SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

  Removals should be effected in a humane way with incentives and opportunities for persons to resettle permanently in their countries of origin. Part of the process of resettlement is allowing persons while in the UK to develop and learn new skills. Greater use of reporting should be used for those likely to overstay on the basis that the greatest deterrent to overstaying is the fear of detection and that this may prejudice subsequent entry to the UK.

1.  TARGETS FOR REMOVALS

  A numerical target for removals is always likely to be unrealistic as it fails to take account of the current global situation and the arrival in the UK of asylum seekers as a result (which fluctuates accordingly) as well as the countries of origin, some of which will give rise to the grant of refugee status or exceptional leave to remain more than others. If a target is to be set at all then it should be as a percentage of those whose claim ultimately fails. Moreover, recognition must be given to the problem of undocumented asylum seekers whom it is difficult to return without proof of their country of origin, the absence of bilateral agreements between the UK and other receiving states (only Iceland and Norway at present) and the increasing failure of states to observe the European Union travel document of abide by their obligations under the Chicago Convention. We regard the current level of removals of about 1,000 per month to be as realistic as can be given these difficulties.

2.  THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND HUMANE METHODS OF REMOVAL

  2.1  We are concerned at frequent reports of cases where persons reporting to the Home Office are taken into detention without any prior warning and removed the following day without them being able to collect their personal possessions or make arrangements regarding their accommodation, engagements etc. IAS has personal examples of this inhumane treatment. There is little evidence to the contrary that in most cases persons informed that they must leave will do so in an orderly fashion without the need for detention. The most humane, therefore, is to allow persons voluntarily to attend the airport for the designated flight.

  2.2  The most effective way of ensuring that asylum seekers return to their country of origin is for this to be done voluntarily (as with the Kosovans) with incentives and we support in principle the new policy of the Government in respect of Afghanistan so long as this is done with those affected having prior access to independent competent legal advice and disclosure of the full facts about their country of origin and not as some sort of bribe.

  2.3  IAS recognises that the greatest desire of most refugees is to be able to return to their familiar surroundings in their country of origin and to be able to live in peace without fear of persecution. This can be achieved effectively only by having agencies on the ground in those countries which can help find accommodation away from areas of persecution and which can assist in finding employment or self-employment. Funding individuals and families to do this is a necessary concomitant. IAS accepts that this could be regarded as a "pull" factor if applied universally to all who apply for asylum rather than those whose claims are accepted either as refugees or with exceptional leave to remain so there would have to be flexibility. A failure to provide such assistance is likely to lead to those returned seeking to come back to the UK (a circular movement experienced by Pakistan regarding Afghan refugees).

  2.4  Part of preparation for return is for persons while in the UK being able to develop existing or learn new skills and this is why IAS regards the Government's new policy or refusing to allow asylum seekers to work even after a period of six months to be ill-advised as well as expensive in terms of extra benefits, demeaning to the asylum seekers who wish to provide for themselves and their families and contrary to opinion polls which indicate that the British public expect asylum seekers to support themselves where possible. One valuable contribution that can be made by the UK as host country is the teaching of English.

  2.5  It is axiomatic that the desire to return to a country of origin is lessened the longer persons remain in the UK and put down new roots, especially where this involves children attending school, making friends, becoming fully familiar with the English language etc.

3.  THE CONSTRAINTS ON REMOVAL TO SPECIFIC COUNTRIES

  These are as stated above: undocumented asylum seekers and return to countries which do not have bilateral agreements with the UK for return, where there is no effective Government (as in Somalia) and where parts of the country are still unsafe (as in Afghanistan).

4.  COMPASSIONATE FACTORS

  The greatest compassionate factor is length of time in the UK due to bureaucracy and not to deliberate default on the past of the asylum seekers themselves. Where children have been born in the UK and/or established themselves in schools etc then consideration should be given to allowing them to remain, especially under Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life).

5.  INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE THOSE REFUSED ASYLUM TO LEAVE VOLUNTARILY AND TO ASSIST WITH RESETTLEMENT

  Incentives should not necessarily be given to recent arrivals or to those whose claims have failed as this could be perceived to be an incentive to come to the UK—although common sense indicates that persons are hardly likely to risk life and limb and/or pay traffickers a large amount of money just in order to access a financial incentive to return to their country of origin! For those who have been in the UK for some time or whose exceptional leave to remain is about to expire an investment on their behalf (not necessarily actual cash in their hands) could encourage some to return. Such investment might involve assisting in setting up in business or purchase of a small holding etc. This could be administered effectively and accountably only by trustworthy agencies in the countries of origin.

October 2002