125. The arrival of an asylum seeker back at his or her source country is treated differently from country to country, we heard. Mr Davies of Loss Prevention International told us that whereas in some countries the individual is handed over to immigration authorities at the airport, in others the individual is free to depart without examination.[162]

126. Some submissions of evidence raised the possibility of harm coming to returned people at the hands of the authorities in those countries. The Tamil Information Centre gave us an example of a group of returned Sri Lankans, about whose reception they were concerned:

In early October 2002, fifteen Tamils were returned to Sri Lanka [ ... ] They were detained at Colombo airport on arrival for questioning. No information available as to when they were released or how they were released.[163]

127. Mr Davies, however, told us he was fairly sanguine about the treatment of returned persons at the hands of authorities in the countries in question. He said that:

in the majority of the cases, [the authorities] are indifferent. They really have little or no interest in the individuals we are actually taking back.[164]

128. The Minister of State commented that she "[did] not think it would be reasonable to extend the remit of the Immigration and Nationality Department to actually finding out what happens after [failed asylum seekers] have returned to their country".[165]

129. The Home Office bases its decisions about the countries to which people may be safely returned on information collated from various sources. We have been told in evidence that this information is not always accurate. Asylum Aid, a charity providing free legal advice and representation to asylum seekers, asserted that country information is "inadequate and partial".[166] Nicola Rogers of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association told us that the information used was often out of date and that "the experience of the past shows that the Home Office has been complacent in relying on old data and old information".[167] The Refugee Council proposed an improved system for collecting country information, through "a properly independent country assessment centre" which "would provide the best means of guaranteeing the provision of full, accurate and up­to­date information about countries from which people have fled, outside the influence of any one group involved in the asylum process".[168] The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides for an Advisory Panel on Country Information made up of between 10 and 20 individuals appointed by the Secretary of State to "consider and make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the content of country information".[169]

130. We recommend that the Home Office, through the Advisory Panel on Country Information, commissions research into the reception of failed asylum seekers by the authorities in their source countries, after removal.

Resettlement grants

131. It has been suggested that failed asylum seekers, upon removal, should be given a small resettlement grant in order to avoid returning them to destitution or extreme poverty. Such a sum would need to be large enough to enable them to travel from the airport at which they are set down to their home and to enable them to survive the first week or two in their home country. We were told by Mr Tom Davies of Loss Prevention International that their staff do have the discretion to provide small sums of money to people who appear to be otherwise destitute, but that this money comes out of the company's budget and is not provided for in their contract with the Home Office.[170] The Government of Hong Kong which—in relation to Vietnamese boat people—operated one of the most ruthless repatriation schemes in the world gave each returnee a small allowance so that they had money in their pocket when they got off the plane at the other end. When the Home Secretary was asked in evidence that "if a system of repatriation as ruthless as the one Hong Kong ran could manage to [provide returnees with some cash] surely we could?", he "agreed not to dismiss [the idea] out of hand".[171]

132. In order to avoid people returning to destitution, we recommend that formal provision should be made for payment, at the point of departure, of a modest allowance to asylum seekers who otherwise are likely to be destitute or impoverished on arrival in their country of origin. We accept, given that there is a wide variation in the circumstances of failed asylum seekers, that this payment should not be universal.

Conclusions

133. We believe it is self­evident that the efficient removal of asylum seekers whose claims have failed is a precondition for the credibility of the entire asylum process.

134. We recognise, however, that the removals process is a great deal more complicated than most people appreciate. Part of our purpose has been to set out the practical difficulties surrounding removal in the hope that they will be better understood and addressed.

135. We also reach a number of conclusions and make recommendations about how to make the system quicker and more efficient. There is a pressing need for more accurate statistics. Improvements are essential to the process of initial decision-making. Enforced removals need to be carried out more rapidly, effectively and humanely.

136. We repeat, however, the point we made at the outset. Namely, that whether we are dealing with genuine asylum seekers or economic migrants we should never lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with human beings, not numbers, and they should be treated accordingly. We have made a number of suggestions for ways in which the removals process might be made more humane.

137. We pay tribute to those in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and in the private companies they employ who are attempting to carry out a difficult—and sometimes distressing—task with dignity, humanity and fairness.

138. Finally, we acknowledge the improvements to the removals process that have occurred in recent months and trust that they will continue. While the Government should do its utmost to remove failed asylum seekers, the targets it sets must be realistic. However the greatest scope for improving the credibility of the asylum system lies with reducing the number of applicants and more efficient processing of new applications and it is to these that we will return in our next inquiry.

163   Ev 172, para 2.1 Back

164   Q 260 Back

165   Q 671 Back

166   Ev 101, para 3.1 Back

167   Q 388 Back

168   Ev 163 (iv) Back

169   Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, section 142 Back

170   Qq 275-6 Back

171   Home Affairs Committee, Home Office Issues, Minutes of Evidence, 18 September 2002, HC 1186, Session 2001-02, Q118 Back