APPENDIX 7
Memorandum submitted by Asylum Welcome
Asylum Welcome (registered charity 1058630)
was founded in Oxford in 1996. We operate through an extensive
network of volunteers who work (a) with asylum-seekers and others
detained in Campsfield House Detention Centre, Kidlington, Oxford,
and (b) with refugees, asylum-seekers and their families who are
part of the local community in the city. We offer practical advice,
assistance and support to many categories of people who have arrived
in this country from abroad, including the many unaccompanied
minors who are at present in Oxfordshire. Our activities are funded
by a large number of donors and in July 2002 we received a substantial
grant from the National Lottery Community Fund to help maintain
our work over the next three years.
To respond to the particular points highlighted
by the Home Affairs Committee's Press Notice No 24:
1. We do not consider that the present system
of immigration control operates in a manner that makes it possible
for any realistic targets for removals to be set. Certainly the
present targets are not realistic. The setting of such targets
is motivated by political pressures that take no account of the
infinitely varied circumstances of many thousands of people. The
desire to meet such targets is likely to have an arbitrary effect
on removal decisions, and to cause decisions for removal to be
made in cases in which a discretionary decision to permit the
individual or family in question to remain would be fully justified.
There is a risk that families with a settled address will be targeted
as opposed to individuals who may be more difficult to trace.
Moreover, removals targets are neither realistic
nor acceptable under any system of immigration control since they
can never take account of ever-changing national and international
political situations and crises.
2. Removal decisions are justifiable only
if they are made after full consideration has been given to the
individual circumstances and after appeal procedures have operated
in a fair and informed way. No methods of removal are humane if
there is not a satisfactory decision-making process in the first
place. We are aware that the practice in removal and detention
centres often consists of individuals being removed from their
rooms in the very early hours of the morning when they have no
chance to contact friends, relatives, visitors or advisers. We
were particularly concerned by the recent removal from Heathrow
to Tanzania of Aziz Ahmed on 31 August 2002, both at the removal
decision itself that was made despite very strong humanitarian
considerations, and in the manner of the removal itself. The much-publicised
removal to Germany of the Ahmadi family followed a succession
of illegal and inhuman acts which are still the subject of legal
proceedings; it was deeply concerning that the Home Office had
apparently persuaded the family's constituency MP that the Schengen
Agreement obliged the United Kingdom to return the family to Germany,
which is simply not the case.
3. We are concerned that Home Office policies
on removals to particular countries are not informed by up-to-date,
impartial and expert appraisals of the situation in many countries.
Recently, removals of Zimbabweans to Zimbabwe continued to take
place long after it ought to have been clear that opponents of
the Mugabe government would be at severe risk of persecution if
returned. (Indeed, one prominent Zimbabwean politician, Mandla
Sibanda, was removed from the United Kingdom a few hours after
Lord Rooker had announced that the government had decided to suspend
the removals of Zimbabweans until after the elections in Zimbabwe.)
A more open and accountable method of setting such policies is
needed, in which parliamentarians, academic specialists and voluntary
agencies should be able to participate.
4. We are seriously concerned that adequate
consideration is not given to compassionate factors, particularly
in respect of families who have lived in the community for several
years, and include children born here or who arrived as infants
and have grown up and received schooling here. Supportive evidence
from such a family's local community (the local church, school,
social workers and so on) should always be accepted as evidence
against removal. Every month that goes by strengthens their case
for remaining where the family members have a positive contribution
to make in employment and social terms. If adult members of the
family are prepared to take training for employment, or already
have relevant qualifications, these factors should be taken into
account. It is absurd for the NHS to recruit nurses from thousands
of miles away when potential nurses are here, supported by public
funds but unable to train or gain employment. As for the manner
of removal, the use of early morning raids leading to the family
being detained must constitute inhuman and degrading treatment,
and thus be in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention
on Human Rights. Children should never be woken from their beds
by officers of the state, an event that will add extra trauma
to the earlier experiences of the family in their country of origin.
A child of school age who has been here for more than two years
may have completely forgotten their first language and have become
remarkably fluent in English. The child's family may well have
adapted to an English culture, lifestyle, food, future plans etc.
To return such children to their parents' country of origin is
returning them to what is essentially a strange land. Nor should
such families be uprooted from their homes, deprived of possessions
they have been able to accumulate, and detained as a prelude to
removal.
5. So far as we are aware, the incentives
offered by the assisted return scheme are at present very few.
We believe that more practical incentives should be offered, not
only in the form of cash but also in such ways as accommodation
and schooling, and continuing assistance with resettlement. More
effort should be put into persuasion rather than coercion. If
a family have strongly held views based on past events that cause
them to reject any thought of return, these views should be respected
in the absence of factors that make the family a threat to life
in this country.
This letter is written on the authority of the
Executive Committee of Asylum Welcome. It was prepared after consultation
with persons who have extensive experience of visiting Campsfield
House and community work in the Oxford area. We would of course
be prepared to provide further assistance to the Home Affairs
Committee should this be requested.
October 2002
|
