Response to the UK Border Agency Consultation Reforming Asylum Support: Effective Support for those with Protective Needs

Transcription

1 Response to the UK Border Agency Consultation Reforming Asylum Support: Effective Support for those with Protective Needs Introduction 1. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (the Commission) is a statutory body created by the Northern Ireland Act It has a range of functions including reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of Northern Ireland law and practice relating to the protection of human rights, 1 and advising on legislative and other measures which ought to be taken to protect human rights This response and the investigation referred to below is informed by the UK s commitments under Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as various other international human rights standards including the International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Of particular relevance is Article 11(1) of the ICESCR, the right to an adequate standard of living. Although this right is intended to be progressively realised it also includes core minimum obligations on the State to provide for those in need. In its General Comment No. 3, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that where a significant number of individuals are deprived of essential foodstuffs or of basic shelter and housing the State is prima facie failing to discharge its obligations under the Covenant. 3 1 Northern Ireland Act 1998, s.69(1). 2 Ibid, s.69(3). 3 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1990) General Comment No. 3 The Nature of State parties obligations, at paragraph 10. 1

2 3. The government is also bound by the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugees and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (in particular, Articles 22, 26 and 27). In addition, the Commission refers to the report of the Durban Review Conference specifically paragraph 80, which states: i. [ ] that the national, regional and international response and policies, including financial assistance, towards refugee and internal displacement situations in different parts of the world, should not be guided by any form of discrimination prohibited by international law and urges the international community to take concrete action to meet the protection and assistance needs of refuges [ ] 4. The Commission also urges the government to honour the soft law provisions of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (in particular, Articles 6, 14(1), 23 and 25). 5. Overall, the Commission notes the lack of reference to regional and international human rights standards in the consultation document. Reference is made in passing to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Article 3 ECHR, but there is no robust assessment of how the proposals meet these or other human rights obligations of the UK. Moreover, it is disappointing that government is concerned only with its obligations under Article 3 ECHR because of it being found in breach of this absolute right in the House of Lords. This Commission consistently advises the government to ensure human rights compliant legislation and policy from the outset rather than risk being found in breach of its commitment by the courts. It is also disappointing that government has taken this long to attempt to redress the breach of Article 3 found in The Commission has recently published an investigation report which examined in part the extent and impact of destitution on non UK nationals including asylum seekers. The Commission will therefore refer to the relevant findings of the investigation report, No Home from Home: Homelessness for People with No or Limited Access to Public Funds, in this 4 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) ex parte Adam; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) ex parte Limbuela; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) ex parte Tesema (Conjoined Appeals) [2005] UKHL 66. 2

3 response. The report was published in September 2009 and is available from the Commission s website. 5 No Home from Home 7. The Commission s investigation was conducted in the context of growing concerns among community and voluntary groups about the vulnerability of migrants to poverty and homelessness. The investigation aimed to establish the practical impact of existing immigration legislation which limits or excludes access to public funds for non-uk nationals. Our particular concern was whether this was leading to destitution among non-uk nationals living in Northern Ireland. 8. Fieldwork for the investigation ran from May 2008 to November 2008 across three geographical areas in Northern Ireland. The investigation focused on the three government agencies most relevant to this issue of homelessness and destitution, that is, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Social Security Agency and the Health and Social Care Trusts. During the course of the fieldwork investigators interviewed close to one hundred relevant professionals and government agency staff as well as fourteen people who had personal experience of homelessness. In addition, investigators observed government agency practices, analysed relevant policy and guidance, collated case studies and reviewed 250 case files relating to non-uk nationals. Findings from No Home from Home 9. No Home from Home included a number of general and thematic findings in relation to destitution and non-uk nationals living in Northern Ireland. In particular, the report found that, by design, the immigration legislation facilitates the destitution of asylum seekers by denying the right to work and providing only a bare minimum of subsistence. At present, asylum seekers are provided with UKBA funded accommodation through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for the duration of their application, as well as a weekly stipend under section 55 of the Immigration and Asylum Act (1999) via the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The rate of NASS support is calculated at 70 per 5 Devlin R and McKenna S (2009) No Home from Home: Homelessness for People with No or Limited Access to Public Funds, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Available: /108/No_Home_from_Home_(September_2009).pdf. 3

