Select Committee on Home Affairs Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 41

Memorandum submitted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNHCR'S MANDATE AND INTEREST IN THIS INQUIRY

  1.  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is a non-political, humanitarian organisation mandated by the United Nations to lead and co-ordinate international action for the worldwide protection of refugees and resolution of refugee problems. UNHCR has two basic and closely related aims: to protect refugees and to seek long-term solutions for them[42]. Alongside refugees, other persons of concern to UNHCR include asylum seekers, stateless persons and in certain circumstances, internally displaced persons.

  2.  UNHCR's interest in this inquiry stems from three main considerations. First, the organisation is concerned that those targeted for removal should not include refugees or persons with protection needs. This can be ensured if asylum procedures are scrupulously fair, and if the 1951 Convention is interpreted and applied in a generous and humanitarian spirit. Second, unsuccessful asylum applicants are entitled to respect for their human dignity and human rights. States are bound to respect these rights. Third, UNHCR recognises that the credibility of the asylum institution is affected when those deemed to be without valid asylum claims have the same opportunities to remain as those who qualify for refugee status[43].

  3.  UNHCR's submission relates specifically to the removal of unsuccessful asylum applicants. It emphasises that a credible removal policy is one that is supported by a fair and principled asylum procedure. It touches on the need for a humane and compassionate approach and constraints on removal. This submission is drawn from a variety of UNHCR/EXCOM documents and has been prepared specifically for this inquiry.

A HUMANE APPROACH

  4.  In UNHCR's experience, the most effective removal policies are those that are humane in character and which give first priority to voluntary returns. This approach safeguards human rights and human dignity, while raising the likelihood that returns will be sustainable. Programmes that offer information and counselling alongside re-integration assistance should support a removal policy that highlights voluntary returns. To underpin sustainable returns, re-integration assistance may be financial or skills-based, and should include development assistance in countries of origin. The UK has taken a similar approach with regard to the recently announced return programme for Afghans.

  5.  UNHCR is concerned that a removals policy that is driven by target removal rates may not be consistent with a humane approach. In the drive to reach targets, sight may be lost of the need to respect the privacy and personal dignity of the individual and of the fact that the method adopted for removal will impact the social cohesion of the community from which a person is removed. In particular, the filming of removals will not, in UNHCR's opinion, promote a humane approach to removals. UNHCR encourages governments to promote voluntary return as an alternative to forced removals.

A COMPASSIONATE APPROACH: ADDRESSING SPECIAL NEEDS

  6.  A compassionate approach is integral to a humane and effective removals policy. An effective policy should safeguard the unity of families and incorporate arrangements to address the special needs of separated children, the elderly, the handicapped and single women and couples with young families. Where the unsuccessful applicant is a separated child, UNHCR recommends that an assessment should first be made as to which solution is in his or her best interests. If removal is deemed to be the optimum course of action, there should be identified a suitable care-giver in advance of return, who will take responsibility for the child and provide him/her with appropriate protection and care in the country of return. This may be a parent, other relative, other adult care-taker, a government agency or a child-care agency. UNHCR commends the UK for adopting this approach in its treatment of this particularly vulnerable category of persons[44].

CONSTRAINTS ON REMOVAL

  7.  Firstly, removal may be constrained by a lack of documentation and a refusal by the country of origin to readmit their national. These constraints may be addressed in bilateral negotiations with the country of origin. Where, however these obstacles to removal persist, a long-term solution for the individual must be sought. In the interim, it is contrary to international norms that an individual be detained indefinitely and without review. It may be appropriate in such instances for the UK to examine its obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to Statelessness and the 1954 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

  8.  A second constraint on removal will be protection-related grounds. Where conflict or severe human rights abuses persist in a country, there are often strong grounds for withdrawal of removal directions. Careful consideration should be given to the granting of leave to remain in the UK in such circumstances.

  9.  Finally, UNHCR urges that removal should be avoided where it would be to a situation of internal displacement in the country of origin. In such circumstances, the return of unsuccessful applicants will only go to compound the situation and may present a less than humane approach to the removal of unsuccessful asylum seekers.

October 2002





42   See the Statute of the Office of the UNHCR annexed to Resolution 428 (v) adopted by the General Assembly on 14 December 1950. Back

43   EXCOM standing Committee, "Composite flows and the relationship to refugee outflows, including return of persons not in need of international protection, as well as facilitation of return in its global dimension", 12 Meeting, EC/48/SC/CRP.29 25 May 1998. See also EXCOM Standing Committee, "Return of persons not in need of international protection", 8 meeting, EC/47/SC/CRP.29 30 May 1998. Back

44   UNHCR Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompained Children Seeking Asylum 1997. See also the Separated Children in Europe Programme, Statement of Good Practice 2000. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 7 May 2003