House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Fourth Report

Enforced removals

49. If a failed asylum seeker does not wish to return voluntarily to his or her country of origin, the Immigration Service may attempt to effect an enforced removal. The Service, sometimes accompanied by the police, visits the individual or family's home without notice, arrests them and conducts them to holding facilities where they are transferred to the custody of Wackenhut, the private security firm contracted to run in-country escorting services for the Home Office. A provision in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act allows the detainee custody officers of private firms to attend a residence with the Immigration Service or police, to remove an individual directly rather than via holding facilities.[55] The private companies may only attend with the Immigration Service or police, not alone. The asylum seeker may then be taken directly to the airport and put on a flight, or may be taken into detention for a brief period prior to departure. Special cases, such as vulnerable or potentially troublesome individuals, may be accompanied on the flight by an escort, the contract for which service is currently held by Loss Prevention International Ltd. Various problems with enforced removals have been brought to our attention, as set out in the following paragraphs.

PROTRACTED DELAY BEFORE REMOVAL

50. There may be lengthy delays between the final refusal of an asylum claim and the removal of the claimant. Neil Gerrard MP told us:

A major gap in the system at present is the complete lack of coordination between decision making and enforcement. It is quite common for asylum claimants to exhaust their rights of appeal and therefore reach the point at which support is cut off (if they have no children) but for nothing to then happen in terms of removal [ ... ] I saw two cases recently of people whose cases had reached the end of the line five years ago [...] but nothing whatsoever had happened in the five years since.[56]

51. The results of lengthy delay are that failed asylum seekers become increasingly integrated into British society, form ties and relationships, and are unwilling to co-operate with removal when it finally happens. Ms Nicola Rogers of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association told us:

while they are waiting for their decision, they form links that then mean that they do not want to leave whatever the outcome of their asylum claim, quite understandably. If a person arrives in the country, meets someone, falls in love and gets married, it is quite understandable that they then do not want to leave after four years.[57]

52. There is also the problem for failed asylum seekers of supporting themselves while awaiting removal, if their wait is in the community. Destitute asylum seekers whose claims date from before the implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are supported by local authorities. Some whose claims were made after this date are also the responsibility of local authorities, under an Interim Scheme introduced in December 1999. From April 2000 the provision of support became the responsibility of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). Asylum seekers are entitled to apply for accommodation in the UK, on a "no choice" basis, outside London and away from the South East. They are also entitled to apply for cash support. Once final refusal is given, support continues for a period of 28 days and then, unless children are involved, it ceases. When a wait may go on for months and even years, this leaves some failed asylum seekers with very limited options, unless they have friends and family with whom they can stay. The Refugee Council told us that "there are growing numbers of people not being removed, for a variety of reasons, but who are being thrust into absolute destitution". The Council told us that while the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 allows the provision of full board accommodation to people in this situation ("Section 4 support"), "the criteria for this are very narrow, access has proved problematic and the support provided is even more restricted than normal NASS support and with no cash".[58]

53. In response to these criticisms, the Minister of State, while acknowledging that "the variance in terms of the period between the end of the process and removal is very great indeed", claimed that "there are very small numbers of people who have been here some considerable time".[59] She went on to say that there existed "two populations" of failed asylum seekers: the backlog of claims dating back several years, and the new cases taken on. While the backlog had been considerably reduced, from "120,000 plus to just under 40,000", "there is still [ ... ] a significant number of people who have been here for some considerable time and [ ... ] the delay [ ... ] has been much greater in those cases". In terms of new cases, however, "the process for them in terms of the timescale between the actual end of the process and removal is much, much less and coming down", with "over 70 % of [initial decisions made] within two months".[60] We were told that the timescale envisaged for processing most claims is two months for an initial decision and a further four months for the completion of the appeal process, and the Minister assured us that "we are on course to achieve that".[61]

54. In regard to support, the Minister of State told us that accommodation is available to destitute failed asylum seekers under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This allows the Secretary of State to provide accommodation for persons admitted to the UK on a temporary basis, or released from detention. Full board accommodation, but no cash, is provided. The Minister of State said that "as a matter of policy, accommodation is only provided under this section where the person is unable to leave through no fault of their own". As of 12 March 2003, 100 people were receiving support through this mechanism.[62]

55. 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.