4 cent of Income Support levels, the minimum amount which the government deems a person needs to live. 6 The rationale for providing NASS support below the amount a person needs to survive is that asylum applicants do not have to pay for accommodation or associated household bills. 10. Investigators spoke with a number of professionals working with asylum seekers and considered a range of government agency case files as well as voluntary organisation case studies, which illustrated how difficult it is for asylum seekers to survive on this minimal support. There were also a range of difficulties surrounding the administration of payments. In spite of the hardship faced by asylum applicants, the government recently decided to reduce NASS support further to just per week for a single adult over 25 years of age. This amounts to just under 55 per cent of the current income support levels for the same age category. 7 The Commission is of the opinion that this level of support is unacceptable and should be reviewed as a matter of urgency. Consultation questions Q1. Some asylum seekers frustrate the system by not making their claim at the earliest possible stage. Should we reserve the right not to support them in some circumstances? 11. No. Despite the fact that NASS offers only minimal support, under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Government is able to deny this support to individuals who do not apply for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in the UK. The rationale for the legislative provision was to allow the Government to restrict people, who had been in the country a long time, from applying for asylum at a late stage and also that genuine applicants were likely to apply as soon as they arrived. In practice, however, people who had not applied within a very short period were being excluded form support. The approach of denying support to late applicants appears to be based on an unfounded mistrust of the motive for seeking asylum beyond the point of arrival. Home Office figures indicate that 6 At the time of conducting fieldwork for No Home from Home the weekly rate of NASS support for a single person over 25 years of age was According to the Department of Work and Pensions, Benefit and Pension Rates, August 2009, the personal rate is for a single adult over 25 years of age. 4

5 the majority of asylum applicants made their application in country rather than at the port of entry. 8 There is no evidence to indicate any link between where and when the application for asylum is lodged and the genuine nature of the applicant. 9 In fact, the government s own figures show that two thirds of successful asylum applications had been made in country Implementation of Section 55 led to an increasingly shorter window in which people could make an asylum application, to the extent that, at one stage, in country applications had to be made within 72 hours of arriving and could only be made in person at the Asylum Screening Unit in Croydon or Liverpool. 11 This policy caused large numbers of asylum seekers to be denied support and left destitute, as many were unable to submit applications within such narrow timeframes without the opportunity to find appropriate support and advice The Commission rejects Section 55 of the 2002 Act and any replication of it for two reasons. First, the question of whether or not a claim has been made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in the UK is an entirely subjective one and therefore subject to various interpretations by different immigration officials. As noted above, there may be many reasonable justifications for a seemingly late asylum application. Second, the provision of support depends on the Secretary of States interpretation of when this is necessary to avoid breach of Convention Rights. This was tested in the Limbuela case in The House of Lords ruled in Limbuela that withholding support from late applicants may be a breach of their Article 3 rights to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The landmark ruling gave strong consideration to the reasons why an application might be delayed, for example, due to the mental state of the 8 In-country 4,555 compared to 500 at port. Data for Quarter taken from Home Office Control of Immigration: Quarterly Statistical Survey, UK. 9 HL Deb 26 April 2004 Vol 660 cc661- Earl Russell. 10 Ibid. 11 Prior J (2006) Destitute and Desperate, A report on the number of failed asylum seekers in Newcastle-upon-tyne and the services available to them, Open Door, p Ibid. 13 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) ex parte Adam; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) ex parte Limbuela; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) ex parte Tesema (Conjoined Appeals) [2005] UKHL 66. 5

