SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
a) It is very difficult to address the problem
of over-staying failed asylum seekers effectively in the absence
of reliable statistics. It is not satisfactory that the Government
is unable to offer even a rough estimate of the number of failed
asylum seekers remaining in the UK (paragraph 27).
The Government is already working towards the development
of methods to estimate numbers of illegal residents in the UK.
We have commissioned research into the methods used in other countries.
On the basis of this information and likely sources of UK information
we will consider the next steps. The work is very complex and
challenging because, by definition, illegal migrants fall outside
of official statistics and are therefore difficult to measure;
and illegal migrants are motivated to ensure they remain hidden.
A number of approaches have been tried in other countries
with varying success. One approach has been via the numbers coming
to light through enforcement action or schemes to regularise undocumented
workers. Other approaches have used immigration control data linked
to such sources as population censuses and surveys. Another approach
has been focused on business sectors but only where it has been
possible for the researchers to gain the confidence of employers
and employees. We will assess the merits of these various approaches
along with any others which are identified by research to ensure
any commitments that might be made to undertaking significant
primary data collection work are appropriate.
b) We recommend that, subject to proper evaluation
and costing, embarkation controls should be reinstated at UK borders,
to enable credible estimates to be made of the number of failed
asylum seekers who remain in this country (paragraph 27).
The Government is considering carefully the Committee's
recommendation. I will respond to the Committee about this issue
separately in due course.
c) We believe that the Government should explore
the most appropriate method for building a complete picture of
net migration into the UK (paragraph 27).
The Government agrees that it is important to provide
improved information about net migration into the United Kingdom
and its social and economic impacts, including on workforce size
and composition, the demand for housing, education and the provision
of social services. Statistics on international migration produced
by the Office of National Statistics and control of immigration
and asylum statistics produced by the Home Office need to be accurate
and comprehensive to inform policy and decision-making, as well
as the general public.
International migration is the most difficult component
of population change to estimate. Since the early 1960s, the main
source of statistics on migration flows in and out of the United
Kingdom has been the International Passenger Survey (IPS), supplemented
by administrative data from the Home Office. ONS and the Home
Office continue to work together to ensure that the best use is
made of all the available data in the compilation of estimates
of international migration.
The Office for National Statistics is currently undertaking
a National Statistics Quality Review on International Migration
in conjunction with the Home Office and other Government departments.
The main aim of the review is to make recommendations for continuation
and changes to the current data, methods and outputs of United
Kingdom International Migration statistics. A number of options
are being considered, including the use of other sources of information.
The final report, including recommendations, was sent to the National
Statistician in the middle of July. The report will be published,
together with the National Statistician's response, once he has
had an opportunity to consider.
Further work is currently ongoing by ONS in consultation
with the Home Office, looking at a number of International Migration
issues in the light of the results of the 2001 Census and in due
course the findings of the National Statistics Quality Review
on International Migration. This work will include looking at
all the available information, including that on dependants of
asylum seekers to ensure that the best possible estimates of international
migration are produced.
A second National Statistics review will shortly
commence, which covers the compilation and analysis of existing
sources of statistical information and research on immigration
to present a more comprehensive picture of migration and migrants
in the United Kingdom and abroad. The review is expected to realise
the following benefits:
- a comprehensive publication of immigration statistics
in the United Kingdom and abroad;
- improved presentation of Control of Immigration
statistics; and
- improved understanding and presentation of the
relationships between different immigration data sources and research.
Statistics on migration produced by the Office of
National Statistics and the Research and Statistics Directorate
of the Home Office are part of the National Statistics, and are
covered by the National Statistics Code of Practice.
d) We deprecate the setting of wholly unrealistic
targets which serve only to arouse false expectations and which
can only prove demoralising for all concerned. We are at a loss
to understand the basis for the belief that a target of 30,000
removals a year was achievable and ministerial pronouncements
on the subject are obscure. It is surely not too much to expect
that, if it is thought necessary to set targets for removals,
they should be rational and achievable (paragraph 32).
