Examination of Witnesses (Questions 560-572)
MS NICOLA
ROGERS AND
MRS SALLY
TARSHISH
TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2003
560. And removals by error?
(Mrs Tarshish) Yes, I have heard of this. There have
been removals when the solicitor has not been able to be contacted.
(Ms Rogers) It is certainly the case that removal
and detention prior to removal often happens at weekends, out
of hours, when representatives are not available, and, unfortunately,
the consequence of that is that people may be removed unlawfully,
when they should not be removed. If I could turn back very briefly
to the point about injuries being sustained, one of the points
that came quite clearly from the evidence given last week by Wackenhut
is that they do not go to houses and detain people, that is the
Immigration Service. There is quite a bit of splitting up of roles
in the whole process. If it is the Immigration Service that is
subsequently directing Wackenhut, it is not surprising that the
Immigration Service are not necessarily going to concern themselves
that much with the manner in which it is done, when they themselves
are known to conduct removals from homes, for instance, in a manner
that is inhumane. So they may not necessarily have been scrutinising
Wackenhut, and that is why, Sally is absolutely right, there needs
to be some kind of external monitoring of this, of everyone in
the system—and that is Immigration Service and Wackenhut
or whichever private contractor. It has been a long concern of
my organisation that private contractors are involved in this
kind of process because of the fact that they are not necessarily
accountably. One of the concerns is that we rarely know on what
terms they are contracted to provide the services that they provide.
It is very important that there is scrutiny because, as Sally
said, once a person is put on a plane and they are successfully
removed, the chances of them following up a complaint against
Wackenhut or against Immigration Service is nil. It would be pie
in the sky to suggest that they were going to be able to do that.
561. Finally, perhaps, in the absence of external
scrutiny, you have both alluded to mounds of evidence of mistreatment
and inappropriate behaviour, etc. At present, what do you do about
it? What recourse do you both have to go up the line and make
your representations and is it effective?
(Mrs Tarshish) Our visiting finishes once they are
in the process of removal. We do not have any further access to
that person, so these are stories that come back in all sorts
of other ways.
562. But you do not just file them away.
(Mrs Tarshish) No, we try to keep them. We are trying
to monitor them as best we can. We keep going back to external
scrutiny. That is the only way, I think, you can have an adequate
and truthful picture of what is happening—and it should
be pursued. Also, if a detainee is injured, he should be allowed
to enter the process of assault, like any other person who is
injured. If it is grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm, he
has a course which is available to him. It should be made available
and he should not be removed until that case is properly dealt
with.
(Ms Rogers) Unfortunately, although as lawyers we
can encourage our clients to take legal action against people
who assault them, you can understand why asylum seekers and others
are very reticent about taking legal action against people whom
they consider might have an influence on the ultimate outcome
of their case. They may be very reluctant to take that kind of
legal action. That is the problem with legal avenues. It is understandable,
if you think that might have a negative impact on whether or not
you will be allowed to remain in the country, that you may not
be rushing to take a lawsuit out against the officer who arrested
you.
563. Except we are talking about the very end
of the process here.
(Ms Rogers) Yes.
Mr Prosser: Thank you.
Chairman: Mr Russell.
Bob Russell
564. Thank you, Chairman. I wonder if I could
ask both of you, do you have any information on what happens to
returnees once back in their country of origin?
(Ms Rogers) It would be purely anecdotal. Some people
do maintain contact with their representatives, particularly if
they have family members here or other reasons for doing so. Others,
unfortunately, our members do not hear from ever again and it
is quite difficult to know what happens to people once they are
returned. I was interested to read the evidence of those who do
the escorting, because they suggest that in some countries there
is interest in the people on return; in other countries it looks
like they watch the person walk out the door but the problem is
there is very little monitoring of what happens beyond that door.
Of course the escort service's duties end at the point of handing
them over. Sometimes UNHCR involves itself in monitoring what
happens to failed asylum seekers or certainly has evidence about
that and they will feed that information back. That has led in
the past, for instance, in the case of Sri Lanka, for policy reflecting
the fact that failed asylum seekers or at least, certain categories
of failed asylum seekers, were at risk.
565. Does that also go for Chechnya?
(Ms Rogers) Chechnya, I am afraid, I do not know about.