6 individual, the disorientation in a new country, language barriers and lack of knowledge about the process. Despite the ruling, five years later Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has not yet been repealed. 14. At present, alternatives to section 55 are being considered by the Home Office as part of its Draft Immigration Bill which was published in November The Commission notes that Section 211 of the Draft Immigration Bill applies to late protection applicants. For the most part, it replicates Section 55 of the 2002 Act. Yet the judgment in Limbuela was clear that the risk of breaching Article 3 ECHR turns on the Secretary of States interpretation of whether or not support is necessary to avoid a breach of Convention rights. The new legislative provision does not clarify this provision. The Commission takes this opportunity to remind government of the dicta in Limbuela: If there is persuasive evidence that a late applicant was obliged to sleep in the street, save perhaps for a short or foreseeable finite period, or was seriously hungry, or unable to satisfy the most basic requirements of hygiene, the threshold would, in the ordinary way be crossed It is clear therefore that the denial of support to late applicants with no alternative means of accommodation or access to subsistence is likely to cross the threshold for inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR. This matter is intended to be a key area of scrutiny for the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the coming year. The Commission does not support the draft legislative provision which provides no clarity on this point. Above all, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is completely opposed to the practice of denying support to late applicants and does not support the alternatives proposed in the Draft Immigration Bill. Q2. Do you agree with our proposals to repeal those parts of legislation which we do not intend to use and which: relate to the withdrawal of support for families where a) they fail to cooperate with removal processes [Section 9, Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004]; b) require failed asylum seekers to participate in Community Activities as a condition of support [Section 14 Ibid per Bingham LJ at para 9. 6

7 10, Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004]; 16. The Commission agrees with the removal of these two provisions on the following basis: Section 9, Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 has the effect of forcing some asylum seeking families into destitution and placing a burden on voluntary and charitable groups to provide support. Section 10, Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 is punitive in nature and could be interpreted as a form of forced labour which may be incompatible with Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 17. However, while government is not planning to bring forward any equivalent legislation, the Commission is concerned at what government is planning to do in its place. The consultation document is clear that government is intent on encouraging the removal of families it deems not to be cooperating with the removal process. But the document does not provide sufficient detail as to exactly how that will be done. Instead there are vague references to helping the families accept that they have no lawful basis upon which to stay in the UK and must leave. There is also reference to closer partnership working and options for tailoring the support package families receive. The details provided are insufficient for this Commission to be able to conclude whether the alternatives to Sections 9 and 10 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 will be any more human rights compliant than the existing provisions. The Commission is also concerned that the lack of legal clarity potentially divests too much discretionary power in the hands of local authority and UKBA officials. The Commission would welcome more information in this regard. Q3. Should we support any failed asylum seekers who have been found to have no protection needs by the independent appeals system? If yes, under what circumstances should we support failed asylum seekers (tick the box next to the circumstances with which you agree): a. Where they are unable to leave the UK due to a physical impediment or some other medical reason (e.g. late stages of pregnancy). 7

8 b. Where they are unable to leave the UK because in the opinion of the Secretary of State there is no viable route of return available. c. Where there is an outstanding judicial review claim for which permission (in England and Wales) or leave (Northern Ireland) has been granted or which has been made (in Scotland). d. Where there is another issue outstanding which would require support to be provided to prevent a breach of a person s human rights e. Families with children, born before or after the appeal rights exhausted stage, who may otherwise fall to be supported by local authorities. f. Where an individual is making steps to return voluntarily. 18. Yes. There are a wide range of reasons why people are refused asylum in the United Kingdom and support should be provided to failed applicants to allow them to seek legal advice and pursue alternative grounds for application and appeals. Once the appeals mechanism has been exhausted, failed asylum seekers should continue to receive support for all of the reasons outlined in a) to f), above, in order to avoid breaches of their human rights as provided for under regional and international law. The Commission is also of the opinion that failed asylum seekers as well as those whose claims are being considered should be allowed to work until such time as they are able to leave the country or granted refugee status. The right to work is enshrined in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Throughout the course of its investigation, the Commission received information indicating that many asylum seekers would welcome the opportunity to work and be self-sufficient. Allowing asylum seekers to work would not only minimise the need to provide NASS support but, through PAYE and increased consumerism, also provide a valuable source of revenue for the government. In addition, the social benefits of employment may have a positive impact on the mental health and wellbeing of asylum seekers during the lengthy process which some applicants find distressing and isolating. 19. It would appear disingenuous for government on the one hand to be relaying such strong concerns about the cost of failed asylum seekers remaining in the UK, but not allowing them to work and contribute to the economy. The Commission does not accept government s argument that such provision would frustrate the aims of the managed migration scheme. Indeed, the Commission s concerns with 8