The Government recognises that the 30,000 target
was too challenging and beyond the capability of IND to deliver.
A revised target has now been set "Enforcing the immigration
laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion of failed
asylum seekers". The Government considers this to be a more
realistic target, and one which will enable performance to be
measured more effectively, since it makes no assumption about
numbers of applications.
e) We are concerned at the number of initial
decisions which are not sustained, and this is an issue to which
we shall return in our forthcoming inquiry into Asylum Applications
(paragraph 36).
The Government notes that the Committee will be looking
at these issues and we look forward to receiving their recommendations
in the next report.
f) We recommend that—
i. if the Secretary of State wishes to add
further countries to the list in Section 94 of the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act, he should append a written memorandum
to the relevant Statutory Instrument, explaining the rationale
for believing those countries to be safe;
The Government does not agree that this is necessary.
Before laying a draft order to add to the list of countries in
Section 94 the Secretary of State will need to satisfy himself
that for a particular country:
(a) there is in general in that State or part no
serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside in that
State or part; and
(b) removal to that State or part of persons entitled
to reside there will not in general contravene the United Kingdom's
obligations under the Human Rights Convention.
In reaching a decision whether or not a country satisfies
this test, the Government would take into account only information
which is publicly disclosable, together with any relevant appeal
decisions from the Courts or Immigration Appellate Authorities.
The Government does not think that a summary of the already publicly
disclosable country information would add value. Any specific
concerns that might exist in relation to the designation of a
particular country can be raised during the debates on the draft
order.
ii. if grounds other than nationality for
considering a claim "clearly unfounded" are developed
by the Home Office, an explanation of those grounds should be
made available to this Committee; and
The Government broadly agrees with this recommendation.
No claim is refused simply because an applicant resides in a State
listed in Section 94: each case is considered on its individual
merits to determine whether or not it is clearly unfounded. The
power to certify is applicable to any clearly unfounded asylum
or human rights claim and not limited to claims from residents
of particular countries, but as a matter of policy we have, until
recently, exercised the power only in relation to listed countries.
As from the 8th June, however, we have started to apply the power
to individuals from non-listed countries in some cases.
Policy instructions are provided to caseworkers to
assist them in considering whether claims are or are not clearly
unfounded. These instructions are updated as necessary. It is
planned to update them again shortly. The Government would be
happy to make these updated instructions available to the Committee.
It should be noted, however, that the term "clearly
unfounded" has the same meaning whether the applicant is
from a designated country or not. Where there is a difference
is that a clearly unfounded claim made by a resident of a designated
country must be certified but it is discretionary whether a claim
from a resident of a non-designated country is certified. It follows
that applying the clearly unfounded provisions in Section 94 of
the Act does not involve the creation of additional definitions
of what is meant by "clearly unfounded" claims.
I will write to the Committee with further information
about this issue in the near future.
iii. a review of the practicality and effects
of non-suspensive appeals should be carried out after they have
been in operation for 12 months (paragraph 42).
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
provided that a monitor should be appointed to review the use
of the power to refuse with a non suspensive right of appeal in
the case of clearly unfounded human rights and asylum claims.
The monitor is to make a report once a year and on any other occasions
when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. Careful consideration
will be given to the monitor's reports and to any recommendations
that might be made in these. The Government believes that these
arrangements provide the best way of meeting the spirit of the
Committee's recommendation for a review.
g) We recommend that the Voluntary Assisted
Returns Programme is opened up to detainees in Removal Centres,
advertised in the Centres and otherwise brought to the attention
of detainees. We further recommend that the Immigration Service
advises asylum seekers of the option of voluntary return from
the beginning of the asylum process (paragraph 48).
The Voluntary Assisted Return Programme (VARP) is
available to asylum seekers from the moment their asylum application
is made, and is widely advertised. The Government accepts, however,
that more could be done in contacts with failed asylum seekers
to encourage the voluntary option, at all stages of the asylum
process and will be pursuing this.
h) We believe that, where the removal of a
failed asylum seeker is delayed through no fault of his own, it
is morally unacceptable for him to be rendered destitute. We recommend
that during any such delay the individuals concerned should be
provided either with adequate support (including sufficient cash
to allow for reasonable minimum living expenses) or a temporary
status which will allow them to work to support themselves (paragraph
55).