BARRIERS TO REMOVAL

56. There are several reasons for the delays between refusal and removal. First, the difficulty of providing appropriate travel documents. The Home Office told us that over 80% of port asylum applicants and 90% of in-country applicants do not present travel documents or other identity documentation, without which removal is not possible. Nicola Rogers of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, told us that this may be because "if [asylum seekers] are fleeing countries of persecution, they are not necessarily going to avail themselves of their authorities to get documentation".[63] The Association also told us in evidence that the Geneva Convention "acknowledges that refugees often have to flee persecution in circumstances which mean that they are unable to obtain proper documentation from their country of origin", by providing the right of asylum seekers not to be punished for arriving illegally in another country.[64]

57. Two pro forma documents, the "EU letter" used by EU Member States and the Chicago Convention Travel Document, can sometimes be used for returns. The Home Office told us that "virtually all" countries are signatories to the Chicago Convention, which requires that, where a person is refused entry to a country, he must be accepted back by the country from which he embarked, unless he was only in that country in transit.[65] For those people without valid travel documents, a "Chicago Convention document" may be used, which is simply a sheet of information listing the passenger's name, date of birth and nationality, and country of departure, asking that country to accept his return. For removals within the EU, the "EU letter" is used, which is a similar document containing personal information, along a format agreed between Member States.[66] However, many countries refuse to accept these documents. Some countries will issue their nationals with travel documents only after lengthy verification processes: Bail for Immigration Detainees, a charity that prepares and presents free bail applications on behalf of those detained under Immigration Act powers, told us that particular delays arise when awaiting documents from Indian, Pakistani, Chinese and Algerian authorities.[67] To tackle this problem, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has created a Documentation Unit tasked with liaising with immigration authorities abroad. The Minister of State also told us that the Immigration Service now attempts to identify and preempt documentation problems earlier in the process, rather than "[waiting] until the end to suddenly find out we might have a problem with documentation".[68] We should make clear that many asylum seekers are advised by the traffickers to destroy whatever documents they may have precisely with a view to making their return more difficult.

58. We recognise the difficulties posed by the absence of proper travel documents to cooperate 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.

59. A further problem is the reluctance of some source countries to accept the return of their nationals. The best way of addressing this problem is through the negotiation of Readmission Agreements, which "set out reciprocal obligations as well as detailed administrative and operational procedures to facilitate the return and transit of those persons who do not qualify for leave to enter or remain".[69] The only such agreements made by the UK so far, however, are those recently concluded with Romania and Bulgaria, although the UK is also party to the Council of the European Union's Decisions authorising the Commission to negotiate readmission agreements between the European Community and Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions, Sri Lanka, Morocco, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Pakistan, Algeria, Albania, China and Turkey. Negotiations have been concluded regarding Hong Kong, Macao and Sri Lanka, and the ratification process has begun with Hong Kong and is about to be launched with Macao and Sri Lanka.[70]

60. We consider that the negotiation of Readmission Agreements with countries currently reluctant to accept the return of their nationals should be a diplomatic priority.

NON-RETURNABLE PEOPLE

61. The Refugee Council, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association and JUSTICE told us that some groups of claimants—Iraqi Kurds and Zimbabwean nationals in particular—are processed and refused asylum and any leave to remain, even when there is no prospect of them being returned to their source country, due to the conditions prevailing in that country. This leaves the failed claimants without any status or rights in the UK, and no foreseeable prospect of returning to their home country. JUSTICE told us that, up to 2000, the plight of Iraqi Kurds was recognised by the granting of one year's exceptional leave to remain to those who could not be removed elsewhere, but that now "hundreds [of Iraqi Kurds] have been processed in perfectly unreal appeals, and left in limbo for years, without any status, right to work or social support, awaiting the day when conditions on the ground drastically change". They concluded that "this class of failed removals should never have been classified as removals at all".[71]

62. The Minister told us that the number of people in this situation was "several hundred—the low hundreds". She further said that some support, in terms of food and accommodation, was available to these people, but that when the only available accommodation was located in a different part of the country from where they had been living, "quite often they just will not go".[72]

63. 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.

ABSCONDING

64. One reason for delay in removals is that the candidate for removal may have absconded. The Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate commented that "it is not really [ ... ] a question of us keeping people waiting ... but more a question of a lot of people disappearing".[73] The Minister of State told us that the Immigration Service was in the process of improving its contact management of asylum seekers, to reduce the likelihood of disappearance by tracking the location of claimants while claims are decided. She pointed to the Application Registration Card, an identity card now issued to all new claimants, as an aid to this process.[74] When we asked the Home Office for a statistical analysis of absconding rates, the response was that this information was not collected.[75] Ms Nicola Rogers of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association expressed scepticism about whether absconding is a major problem:

The research that was done by the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees last year suggested that abscontion rates for people who are granted bail, for instance, are very low. I think there is a perception that people will behave in a certain way whereas there is no evidence necessarily to support that.[76]

65. 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.