9 the managed migration programme have been articulated to government before. 20. In relation to point f), above, the Commission is aware of thevoluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP), as administered by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). During the course of its investigation, the Commission heard case studies from voluntary organisations that were supporting voluntary returnees and also interviewed one person awaiting return. The Commission learned that the support offered is conditional upon leaving the UK within three months of registering with IOM and not returning. Investigators interviewed one IOM registered individual who was awaiting return, living in IOM assigned temporary accommodation and reliant upon a 10 weekly voucher for a grocery shop. When investigators asked him how he was managing with such minimal support, he replied; I survive on that 10. I am very careful and I eat little. I get a few eggs, bread, chips. 15 The Commission is concerned about the level and type of subsistence provided to IOM returnees and believes that cash payments should be made. In addition, the level of support provided should be based on an individual assessment of need. Q4. Do you agree that we should be able to set a fixed time limit for support for those supported on the basis that they are taking steps to leave, with no right of appeal? 21. No. The Commission is of the opinion that if people must be removed from the UK that there is a duty to do it in a rights based manner. Rigid time frames fail to take account of individual circumstances including community ties, health issues, child development and education and the practicalities of returning to a country which may not have been home to them for a number of years. The Commission recommends that the timescales allocated to each individual or family for removal from the UK be based on an individual assessment of need and circumstances. 22. The Commission is opposed to the proposal that the right of appeal to the Asylum Support Tribunal be removed. The appeal process provides an essential mechanism for checks 15 Devlin R and McKenna S (2009) p95. 9

10 and balances to ensure correct decision making so that no one is wrongly denied access to support. A recent report by the Citizens Advice Bureau found that 80 per cent of applicants to the Asylum Support Tribunal were either destitute and homeless, or would be if there application was dismissed. 16 Given the serious consequences of the denial of support, the Commission is of the opinion that, not only should the appeals process be retained but that every effort be made by the Home Office to encourage refused asylum seekers to appeal negative decisions. Q5. Do you agree that the way in which support is provided to asylum seekers should be different than the way support is provided to those who have been found to have no protection need? 23. No. The Commission is not only concerned about the level of support afforded to failed asylum seekers but also the form of support and the way in which it is administered. There is no onus on the UKBA to provide support to failed asylum seekers rather they must take the initiative to seek support and complete the 16-page application form. Interviews with immigration caseworkers indicated that many failed asylum seekers are not aware of the existence of section 4 support. 17 At the time of the investigation fieldwork, asylum support workers complained of delays of up to eight weeks during which time individuals were completely destitute and reliant on the goodwill of charities and churches. This places a pressure not only on voluntary and charitable groups, but also on social services that indirectly have to meet some of the costs of destitution. 24. If they meet the strict criteria failed asylum seekers, who are waiting or unable to return to their country of origin, may be entitled to support under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act (1999). Unlike NASS support section 4 recipients are not given cash, instead they are provided with accommodation and weekly vouchers amounting to 35 per adult. Once again, the amount paid equates to only 55 per cent of the income support rate. The Commission is concerned not only with the low rate of support but with the administration of this support which can involve delays in 16 CAB Evidence Briefing Support Justice: The case for publicly-funded legal representation before the Asylum Support Tribunal, June Similar claims were made in research conducted in England and Wales. Asylum Support Appeals Project (2007) Failing the Failed: How NASS Decision Making is Letting Down Destitute Rejected Asylum Seekers, ASAP, Croydon, p11. 10

