1.  Most effective and humane methods of removal: The present practices adopted by the Government on removal are, in our opinion, inhumane, uncivilised and unacceptable for many reasons.

—  Separating families during removal is of common occurrence and we believe that it is violation of human rights.

—  Genuine and innocent asylum seekers, who report either to the police stations or to the reporting centres at the request of the Home Office are arrested, detained and removed. Appeal decisions are not served on the appellant by the Immigration appellate authorities. Instead the decision is sent direct to the Home Office to serve personally on the appellant. This practice is worrying us as it leads to detention and removal by surprise with out any information either to the client or his/her relatives. We urge the Government to reconsider the amendment to the Immigration Appeal (Procedures) which came into effective on 7 January 2002.

—  Compelling asylum seekers to go to the embassy of their country of origin to obtain travel document to facilitate removal is a gross violation of the Geneva Convention. Forcing those who fled their country for fear of persecution to meet the same Government representation will amount to handing over the asylum seekers to the Government of their origin which may result in persecution and torture on their return.

—  Decision of the Home Secretary under fast track on certified cases does not appear to reflect the commitment of UK to international protection. We would appreciate if determinations are made by independent body rather than by the Government representatives.

—  We know instances where Immigration Officers enter the houses early in the morning to arrest people for removal without giving any consideration to the family life and disturbances in the house. Recently a mother with a three months old child (Breast-feeding) was arrested and taken into police custody leaving the child at home. Our submission is that the Government has every right to remove asylum seekers who have no right to stay in UK. But the removal methods should be compatible with human rights and dignity. The effective way of removing failed asylum seekers is to have a fair and quality determination process in place similar to the system in Canada. The current determination process may fail in identifying the genuine asylum seekers who may be subject to removal. To make removal effective and acceptable, the Government should take immediate measures to have a fair determination process in place.

  2.  Compassionate grounds to be taken into account before removing:

—  Families and individuals who have been living in UK for more than six to seven years, having their own home, generating their own income without depending on social security benefit, be given special and sympathetic consideration for them to continue their stay in UK.

—  Families with children in schools getting their education in English, individuals who pursued higher studies during their stay in UK achieving degrees and postgraduate degrees are allowed to continue to stay in UK as their skills could be utilised.

—  Those asylum seekers who excel in voluntary work in their community with leadership qualities and of good character are allowed to continue their stay in UK in recognition of their valuable contribution.

—  Vulnerable and those asylum seekers who may not be able to go back to their own country for genuine and specific reasons (example they may have all their relatives with settled status in UK, they may have lost their property and resettling may be a real problem). We suggest their cases must be considered individually on their merits and granted permission for them to continue their stay in UK on compassionate ground.

  3.  Constraints on removal to Sri Lanka:

—  We make the following submission with reference to returning Asylum seekers to Sri Lanka.

—  We all welcome peace in Sri Lanka as that will offer a permanent solution to the Sri Lankan refugees problem. There was civil war in the country for more than 16 years resulting in the loss of more than 60,000 lives. We are happy there is cease-fire agreement and peace talk initiatives for a negotiated settlement in Sri Lanka. However we are of the opinion that it may have to meet a number of obstacles and pass through different stages to achieve the negotiated settlement.

—  The situation in Sri Lanka is still volatile and dangerous for Tamils. We believe the time is too premature to return Tamil asylum seekers to Sri Lanka. There is still tension between the President and the Prime Minister and no genuine measures have been taken, to the best of our knowledge, for reconstruction of infrastructure in Tamil areas. There is no mechanism in Sri Lanka to monitor returns of asylum seekers and ensuring their safety. UNHCR is still unable to provide effective protection to returnees. We therefore suggest that a reasonable and considerable time is given for the country to come back to normal. Government may have had experience in removing asylum seekers prematurely to countries like Kosova and Afghanistan and should be aware of the enormous problems faced by returnees. We therefore appeal not to return Sri Lankan asylum seekers until there is convincing evidence for peace and settlement in Sri Lanka. Accessing genuine country information meeting community organisations in UK discussing issues relating to removal will make the removal operation open and transparent. We do hope that the Government will take these suggestions on board and review their removal policy.

October 2002