Chairman: I do not think we remove people
to Chechnya.
Bob Russell
566. Chairman, I appreciate your intervention
but I asked Ms Rogers the question and she was unable to answer
it. I shall now ask the question: Should more assistance be given
to returnees to help them to reach their original homes, once
they are being flown back to their country of origin, whatever
that definition of country of origin is?
(Ms Rogers) If that is where they want to go, indeed,
that would probably be good. It will mean that they have the ability
to survive. What I am concerned about with people being removed—although
the evidence last week suggested they are given some pocket money;
pocket money does not lead to any kind of sustainable life and
probably returning to the home area would be better.
(Mrs Tarshish) Sometimes this is where visitors actually
can help, but it is very limited, in that there are connections
in visitor groups with churches abroad and sometimes it has been
known that we have been able to arrange for a member from a church
in that particular country, where it is possible to do it, to
have liaison to ensure that they are re-integrated back into their
community without any of the sometimes traumatic consequences
of their return under escort. Some of them have to pay bribes
to get through immigration back in their own country and there
have been instances that we have got to know about where they
have actually been imprisoned until they were able, or someone
else was able, to pay their fare money back to the aircraft carriers.
It is all very haphazard, what happens. What one should bear in
mind is that if they are being returned to a country where there
is neither a cessation clause or you do have in-country information
where, for example, it might not be safe to return them, then
it seems to me they should not be returned there anyway. But it
does happen.
567. Moving on to people who it has been established
have no right to be here—they should be removed and they
have not been removed, for whatever reasons—what happens
to them? Are you able to estimate perhaps that some of them may
have left the country without the knowledge of the Home Office?
If so, how many then stay here?
(Ms Rogers) That is a problem. Because we do not register
people, as it were, on departure there are undoubtedly people
who do voluntarily leave and think "That is the end of the
process, I am off now". However, you would have to ask the
Home Office for how they monitor that.
568. Anecdotally, are you aware of people who
voluntarily leave having lost all appeals?
(Ms Rogers) I am certainly aware of cases where people
have voluntarily left, particularly if they are aware of how forcible
removal might take place, or if the circumstances in their country
have changed. I have met numbers of people who would genuinely
wish to return to their country should the circumstances change.
569. So these people have eventually gone voluntarily.
That moves me on to the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme.
How does that work? How do you think that could be developed and
used to help more people to leave voluntarily?
(Ms Rogers) A voluntary returns programme, in my view,
only works if it is truly voluntary and it is not on pain of further
detention—for instance if a person is told "If you
do not enter into this programme voluntarily, we will detain you
longer". It can never be used as a stick like that. However,
it can work, if it is truly voluntary, to help people have a financial
package, for instance, to assist them re-establish themselves
in their own country. I was very interested to hear from colleagues
in Finland about their attitude to asylum seekers and others.
Very much part of the Finnish programme is to encourage—almost
entice—people into education whilst they are waiting for
their decisions and into jobs, so that they return to their countries
of origin if they are ultimately not successful with skills, with
education and better able to cope for themselves long-term.
570. I am most grateful for what you have told
us about Finland. Finally, Chairman, I want to ask this question:
is it true that people in removal centres are excluded from access
to the voluntary return programme?
(Ms Rogers) AVID would probably be better able to
explain this to you, but I understand that people in removal centres
are not given that opportunity to gain access to voluntary assistance
programmes.
571. Do you think that members of your organisation
would welcome the opportunity, even at a late hour, for people
in removal centres to be enabled to apply to go on the Voluntary
Assisted Return Programme—however voluntary that voluntary
might be?
(Ms Rogers) It simply has to be voluntary. That is
the point. If it was truly voluntary then I do not think that
our members would have any objection to there being a programme
for them to return and then to be given assistance to return,
but it must be truly voluntary. The experience of our members
is that people who are in long-term detention can become so demoralised
because they cannot see an end to their detention, that they volunteer
to depart, and that is not quite the same as a truly voluntary
departure.
Chairman
572. That concludes the session, thank you very
much. Can I thank Ms Rogers and Mrs Tarshish for coming. Can I
just say, Ms Rogers, despite what you may think we do understand
the point about you having to represent the claims made by your
clients.
(Ms Rogers) Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. The session is closed.
|
