1.  The South of England Refugee & Asylum Seeker Consortium is a regional forum concerned with the sharing of information, problems and good practice with a focus on the long-term integration of refugees within the South. Its membership includes 18 local authorities from across the region, the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), a number of police authorities and two refugee agencies, Migrant Helpline and Refugee Action. This submission is the result of responses to a consultation within the Consortium.

REMOVAL TARGET AND HUMANENESS OF REMOVAL PROCESS

  2.  The Consortium is sceptical that the Government's removal targets, even the scaled down version, are achievable. It is the experience of a number of consortium members that there is lack of joined-up working between the relevant agencies, in particular NASS and Immigration, that lead to failures in process which impact detrimentally both on the individuals concerned and on the ability of the Government to implement its stated policies. The Home Office White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven, stated that the Government intended to put a "properly managed, robust and integrated" nationality, immigration and asylum system in place. In the area of removals we feel at present there is little evidence of this approach.

  3.  A key issue is the breakdown in process between a final refusal of asylum and the subsequent removal of NASS or local authority support and action by Immigration to effect the removal of the individual or family. Currently, those who have been refused and have not been detained by Immigration or are unable to attend Immigration at a port or Croydon, are being left destitute and homeless. Very few people are able to access NASS' Hard Cases Support, and even if they are able to do so the process is slow and does not take effect until after the individual concerned has been evicted from their current accommodation. (See Appendix 1 for a case study)

  4.  Those people who are ineligible for Hard Cases Support and are unable to leave the country because Immigration apparently does not have the capacity to deal speedily with their cases, are thrown back on the support of friends, homelessness and rough sleeping or, potentially, illegal working. This increases the vulnerability of already vulnerable individuals. In addition, whereas an address was known for the individual whilst going through the claim and appeal processes, once support is withdrawn failed asylum seekers are evicted leading to significant problems for Immigration in locating the individuals to be deported. Such people will effectively disappear from view since no other support agencies, for instance local authority social services or housing departments, are able to assist them There is a substantial backlog in the removal of families who have been refused asylum, causing ongoing problems for local health and council services.

  5.  For the removals process to be humane and effective it needs to be adequately resourced to enable Immigration to respond swiftly should a final determination be made on an applicant and there should be a joined up process between the enforcement side of the Home Office and the support side, NASS, so that no individual is left homeless and destitute.

  6.  With regard to the detention of asylum applicants prior to removal, concerns have been expressed at the occasions when someone is detained when they attend their regular report date at Immigration. Since the individual will not be expecting to be detained they will have no belongings, even a change of clothes, with them. There is currently no procedure in place for reuniting the individual with their belongings.

CONSTRAINTS ON REMOVAL TO SPECIFIC COUNTRIES

  7.  There was concern that inadequate steps were being taken to ensure that those people who are being removed do not face dangerous or degrading situations when they return to their countries of origin. People should not be returned to countries, which are still in conflict. In one case known to the Consortium, a 62 year old man removed to Yugoslavia is now living in a tent. Additional effort should be placed into ensuring that deported individuals receive humane treatment on the arrival in the country of origin. This should include monitoring of the individual's situation after six months. Currently, there is little evidence regarding whether those who have been refused asylum and removed have not then been mistreated or been forced to exist in inhumane conditions on their return.

COMPASSIONATE FACTORS

  8.  Of particular concern in the region are unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The current trend is for young people refused asylum to be granted exceptional leave to remain (ELR) until their 18 birthday. At this point they will be removed. Both the Children Act 1989 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child state that the interests of the child should be paramount. Clearly, in the case of young asylum seekers this is not the case. The leaving care plan for such young people is removal to their country of origin. The Consortium believes that greater consideration should be given to allowing young people in this situation to remain in the UK.

  9.  The Consortium also believes that special consideration should be given to families with children who may have been born here or who have spent their formative years here. This is a particular issue for families who are being supported by local authorities and have been in this country for at least three years, in many cases longer. Removal would disrupt the child's education and would unlikely to be in their "best interests".

CASE STUDY

  NASS Hard Case Support: 10/9/02—telephone call and subsequent fax referral, told 2/3 days for decision. Explained that client homeless on 18/9/02. 13/9/02—telephone call to NASS who agreed to note case as urgent. 17/9/02—several telephone calls, no answer. Also sent fax to follow up referral status. 18/9/02—telephone call to Hard Case manager who suggested there is a backlog, staff off sick. No assistance offered. Client homeless as of today. 19/9/02—staff off sick, no assistance available. 20/9/02—Hard Case manager said that there was no assistance available and to ring Monday. 27/9/02 telephone call to NASS—will have information on location of placement next week, as near to home town as possible (due to submitted health grounds). Will then take two weeks approximately to obtain placement. 3/10/02—proposal to Hard Case manager for SSD to continue support for eligible Hard Case clients past 21 days until NASS can accommodate. SSD to seek reimbersal for such costs from NASS. This is to alleviate persons becoming homeless. Proposal dismissed due to budget restrictions. 3/10/02—telephone call from NASS. Placement offered in Penzance. Reminded caseworker that client has hospital appointment on 20/10/02, caseworker to discuss with manager. Further phone call received from NASS. Due to health issues placement to be offered at YMCA Portsmouth, will take two weeks to obtain a bed. 16/10/02—telephone call from NASS. Portsmouth placement not possible, Penzance only option. Client to travel in next few days. Referral to offer of placement has taken 36 days. Client homeless, still to be placed.

October 2002