66. We suspect that many of those labelled absconders are in fact people who, once their claims have been rejected and benefit withdrawn, have in the absence of any attempt to remove them drifted elsewhere in search of work. There are no easy answers to the problem of absconding. This is an issue to which we shall return in our next inquiry—into the handling of asylum applications.

LEFT IN LIMBO

67. We heard that the Immigration Service is unwilling to give information to people awaiting removal about how long they are likely to be waiting, which clearly makes it difficult for people to prepare themselves for the event. Neil Gerrard MP told us that:

people whose asylum claims have been refused are left in limbo. They are not told the reason no removal action is being taken, and simply receive a succession of temporary permissions to stay [ ... There are] cases where someone has been in this position for two or three years, has in the meantime married and had a child, but as far as the Home Office is concerned is still just a failed asylum seeker awaiting removal at some unspecified time.[77]

68. In January 2002 a change to Immigration Appeal Procedures came into force which means that certain notices of appeals which have been dismissed are not served to the individuals concerned but to the Home Office.[78] This allows the Home Office to present the refusal notice directly to the asylum seeker and proceed with removal forthwith. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 created a new appeal provision whereby an application may be made to the High Court for a "statutory review" of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.[79] Where the review returns a negative decision, this too will be delivered to the Home Office only, for personal service on the claimant.[80]

69. As we discuss at greater length at paragraph 72 below, the lack of information means that when the removal finally does take place, people have had no time to get their affairs ready. JUSTICE told us "it is deeply unfair for the Home Office to spend four years or more in deciding a protection claim from a difficult country and then to suddenly enforce the decision with a view to summary removal".[81] The Home Office, however, told us that "any attempt to prepare a person for removal carries a risk that they will go to ground".[82] As we have seen in paragraph 64 above, this is clearly a genuine difficulty.

70. However, there is a difference between telling a failed asylum seeker the date and time of an enforced removal, and giving some indication of what is likely to happen after final refusal. It is unlikely, in particular, that those who have been in the country for some time, and have formed personal ties and perhaps amassed assets, will be in a position to abscond. Circumstances must always be weighed in each individual case, but 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.

REMOVAL

71. Once the barriers to removal described above have been overcome, the Immigration Service is likely to enforce removal by visiting the individual or family at their home, if necessary arresting them, and conducting them, with the help of the private security firm Wackenhut, either to detention or straight to the airport for departure. Various organisations and individuals submitted evidence to us expressing disquiet about the way in which the Immigration Service enforces removal from homes.

72. One, frequently expressed, complaint was that insufficient time is given to people to collect their belongings and settle their affairs before removal from the country. The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association told us that:

the extreme hastiness of effecting removal by the Immigration Service in order to effect removals is inhuman and unnecessary. [The Association] is aware of numerous cases where individuals are fully complying with conditions of temporary admission and are suddenly arrested at reporting centres, at places of work or at home without time to prepare for removal.[83]

73. The Immigration Advisory Service described "frequent reports of cases where persons reporting to the Home Office are taken into detention without any prior warning and removed the following day without them being able to collect their personal possessions or make arrangements regarding their accommodation, engagements, etc".[84] Mr Michael Payne, Head of Government Services Division at Wackenhut, told us of an individual:

who had been given notice of removal on the Saturday morning for a Sunday evening flight and he had been living in the country for eight years [ ... ] he had his own house with a mortgage and family, etc to sort out.[85]

74. The Minister told us that, in the case of families, a pastoral visit is usually paid by the Immigration Service before the removal, to explain and run through the procedures. She went on to say that in some cases, however, "some of those visits do take place unannounced, and they can take place in the early hours of the morning" but that "those instances are kept to a minimum".[86]

75. The Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees recommended the creation of a welfare officer with responsibility to ensure that removal is not effected before personal and financial affairs have been settled. A recent report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons into conditions at five immigration detention facilities (Tinsley House, Haslar, Campsfield House and Lindholme Removal Centres, and Oakington Reception Centre) also recommended that a post of welfare officer be created within Removal Centres to assist with problems and advise and support detainees on release, transfer and removal.[87] We agree and 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.

55 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 64 Back

56 Ev 132 Back

57 Q 410 Back

58 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 4; Ev 166, para 3.11 Back

59 Q 651 Back

60 Qq 658, 662 Back

61 Q 662 Back

62 Ev 89, para 3 Back

63 Q 413 Back

64 Ev 141-2, para 6 Back

65 Ev 87 Back

66 Ev 96, para 3 Back