Where an unsuccessful asylum seeker is willing to
return abroad but is, for some practical reason, unable to do
so, he can apply to NASS for support under Section 4 of the Immigration
and Asylum Act 1999. This provision was subsequently amended by
Section 49 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,
so that such support may be provided to any unsuccessful asylum
seeker who meets the Secretary of State's criteria. There is
no need for him to be left homeless or destitute. Where an unsuccessful
asylum seeker is able but unwilling to return abroad and has no
legal basis of stay in the United Kingdom, the provision of support
would encourage him to remain.
The Government does not believe that it is right
to permit failed asylum seekers to work as this would put them
in a more favourable position than those awaiting asylum decisions
who cannot work.
i) We recognise the difficulties posed by
the absence of proper travel documents to co operate with the
return of their citizens. We welcome the establishment by IND
of a dedicated Documentation Unit and assurances that the Immigration
Service now seeks to tackle this problem at an early stage in
the proceedings and look forward to seeing these changes reflected
in the figures for removals (paragraph 58).
The Government is pleased to note the Committee's
recognition of the significant problems resulting from the difficulties
in securing appropriate travel documentation to support removals.
The provision of appropriate documentation is recognised as one
of the most crucial factors in the removals process, and we are
working hard across Government to clear these blockages and to
negotiate practicable agreements with the receiving countries.
The development of the Immigration Service Documentation Unit
is central to this work and the Unit is part way through a further
planned expansion in response to the increasing demands upon its
services. The Unit's success is in part reflected by the fact
that it has influenced the development of processes across IND
aimed at addressing documentation issues at the earliest stage
possible.
j) We consider that the negotiation of Readmission
Agreements with countries currently reluctant to accept the return
of their nationals should be a diplomatic priority (paragraph
60).
The Government agrees with the Committee's conclusion.
We attach a high priority to the prompt removal from the United
Kingdom of those who have no legal basis to enter or remain here.
Co-operation on the management of migratory flows and returns
and readmission is an important element of our wider dialogue
with countries of origin and transit, both at UK and EU level.
The Seville European Council called for increased activity on
the negotiation of readmission agreements at EU level and the
Thessaloniki Council in June 2003 further reaffirmed the importance
of effective co-operation at EU level on returns. The UK is committed
to the negotiation of EC readmission agreements and to taking
forward bilateral agreements where these are judged to be beneficial.
k) We believe it is absurd to refuse leave
to remain to people who, for whatever reason cannot be removed.
We recommend that such people be granted a temporary status which
will allow them to support themselves. If the numbers are as small
as the Minister suggests, this should not pose any great difficulty
(paragraph 63).
The Government refers the Committee to its response
to recommendation (h).
l) In the absence of adequate statistics,
it is difficult to know the extent of the problems caused by absconding.
The current situation, in which the Home Office simply does not
know—even in broad outline—what proportion of failed
asylum seekers abscond is unacceptable. It ought to be possible
to obtain at least a snapshot of the scale of the problem and
we recommend that steps are taken to do this without delay (paragraph
65).
The Government agrees with this recommendation. Systems
are currently being developed to collect consistently and collate
such data. When this work is complete we will analyse the data
it produces and if the data quality is satisfactory, we will consider
the most appropriate method for publishing this information.
m) We recommend that the refusal notice, prior
to appeal, should give some indication of the length of time the
appeal process is likely to take, and should advise the claimant
that the delivery of an adverse appeal decision may be expected
to be followed immediately by removal. If removal does not occur
immediately the failed asylum seeker should then be advised at
six-monthly intervals of the progress of his case (paragraph 70).
The Government does not agree with this recommendation.
