Two new reports consider the consequences of coronavirus on migrants
Refugee Women Connect in partnership with the SEREDA Project from the University of Birmingham last month published a report on the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on forced migrant survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV).
The It explores the effect of the pandemic on forced migrant survivors of SGBV and the organisations which support them across the five countries involved in the SEREDA project; the UK, Turkey, Tunisia, Sweden and Australia
Refugee Women Connect and the SEREDA Project found that the Covid-19 crisis has exacerbated the suffering and destitution of the most vulnerable groups of migrant survivors of SGBV. Women, those with caring responsibilities, and those with irregular immigration status were the worst affected.
Having 'no recourse to public funds' increased the suffering.
The report states: "In the UK and Tunisia, NGOs played an important role in mobilising governments to support forced migrants during the pandemic. In the UK, NGO coalitions advocated for cessation of medical charges for forced migrants with no recourse to public funds (NRPF). Having NRPF status exacerbated physical and mental health problems as individuals were pushed towards destitution and unable to access public emergency accommodation or food vouchers. NGOs also advocated for the provision of multilingual COVID-19 information and the suspension of evictions from asylum accommodation."
In concluding, the report found: "Service providers often had to reduce their capacity at a time when need increased, moving to remote working and supporting staff stressed by balancing work and care responsibilities whilst aware that needy clients were going unsupported or under-supported. Forced migrants experienced increased economic hardship, food insecurity, exclusion from services, poor and overcrowded housing conditions, and enhanced isolation exacerbated by their status and sometimes by communication problems and digital poverty. Health services were restricted, and sometimes unavailable, and psycho-social problems were exacerbated by lockdown and social distancing measures."
Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) on Friday published a 20-page report on immigration detention decision-making during the Covid-19 pandemic.
While the report notes that the Home Office has continued to maintain the detention of a significant number of people, BID says it has had greater than normal success in bail hearing during the pandemic: "between 23/03/2020 and 01/05/2020, BID provided representation in 55 bail hearings in which 52 people were granted bail and 3 refused – a success rate of 94%. This compares with BID's success rate of 59% during 2018-19, and an overall success rate for all bail applications made to the First-tier Tribunal of around 30% outside of the current coronavirus crisis."
The report analyses the successful bail cases and it examines the reasons given by the Home Office to detain people and to oppose bail during the lockdown, and whether the Home Office's claim to be primarily detaining individuals who presented a risk of harm was borne out by the facts.
The report finds: "It is notable that characterisations of the level of risk posed are often vaguely worded – such as the cases where the level of risk is described as 'unacceptable' or 'serious' or when risk of harm is merely asserted but without a risk level being stated. It is unclear what an 'unacceptable' level of risk in fact means and as far as we are aware this is not set out anywhere in Home Office policy. If the Home Office is going to justify continued detention on the basis of the risk of harm then the level of risk must be clearly set out."
BID says that the Home Office's justifications for the continued use of immigration detention during the Covid-19 pandemic has been legally flawed.
The report states: "The prioritisation of immigration control over vulnerability has become a deeply embedded approach within the Home Office. This has not changed since the Covid-19 outbreak. The fact that the Home Office opposed bail in all of these cases illustrates the fact that health risks to individual detainees and the public health risks to all of us do not take precedence over immigration control."
BID also found that access to legal advice has been highly problematic during the pandemic, with the Detention Duty Advice Service currently operating a telephone service only. BID says this has increased the risk that people will be wrongfully removed, and calls into question the lawfulness of enforced removal.
BID Director, Celia Clarke, stated: "This research lays bare a catalogue of failings in the Home Office's approach to detention decision-making. Immigration detention is already an inhumane system where people can be locked up indefinitely without trial. Its use during COVID-19 places detainees, staff, and indeed the country, at risk. It is both cruel and unnecessary and must be ended as a matter of urgency."