Removals
222. The subject of removals was dealt with in detail
in our report published in May 2003.[239]
Again, the paragraphs which follow summarise and where necessary
update that earlier report.
223. If an asylum claim is refused, and any subsequent
appeal lost, it is open to failed asylum seekers to return voluntarily
to their source countries, rather than being subject to forcible
return by the Immigration Service. Since 1999, the Home Office
has funded the voluntary assisted returns programme run by the
International Organisation for Migration, an intergovernmental
body. According to the Home Office, voluntary returns are inherently
preferable to enforced returns and a vital component of [the Governments]
returns policy.[240]
The voluntary return programme is open to those with pending or
failed asylum claims, as well as those granted leave to remain
on humanitarian grounds. Until March 2002, the programme provided
basic assistance only, in the form of advice and information,
predeparture, transit and postarrival assistance.
Since that date, the package has also included some reintegration
assistance.[241]
224. 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 familys 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.[242]
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.
225. In our report on asylum removals we drew attention
to "the disparity between the numbers of people refused asylum
or leave to remain in this country and the numbers recorded as
having left, whether voluntarily or through removal by the Immigration
Service."[243]
The number of removals has been increasing, but remains low as
a proportion of the total of asylum refusals, as the following
two tables demonstrate:
Source: see footnote.[244]
Source: Asylum Statistics: 3rd Quarter 2003, p5
226. Annual totals for removals over the past five
years have been as follows:[245]
| 1998 |
1999 | 2000
| 2001 | 2002
|
| 6,990 | 7,665
| 8,980 | 9,285
| 10,740 |
These figures are defined by the Home Office as including—
"persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action
had been initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted
Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation
for Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds."[246]
They do not include persons departing voluntarily without
notifying the immigration authorities, and they therefore must
represent an underestimate of the total number of failed asylum
applicants who depart the UK. The same caveat must be made about
the line indicating 'removals and voluntary departures' in the
graph on the previous page.
227. The Minister of State told us that the current rate of removals
of failed asylum seekers, as at November 2003, was around 1,500
a month, or 18,000 a year. She also pointed out that around 1,300
non-asylum seekers with no right to remain in the UK were being
removed each month, together with over 3,000 port removals each
month, making a total of about 5,800 removals each month.[247]
However, as the removal figures are not related to any specific
cohort of asylum seekers, it is impossible to say whether the
pool of failed asylum seekers still in the country is increasing
or diminishing.
228. The conclusions and recommendations in our report on asylum
removals, and the Government's responses, are set out in the box
on the following page. Updated details of Government action in
response to our report, and of relevant public announcements,
are printed as an appendix to this report.[248]
229. Tackling the problem of removals is a key component of
a successful asylum strategy. The abuse of the asylum system
can be countered by a firm differentiation between genuine refugees
and those with no claim, and the subsequent removal of the latter.
In this way the widespread public perception that the system is
being abused can be most effectively countered. In recent years,
however, those who are refused asylum do not appear to have been
systematically and successfully removed, as evinced by the number
of asylum refusals compared with the number of removals. In our
earlier report we noted that the great majority of the 50,530
asylum seekers whose appeals were rejected in 2002 would have
become liable to removal by the Immigration Service, but that
in the same year the number of principal applicants removed or
notifying the Immigration Service of their voluntary departure
was only 10,410.[249]
Over the past year there has been a rise in the rate of removals
and departures to something like 18,000 a year. This is a significant
improvement and we welcome it. However, it remains the case that
the rate of removal is still unacceptably low in proportion to
the numbers of people eligible to be removed. It also remains
the case that the true scale of the problem is not known: due
to the lack of embarkation controls there is no way of checking
which failed asylum seekers are still in the country and which
have left voluntarily.
230. We repeat our previous recommendation that—subject
to proper evaluation and costing—embarkation controls should
be reinstated at UK borders, so that credible estimates can be
made of the number of failed asylum seekers who remain in the
country. We believe that the Government has by now had ample opportunity
to carry out such evaluation and costing. The Government should
include details of this work in its formal response to our report.
231. We also reaffirm the potential importance of voluntary
resettlement, and urge the Government to make greater efforts
to draw the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme to the attention
of asylum seekers at all stages of the process. We recommend that
the Home Office should work with the International Organisation
for Migration to make this service more pro-active—for example,
by contacting failed asylum seekers at the time of notification
of the failure of their application in order to offer advice and
assistance. We also recommend that the Government should consider
whether a relatively modest increase in the level of assistance
provided, financial and otherwise, might lead to a greater take-up
of the scheme and a net saving to public funds arising from a
reduction in expenditure on enforced removals.
232. However, we also believe that a more fundamental
attempt should be made to integrate asylum decision-making, voluntary
departure and compulsory removals. We note that the present
system provides little or no support or advice to asylum seekers
before they receive their initial or appeal decision. Little is
done to prepare them either for a positive or a negative decision.
Those whose applications are rejected are left with no support
and little advice about the options available to them.
233. In most cases it is not possible to know
whether removal action will be taken swiftly or even at all. In
these circumstances it would not be surprising if many failed
asylum seekers simply remain in this country, working illegally
if possible, and hoping they may avoid removal.
234. As we commented in our recent report on the
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, "the
priority should be to improve the removal system so that it
is understood by all parties that a failed claim will lead to
swift action to effect a removal".[250]
A successful applicant should be given advice and support on becoming
a full member of the UK community. This can only be achieved
if asylum seekers are prepared for their decision before they
receive it, and if the authorities responsible for removals are
organised to act once a negative decision has been given.
235. We explored with the Minister of State the option
of requiring people who are about to receive their asylum appeal
decision to attend at a specified location in person to receive
that decision. The Minister told us that this was:
"certainly worth considering. Indeed, we
did have a pilot in which people were presented with the outcome
of the appeal personally. We have not extended that pilot yet
because we did not get it right. It was not wholly effective.
The personal presentation of decisions, provided we have the systems
in place to mobilise the removal stage effectively, is an important
thing that we ought to be considering further."[251]
236. We believe that this option should be pursued
much more vigorously by Government. On the basis of the evidence
we have taken, in this and our previous inquiry, we are far from
convinced that every effort is being made to ensure that failed
asylum seekers can take an informed decision on the options open
to them. Requiring asylum seekers to attend in person to receive
their appeal decision, with their dependants, would make it possible
for them, if necessary, to be detained immediately with a view
to speedy removal. This measure would increase the rate of removals
and reduce the likelihood of failed applicants remaining in the
UK in a state of destitution. We urge the Government to bring
forward new pilots at the earliest possible opportunity.
237. We also recommend that they should review
urgently the whole system by which failed asylum seekers are advised
on their options.
227 