The circumstances of individual cases may affect the speed with
which they proceed through the appeals' process and as such it
would be difficult to pre-judge any indication of the timescales
involved. Any information provided would need to be updated frequently
and it would, for instance, be misleading for people going through
the fast track. More generally, it could lead to appellants having
an expectation about the length of appeal which might not apply
in their case.
The Government does not accept the Committee's assertion
that it should not enforce removals without prior indication of
the likely timeframe or that the removal process does not allow
individuals to prepare themselves. The Home Office would only
serve written determination and seek to enforce removal at the
same time when all appeal rights have been exhausted. This process,
which applies only after Statutory Review at the end of the asylum
appeals system, was introduced for appeals determined after 9
June 2003 to prevent unsuccessful appellants from absconding before
removal. This is necessary for an efficient enforced removals'
process: as the Committee has recognised there is a genuine risk
that forewarning of removal will lead to individuals absconding.
It is not the case that appellants will be unaware
of the possible consequences of an adverse decision at appeal,
not least because of the availability of legal advice and because
refusal notices make it clear that unsuccessful applicants must
leave and that removal will follow if they do not (unless an appeal
is lodged). The Government does not therefore accept the need
to deploy further resources in the manner suggested by the Committee.
n) We recommend that a welfare officer ought
to be attached to each Removal Centre with a remit that includes
ensuring that those detained have had an opportunity to alert
friends, family and legal representatives to their impending removal.
We also recommend that Home Office guidelines should make clear
that failed asylum seekers in detention should not be removed
without having been given a reasonable opportunity to wind up
their affairs (paragraph 75).
The Government disagrees with this recommendation.
Reasonable opportunity is already given for a detainee to alert
friends, family and legal representatives and thereby to wind
up their affairs. Staff at removal centres assist detainees in
making contact with outside organisations where necessary. However,
we are not complacent about this issue and will remain alert to
any future need to revisit this matter. The Government does not
support the issue of guidelines which may be abused to delay and
frustrate removal of those with no right to remain in the UK.
o) We recommend that the Immigration and Nationality
Directorate should provide quarterly figures on total numbers
detained during the period with lengths of detention (paragraph
82).
The Government is currently assessing the quality
of data available from local management systems. Once this work
is completed and if the data quality is sufficient, we will consider
the most appropriate method of publishing this information.
p) We believe that detention can be justified
especially prior to removal in cases where the individual has
a history of evading the Immigration Service, or where there are
reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual will abscond
or pose a security threat or engage in criminal activities if
allowed to remain at liberty (paragraph 83).
The Government is pleased that the Committee recognises
the need to detain certain categories of persons prior to removal.
q) We reject the suggestion that provision
should be made for automatic bail hearings at the point of detention
on the grounds that this would only present yet another opportunity
to string out a process that already takes too long. There may
be a case, however, for giving anyone detained longer than, say,
three months an automatic bail hearing at that point (paragraph
84).
The Government disagrees with this recommendation.
The provision in Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,
which would have allowed for automatic bail hearings at specified
points in a person's detention, has now been repealed. There seems
little point in returning once again to issues that were debated
in full during the passage through Parliament of the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The majority of detainees are
able to apply to be released on bail at any time to a Chief Immigration
Officer, the Secretary of State, or an Adjudicator.
r) We believe that, under current practice,
children should only be detained prior to removal when the planned
period of detention is very short or where there are reasonable
grounds to suppose that the family is likely to abscond (paragraph
86).
The Government agrees with this recommendation. In
most cases where families with children are detained other than
as part of a fast-track asylum process, this is prior to removal.
However, it must be recognised that it will sometimes be necessary
to detain families with children at other stages in the asylum
process and for longer periods. Whereas, therefore, the majority
of family detention cases will be for a short time there will
always be exceptions to this where longer term detention of a
family may exceptionally be justified.
s) We recommend that after 12 months detention,
another bail hearing should be automatically held, with the presumption
that the individual should be released unless there are compelling
reasons why his continued detention is in the public interest
or the detainee is considered to have prolonged his own detention
by failure to co-operate with inquiries or to provide accurate
information. Similar reviews should be held, if applicable, every
6 months thereafter. The Home Secretary should also be obliged
to lay before the House, on a quarterly basis, a publication listing
the names of all detainees who have been in detention for 12 months
or longer and the reasons, in each case, for their continued detention
(paragraph 90).