11 receiving support and the necessity of having to travel to collect it. 25. The Commission is also opposed to the use of vouchers as the sole means of support to any individual regardless of their immigration status. There has been widespread condemnation of the use of voucher support on the basis that not only are they impractical but they may amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. 18 In practical terms, voucher support, which is usually for a designated grocery shop, fails to take account of other needs including clothes, communication, and travel costs. One basic flaw of voucher only support is that the individual has to travel to the designated shop to use the voucher without any cash to access transport. The Commission believes that voucher support should not be the sole method of support provided to any person in destitution including failed asylum seekers. 26. The pre-paid payment card that is now being proposed is opposed by the Commission on similar grounds to the voucher scheme and the idea that a wider range of retail outlets will accept these cards than vouchers does nothing to mitigate the negative aspects of them. The Commission finds the other rationale stated by government for the cards in that they will reduce fraud and abuse particularly concerning. The suggestion here that asylum seekers are more likely to engage in fraudulent activity than other categories of people in need of state support engages Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (the non-discrimination clause). Q6. Do you think that closer working with both the voluntary sector and local authorities will: a. help applicants understand the options available to them at each stage of the process? b. encourage those who are found to have no protection need to accept their position and return voluntarily? 27. Voluntary organisations play an invaluable role in supporting and assisting a range of non-uk nationals including failed asylum seekers. Their independence from the statutory 18 See for instance, Joint Committee on Human Rights (2007) The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, Volume I, Report and Formal Minutes Tenth Report of Session , HL 81-I/HC 60-I TSO Ltd, London, at pp See also, Independent Asylum Commission (2008) Safe Return Independent Asylum Commission Second Report of Conclusions and Recommendations, How to improve what happens when we refuse people sanctuary, p1, key recommendations. 11

12 bodies is key in building trust and providing a wealth of information on the needs of non-uk nationals. The Commission believes that effective communication between the voluntary and statutory sector is essential to providing optimal information, support and assistance to non-uk nationals living in the United Kingdom. However, it is not the role of the voluntary sector to report suspected immigration offenders or to encourage failed asylum seekers to return home. To expect the voluntary organisations to do so, not only risks compromising their independence from government but is also likely to run against their very ethos which is primarily concerned with assisting human beings rather than acting as de-facto immigration officers or other state officials. The Commission s investigation report, No Home from Home, identified the need for greater understanding of their roles and responsibilities between statutory and voluntary bodies especially with regard to accessing practical support for non-uk nationals. 28. The Commission is acutely aware of the demand for authorised immigration advisers in Northern Ireland as approved by the Office for the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). The pressures faced by immigration advisers in Northern Ireland are compounded by lengthy delays in processing applications and the administrative barriers which legal advocates and asylum seekers face when seeking information on their cases. It is vital that the voluntary and statutory organisations can engage to address these issues without compromising the independence of the voluntary sector. Q7. Do you agree that case owners should be able to tailor accommodation provisions for those who have been found to have no protection need and bring families who purposefully frustrate the system into full board accommodation (where this could assist with removal or return)? 29. No. The Commission is aware that plans for accommodation centres were initially proposed under the Nationality and Asylum Act However, in June 2005 the then Minister for State for Immigration, Tony McNulty MP, abolished proposals for the building of such centres in favouring detention over accommodation. Although the Commission is opposed to the government s use of detention for failed asylum seekers, it also has concerns about the proposed 12

