants (and be construed as discrimination), but the option should certainly be developed. I see this as being a partnership between statutory services, education providers and Deaf people.

A committee led by Professor Sir Bernard Crick suggested a 3 stage education process for those Asylum Seekers, which must be completed before Refugee Status is granted:

- Learning about Britain
- Learning the Language
- Oath of Allegiance

Each of these elements and how they affect Deaf applicants, will be considered in subsequent posts. However, here I would like to touch upon the fact that these requirements are somewhat narrow in expectations, and could be described as being recommended on the assumption that one box fits all.

These elements certainly will not provide the full necessary information for a Deaf person to exercise his full citizenship, and information plus training needs to be much broader than this. For example, provision for learning BSL, information on deaf organisations, the Disability Discrimination Act, information on access to institutions etc.

Some of these concerns have not been addressed, as deaf organisations have been too focused on mainstream issues, immigration organisations on mainstream applicants as opposed to those who are marginalised. It is time that these two worked together, to move provision forward. It is vital any initiative includes Deaf people in the lead.

The Home Office currently operates a dispersal system for Asylum applicants
across the UK, to get applicants out of London. Current dispersal across the UK, is:

Yorkshire and Humberside 8,470
North West 8,155
West Midlands 6,930
Birmingham 3,010
Manchester 2,345
Liverpool 1,645

The implication for Deaf applicants is that specialist services might not be provided in the provinces, and the setting up of accessible services might not be justified due to low concentration of numbers of Deaf people. The need for specialist services, or at the very least accessible services with a necessary level of expertise, will be touched upon in subsequent posts, especially around education.

Accommodation may be provided by a local authority, housing association or a
private landlord. There are different types of accommodation: hostels offering full board for single people; self catering houses or flats for families. The provider of accommodation is responsible for advising on how to access local services. The question remains, if there are no Deaf or sign language users (who are capable of international sign) as providers of accommodation, how can this objective be achieved in respect of Deaf applicants?

NASS: The National Asylum Support Service

From April 2000, NASS has taken over the administration of benefits from local authorities and the Benefits Agency.

NASS works with reception assistants (from voluntary organisations) at ports of entry to provide subsistence support and accommodation. Asylum seekers may apply for a ’subsistence only’ package if they wish to stay with family or friends. If they are eligible for support, asylum seekers will be ‘dispersed’ to language cluster areas. Travel arrangements are made by NASS.

Previously provided vouchers, but now provides cash. There is different levels of support or single people, married couples and children.

Currently there are two methods to access cash support: the ‘receipt book method’ and the ’smart card method’. Asylum seekers present their ARC or receipt book at a designated Post Office and receive cash.

From 23 July 2002, asylum seekrs are no longer allowed to apply for work.

Additionally, from 8 January 2003, in-country asylum applicants will not receive support entitlement, except where special issues are identified. This poses as a possible route for indirect discrimination against Deaf applicants, but there is no redress under discrimination legislation.

Judicial Review is a essential process of administrative law. It is where an applicant asks for the High Court to rule on the appropriateness of an administrative agency. A distinctive feature of judicial review is that the “appeal” is not usually limited to errors in law but may be based on alleged errors on the part of the administrative agency on findings of fact.

A distinguishing feature of judicial review is that it reviews the process of the decision making and not the decision itself, therefore it is not really an appeal. Government minister’s decisions can, and often are, judicially reviewed. This includes the process undertaken in respect of asylum applications, and in the course of findings of fact, and this could include whether appropriate access to language took place, to ensure the correct facts were obtained.

However, whilst it could be a vital redress mechanism in the case of asylum applications; an application for Judicial Review, is not supported by funds from the Legal Services Commission, and appeal must be made outside the UK. This can prove problematic for Deaf clients, in the sense that they may not be able to access written or spoken languages outside the UK, in terms of communication support, or have sufficient command over a language that has been written. This proves problematic in the sense that a Deaf applicant could be indirectly discriminated against, because of simple lack of access in their home country.

The adjudicator’s decision is final.

- If an immigration officer asked the applicant to show a valid passport but no reasonable explanation was given for not having one;
- the applicant showed an invalid passport but did not say it was invalid;
- the claim was frivolous, vexatious or clearly fraudulent;
- the claim was made after the applicant was refused entry to the UK for another reason;
- the claim was made after the decision to deport the applicant had been made;
- the claim was made after directions for removal as an illegal entrant were given.

In asylum cases only:

- the claim did not concern a fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention
- the claim showed a fear of persecution but the fear was clearly unfounded
- the claim showed a fear of persecution but the cause of that fear had gone away

In Human Rights cases only:

- the claim did not concern a right under the Human Rights Convention
- the claim was clearly unfounded