The Government disagrees with this recommendation.
Very few individuals are detained for such a lengthy period. Moreover,
we do not accept that there is a need for an automatic bail hearing
at any point in a person's detention. Detainees are able to apply
at any time to a Chief Immigration Officer, the Secretary of State
or an Adjudicator to be released on bail. In addition, every person's
detention is subject to administrative review by the Immigration
Service at regular intervals and at progressively more senior
levels as detention continues. The Government does not accept
that it would be appropriate or necessary to publish details of
individual detainees.
t) We believe that strip-searches of detainees
should only be carried out where justified by reasonable suspicion
and not as a matter of routine. We recommend that the practice
of conducting random strip-searches after visits should be abandoned
forthwith (paragraph 93).
The Government agrees with this recommendation. The
practice of routine strip searches at Haslar and Lindholme removal
centres has now ended. In future, strip searching at any immigration
removal centre will be intelligence or evidence-led.
u) We regret the delay in publishing a full
set of detailed Operating Standards for Removal Centres. As the
Centres have now been operating for some time, the inevitable
consequence of this delay has been the emergence of undesirable
disparities in standards and conditions between different Centres.
We urge that remaining Operating Standards should be published
as soon as possible. Standards governing visiting hours and legal
access are particularly needed. We further recommend that standards
should be raised in those Removal Centres run in former Prison
Service accommodation, to match the best practice of privately-contracted
Centres, and that a target date should be set by which consistency
of standards across private and public Removal Centres is to be
achieved. If, after a reasonable time, the public sector is unable
to achieve an acceptable standard, the contract should be put
out to tender (paragraph 96).
The Government agrees with this recommendation. Operating
Standards are being developed and will be published as soon as
practicable. This exercise involves extensive consultation. The
Government agrees that standards should be more consistent across
the removal centre estate and work is in hard to achieve this.
All removal centres should be operating within the provision of
the Detention Centre Rules and where Operating Standards have
been put in place these provide the minimum standard of operation
or service provision. There is no reason why directly managed
centres should not achieve similar standards to contracted out
centres. Instances of best practice are found in both contracted-out
and directly managed removal centres, and the Government is keen
to ensure that it is shared across the removal estate as a whole.
However, we do not favour complete uniformity as there should
always be scope for imaginative service providers to exceed the
minimum standards.
v) We accept that current arrangements for
access to legal advice are inadequate. It may be that the matter
can be resolved by appointment of a welfare officer, as we have
recommended at paragraph 75 above, who can either put detainees
in touch with their own legal representatives or who can provide
access to emergency legal advice. Failing that, however, consideration
should be given to providing detainees with access to a duty solicitor
(paragraph 99).
The Government agrees that all detainees should have
access to competent legal advice. All detainees are told how to
contact the IAS and RLC for advice and assistance, and they have
access in removal centres to the free telephone lines operated
by those two organisations. Information about finding a legal
representative is displayed in removal centres. Furthermore, much
work has been done recently by the Office of the Immigration Services
Commissioner (OISC) to raise the profile of its registration and
complaints scheme among those in detention. Separately, the Legal
Services Commission is currently considering letting contracts
to solicitors local to removal centres in order to enhance access
to legal representation.
w) We welcome the Minister's undertaking to
develop better statistical information about instances of self-harm
in Removal Centres (paragraph 102).
The Government is pleased that the Committee welcomes
this initiative.
x) We recommend that the booking of seats
on scheduled flights for the purpose of removal is centrally co-ordinated
in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to avoid over-booking
the number of allocated immigration seats (paragraph 106).
The Government agrees with this recommendation. Seats
booked on scheduled services, for removals at public expense,
are already centrally co-ordinated through an Immigration Service
Unit in Croydon. The Unit works with the booking contractor in
a bid to ensure the most efficient use of available seats.
y) We are anxious that nothing be done to
inject any more delay into the proceedings than is absolutely
necessary. We agree, however, that when removal is imminent, notice
of removal and information as to the whereabouts of those to be
removed should be given as a matter of course to legal representatives
in good time for them to make representations (paragraph 110).