13 accommodation centres which is perceives as a means of sugar coating detention. 30. The Republic of Ireland has been using the policy of direct provision since At present, asylum applicants in Ireland are subject to the following process; When an application for a declaration as a refugee has been lodged, accommodation will be provided in a privately run reception centre in Dublin, the capital city, for an initial period of ten to fourteen days. Applicants will then be relocated under the 'Dispersal Scheme' to an accommodation centre outside of Dublin. There are currently fifty-two such accommodation centres throughout Ireland the vast majority of which are privately run. There is no choice given with regard to the location of the centre to which the applicant is dispersed. Applicants may have to share their bedroom with other asylum seekers. Applicants are expected to remain in the accommodation centre until their application has been fully processed, including any appeal period if applicable. As the accommodation is full board, the only income applicants receive from the State is per week and, 9.60 per week for each accompanying dependent child. Applicants must remain within the 'Direct Provision' scheme until they are granted refugee status, leave to remain or, if their application for refugee status is unsuccessful, until you they deported. 31. In addition to the restrictions outlined above, asylum applicants are prevented from accessing employment or education while their application is being processed, nor are they allowed to leave the state without the consent of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The direct provision scheme has been the subject of severe criticism not least because of issues of overcrowding, the punitive nature of the regime, lack of privacy and the indeterminate duration of the enforced accommodation. 19 The latest available figures indicate that 34 per cent of live asylum applicants in the Republic of Ireland (2,211) have been in direct provision accommodation for over three years. 20 Concerns have also been raised about the health and wellbeing of children living 19 See for example Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC), Direct Discrimination, an analysis of the scheme of Direct Provision in Ireland, FLAC, July 2003; Breen, C., The Policy of Direct Provision in Ireland: A Violation of Asylum Seekers Right to an Adequate Standard of Housing, International Journal of Refugee Law (4): ; 20 Reception and Integration Agency, Monthly Statistics Report, December

14 in direct provision centre. 21 Families make up half of all asylum applications in Ireland and the latest available figures show that there are 2,070 children living with their families in accommodation centres with the majority of children being under the age of four years The Irish example outlined above illustrates why the Commission is concerned about the proposal for full board accommodation as outlined in this consultation. Although there are no details provided in general terms, such a model fails to take account of a plethora of human rights obligations and is a means of further punishing rather than protecting asylum applicants. The situation of children living under direct provision engages a number of child rights provisions in particular Articles 22, 26 and 27 of the UNCRC. Direct Provision would not reconcile with the UK Border Agency s own statutory guidance in relation to the treatment of children or Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 which requires the UKBA to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. 23 In addition, the scheme of direct provision jepoardises the Article 8 (ECHR) rights of individuals and families by curtailing their right to privacy and family life. Above all, direct provision risks violating Article 11 (ICESCR) the right to an adequate standard of living through the use of inappropriate accommodation for indeterminate durations while providing only minimal subsistence. The Commission is therefore firmly opposed to this proposal. Q8. Do you agree that the offences to tackle support fraud should apply to all types of support? 33. Asylum seekers, failed or otherwise are more likely to suffer severe economic hardship, possibly destitution and be visibly singled out in retail outlets and/ or their accommodation placements if government proposals are enacted. These in themselves amount to punitive measures and the Commission therefore cannot endorse this further proposal to punish a group of already severely economically and socially disadvantaged people. While the Commission does not, of course, endorse or encourage fraudulent activity of any kind, it questions government s consistent attempts to further 21 Irish Refugee Council (2008) Asylum seekers need a voice in a system without equal rights, in Action on Poverty Today, autumn 2008; and European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (2007) Third Report on Ireland, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, paras 74 and Reception and Integration Agency, Monthly Statistics Report, December UKBA, statutory guidance, Every child matters: change for children, November

15 marginalise and label asylum seekers and immigrants as deviant, and recommends that it thinks through the inevitable outcomes and consequences of its immigration and asylum agenda. Concluding comments 34. As outlined in the current response the Commission remains deeply concerned about the level, type and administration of support to asylum applicants and those who have been refused asylum. The Commission has witnessed a consistent erosion of the rights of asylum seekers since its creation in 1999 and finds itself again in the position of asking government to seriously re-think its proposals. In particular, the Commission asks government to cease portraying asylum seekers as a problem in the UK and a drain on its resources and to educate the public about the universality of human rights and the importance of the UK treating all within its territory in a dignified and humane manner. 35. The Commission welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation and would be happy to provide further detail or clarification if required. February 2010 Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Temple Court, 39 North Street Belfast BT1 1NA Northern Ireland Telephone: (028) Textphone: (028) SMS Text: Fax: (028) information@nihrc.org Website: 15