APPENDIX 13
Memorandum submitted by BAR UK
1. BAR UK is the trade association that
represents full service scheduled airlines doing business here
in the UK. British Airways, bmi british midland and Virgin Atlantic
are all members of our trade association, but the vast majority
are airlines with overseas bases. I have attached a list of our
members for your information.
2. By its own admission the Home Office
targets for removals have not proved realistic or capable of being
carried out. Late last year the Home Office acknowledged this
and indicated that they would no longer be attempting to remove
some 30,000+ people in the course of the year.
3. Removals can be either voluntary or compulsory.
The former normally do not present a problem but the latter can.
Compulsory removals normally involve the provision of escorts.
Traditionally some of our members would provide their own escorts,
others would seek to sub-contract this function, and the remainder
would look to the police or Immigration Service to provide the
escorts depending on the risk associated with the person being
deported.
4. A majority of our members would prefer
that the decision to use an escort should be arrived at jointly
by consultation between the Immigration Service and the carrier
concerned. In practice the advice given by the Immigration Service
in these cases would necessarily be relied on heavily because
of their knowledge of the deportees. However, the final decision
to carry has to rest with the carrier and in particular with the
captain of the aircraft concerned as the person legally responsible
for the lives of all on board.
5. Most airlines would have their own particular
policy as to how many escorts should be provided for a particular
number of deportees. If they have not developed their own policy
they would rely on the IATA guidelines in this matter. Most members
would place a limit on the number of deportees to be carried on
a particular flight. The limit would vary according to the perceived
risk attached to carrying the deportee. Many members would look
to a minimum of two escorts per deportee but some would accept
that one escort would be sufficient, but again this would depend
on the nature of the risk involved.
6. One of the problems associated with carrying
this type of passenger is where the deportee resists deportation.
Mixing passengers who may resist deportation with those who are
travelling voluntarily is an obvious concern for commercial airlines.
If the deportee resists then we would wish the passenger not to
be carried on commercial services and no further obligation should
be placed upon the airline to remove. The government have in the
last year or two resorted to whole plane charters for deporting
people and we believe that is the way in which difficult removals
ought to be carried out.
7. Airlines do have a problem with removing
passengers to points that they either do not serve directly themselves
or perhaps not at all. Where a carrier is directed to remove a
person from this country it relieves the financial burden if they
are allowed to carry via an intermediate port that allows them
to utilise their own services rather than to have to pay for carriage
on another airline. It is often the case that an airline, having
brought a passenger in from a port they serve to the UK, may be
directed to return that passenger to their country of origin which
happens to be one that is not served by the airline. In such cases
the airline is forced to buy a one-way ticket on another carrier
which can amount to a significant sum of money.
8. The final issue of concern to carriers
is the need for an adequate notice period of the requirement to
carry a deportee. This is of particular concern to those of our
members who provide their own escorts but whose home bases are
in countries far away from our own. All airlines would require
at least 24 hours' notice of the requirement to carry and for
those with bases far away then more than that time would be needed.
That concludes the main evidence that we would
like to submit for the Committee's information. We have concentrated
on the "mechanics" of the subject of removals rather
than to comment upon the other aspects of the Inquiry indicated
in the Committee's terms of reference. However, we hope that our
inputs will be of value to the Committee.
January 2003
| 