The Government does not agree with this recommendation
as it does not believe that this is a realistic proposition. People
in this category, i.e. who have been refused asylum prior to 2/10/2000,
have had the opportunity to raise the issue of human rights (HR)
at any stage during the asylum/appeals process, a period of several
years in some cases. Whilst it is accepted that an individual's
circumstances can change at any time, raising HR issues immediately
prior to removal may only be a delaying tactic in order to frustrate
removal.
It is not practical or resource efficient to insist
that each legal representative is personally contacted in order
that they may make further representations on their client's behalf.
The onus should remain with the failed asylum seeker to make representations;
it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to solicit representations
at the removal stage. The Government's objective is to process
asylum applications and appeals speedily and to remove failed
asylum seekers as soon as no barrier to removal remains. It would
make little sense to go through the effort of disposing of barriers
to removal only to delay to allow representatives yet more time
to consult with their clients.
z) We believe that the welfare of the child
should be paramount, and that separation of a child of an asylum
seeker from both parents by removal is nearly always unjustified
(paragraph 114).
The Government agrees that the separation of a child
of an asylum seeker from both parents should happen in only the
most exceptional of circumstances.
In instances whereby one parent had deliberately
chosen to leave the family home in an attempt to frustrate the
removal of a full family unit, the Government does not consider
it acceptable that the whole family should remain in the United
Kingdom while one parent remains in hiding.
It would be most unusual for a child of an asylum
seeker to become separated from its parent(s) during the removal
process. If this did occur, social services would be asked to
intervene to take responsibility for the welfare of the child
until it could be reunited with its parent(s). The removal of
an unaccompanied child would only be effected under escort and
only if suitable reception arrangements were in place in the home
country.
If an older child became deliberately separated from
their family unit immediately prior to removal, social services
would be notified and every effort would be made to ensure the
safety of that child. In such circumstances, the removal of the
remaining family members would only take place if authorised at
Assistant Director level or above.
aa) We recommend that mistaken removals are
recorded, audited and the number of cases published each year.
We further recommend that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate
operate checking mechanisms to ensure that, as far as humanly
possible, this does not happen. In particular we suggest that
it should be made clear to the companies responsible for removals
that if their staff are concerned about a particular case they
should clear the matter with higher management and the Immigration
Service before proceeding (paragraph 119).
The Government agrees that there is a need to ensure
records of mistaken removals are maintained. IND is looking at
data held on the new database (CID) which is currently being implemented
across IND. IND will assess whether the information held is of
sufficient quality to enable figures to be published in the future.
IND has systems in place to ensure that people are
not removed incorrectly. Nonetheless it is acknowledged that occasional
mistakes have occurred. The recent implementation of a new IT
system will ensure that all IND staff will have access to the
same information thereby reducing the difficulties associated
with a manual system. A rolling programme of training in the use
of this new IT system is underway.
Companies contracted by the IS to assist in the removal
process are able to contact the local enforcement office (LEO)
who have instigated the removal at any point during the detention/removal
process if they have concerns regarding the suitability of the
removal. LEOs are staffed outside of office hours and at weekends.
They may also contact IS staff at the port of removal or at IS
removal centres if they wish to raise concerns about a particular
case.
bb) We recommend that consideration be given
to extending the role of Visiting Committees to cover removals
(paragraph 124).
The Government does not agree with this recommendation.
There already exists complaints' mechanism that all removed persons
have access to, as well as a number of NGOs that are able to assist.
cc) We recommend that the Home Office, through
the Advisory Panel on Country Information, commissions research
into the reception of failed asylum seekers by the authorities
in their source countries, after removal (paragraph 130).
The function of the Advisory Panel on Country Information
is to consider and make recommendations on the content of country
information produced by the Home Office. The role of the Panel
is advisory.
In making decisions about removing failed asylum
seekers, the Home Office takes account of up to date information
from a wide range of sources about the situation in the country
of origin. These sources include UNHCR, Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations, as well
as reports from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If there
was clear evidence that asylum seekers would be persecuted upon
return to a particular country (whether for having sought asylum
or any other reason), such cases would not be removed.
The Government is already looking at the sustainability
of returns to country of origin made under voluntary return schemes.
This includes failed asylum seekers. This work has been commissioned
by the Home Office's Research and Statistics Directorate. The
need for further research on this topic is being considered.
dd) In order to avoid people returning to
destitution, we recommend that formal provision should be made
for payment, at the point of departure, of a modest allowance
to asylum seekers who otherwise are likely to be destitute or
impoverished on arrival in their country of origin. We accept,
given that there is a wide variation in the circumstances of failed
asylum seekers, that this payment should not be universal (paragraph
132).
The Government does not agree that this would be
a realistic proposition. It would be extremely difficult to means
test each failed asylum seeker immediately prior to removal to
ascertain whether or not they would be considered destitute upon
arrival in their home country. Any system set up specifically
for this task would be open to abuse and criticism and may even
delay removal if the Government had to defend a decision to deny
financial assistance.
All asylum seekers, at any stage in the process,
have the option to return home on a voluntary basis. Those returning
on a voluntary basis will have their return journey arranged and
paid for and may apply for assistance from the International Organization
for Migration (IOM). The IOM are keen to offer reintegration support
by way of financial assistance, training or other methods to ensure
a sustainable return. A one-off cash payment would not necessarily
assist the individual in the longer term.
Assisted voluntary returns are available to asylum
seekers from the time an asylum application is made. Access to
information about assisted voluntary return is being reviewed
at present to pro-actively highlight the option of assisted voluntary
return throughout the asylum process.
ee) We believe it is self evident that the
efficient removal of asylum seekers whose claims have failed is
a precondition for the credibility of the entire asylum process
(paragraph 133).
The Government agrees and has made substantial progress.
The Nationality, Immigration Asylum Act 2002 included provisions
designed to ensure an effective end-to-end asylum system and tackle
abuse. The Government has made clear its determination to increase
the removal of asylum seekers whose claims have failed.
ff) We recognise, however, that the removals'
process is a great deal more complicated than most people appreciate.
Part of our purpose has been to set out the practical difficulties
surrounding removal in the hope that they will be better understood
and addressed (paragraph 134).
The Government thanks the Committee for their recognition
of the complexities surrounding delivery of asylum removals. The
Immigration Service is continuing to concentrate efforts on addressing
the various barriers and obstacles to successful removals.
gg) We also reach a number of conclusions
and make recommendations about how to make the system quicker
and more efficient. There is a pressing need for more accurate
statistics. Improvements are essential to the process of initial
decision-making. Enforced removals need to be carried out more
rapidly, effectively and humanely (paragraph 135).
Voluntary departure is more humane and dignified
than enforced removals, and for this reason the Government is
promoting this option vigorously throughout the asylum process.
The Government aims to expand activities in this area and ensure
that information about the voluntary return options are made more
widely available, for example by explaining the process as part
of the asylum induction programme and reminding those applicants
whose applications are refused that this option is available.
But for those who do not leave voluntarily, enforced removal is
necessary. The Government seeks to effect all removals with humanity,
reflecting that each removal involves an individual.
jj) Finally, we acknowledge the improvements
to the removals process that have occurred in recent months and
trust that they will continue. While the Government should do
its utmost to remove failed asylum seekers, the targets it sets
must be realistic. However the greatest scope for improving the
credibility of the asylum system lies with reducing the number
of applicants and more efficient processing of new applications
and it is to these that we will return in our next inquiry (paragraph
138).
The Government considers its targets as redefined,
whilst challenging, to be realistic. As the Committee will be
aware, substantial improvement has been made in reducing the number
of applicants, speeding up processing and removals.
Beverley Hughes MP
Minister of State, Home Office
8 July 2003
| 
