This memorandum has been prepared by the Tamil Information Centre (TIC), a London-based organisation involved in information, human rights, community development and refugee work since 1983, particularly relating to Sri Lanka, in partnership with other human rights, refugee agencies and community organizations in Britain and abroad. The memorandum has been prepared after consultation with several organizations and lawyers involved in asylum issues and is submitted for the inquiry on asylum and immigration removals by the Home Affairs Committee.

1.  GOVERNMENT TARGETS

  1.1  The Home Secretary has already admitted that the removal targets are unrealistic. Any target will be unrealistic without proper procedures. Different ports and the Home Office have different forms, refusal letters and procedures. The subjects assigned to each unit of the Home Office are unclear. In the case of Jeyaruban Ambigaibagan, the National Asylum Support Service (NASS Ref: 01/11/02443/001) has issued a letter to the asylum seeker asking him to leave the country. The Home Office should first establish proper, consistent and common procedures.

2.  HUMANE METHODS

  2.1.  Sri Lankan refugees on temporary admission have been detained when visiting police stations or immigration offices to sign and returned to Sri Lanka. These are most vulnerable among the asylum seekers. In early October 2002, 15 Tamils were returned to Sri Lanka without being allowed to collect even their possessions. They were detained at Colombo airport on arrival for questioning. No information available as to when they were released or how they were released. This was reported in Thinakural, a Colombo based Tamil periodical on 13 October 2002. If any policy exists regarding such returns, they have not been made public.

  2.2.  The Home Office also uses the tactic of removing asylum seekers during weekends to avoid representations. In the case of detention or removal, very often, notice is not given to the legal representative. Legal representatives became aware of the deportation of Poopalasingham Nimalakumar (Home Office ref: N 1029360) only after they were informed by his friends. Where all legal rights of appeal have been exhausted and the Home Office intends to detain or return, the asylum seeker and his representative should be given notice and time allowed for the asylum seeker to finalise his affairs. If the Home Office maintains that this method is practised to prevent absconding, then a surety could be demanded.

  2.3.  Legal representatives find it extremely difficult to contact the Enforcement Unit. Telephone and fax numbers for contact should be provided and personnel responsible to deal with representations in cases of removal should be appointed. Legal representatives should have access to those asylum seekers referred to the Oakington Centre for the fast-track procedure.

  2.4.  Individuals have been removed, while their immediate family remains in Britain. Husbands have been deported while the wife and children remain (Case of Thayalatharishini Ratheeswaran). Separation of the family is inhumane and is against human rights obligations. Where a partner has been given permanent residence the other's status should also be regularised.

  2.5.  Asylum seekers have been assaulted and handcuffed during removal. Sometimes the asylum seeker is handcuffed during the whole journey. The Home Office position is that its responsibility ends as soon as the asylum seeker is put on the aircraft. This is inhumane and contradictory to the requirement that asylum seekers should return in safety and dignity. Veerakathy Ganeshalingam (Home Office ref: G 1015310) was arrested when he was in a friend's house, by officers who came in search of someone else. He was treated brutally by security personnel called by the officers and deported.

  2.6.  Asylum seekers have been returned to Sri Lanka while their appeal rights are pending. An example is the case of Kumarakuruparan, who was deported to Sri Lanka on 24 April 2001 and the Home Office acknowledged that the case had not been finally resolved. The Home Office was ordered to return Mr Kumarakuruparan to the UK from Sri Lanka. This kind of removal and return not only involves large expenditure but also exposes the asylum seeker to the very authorities who are alleged to be the persecutors. In the case of Sutharsan Vamadevan, no notice had been given to the applicant or his representative and the Home Office attempted to remove without affording him the right to appeal available to him.

3.  MONITORING IN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

  3.1  Asylum seekers should be returned in safety and dignity. In the case of the 15 asylum seekers deported in early October, some were questioned and others were interrogated for long periods. It is also unclear as to what happened to them after the interrogation. There have been a number of incidents where returning asylum seekers have been subjected to threats, assault, extortion and detention the Sri Lanka Criminal Investigation Division (CID). The Sri Lankan government or any other government has not established any procedure to ensure safe returns. Many refugees have no relatives or places to live in the capital Colombo where they are returned. UNHCR, which has a mandate to ensure safety of refugees, must be involved in monitoring returning asylum seekers and to ensure that they reach their home areas safely.

  3.2  The Home Office is currently carrying out removals without proper consideration of conditions in countries of origin. The Sri Lankan government has stated that their priority would be to resettle the huge number of internally displaced people, the refugees in India and then only welcome asylum seekers in other countries. UNHCR has taken a similar position. The Home Office should take into consideration factors such as prevailing violence, human rights violations, authorities' access to territory, availability of infrastructure, landmines and economic conditions. The Home Office must ensure that returns do not affect any peace process in the country of origin.

4.  COMPASSIONATE FACTORS

  4.1.  The Home Office should consider family connection when deciding on removals, such as, allowing adults and children who have lived in the UK for long period to continue to stay. Children who have lived in the UK for many years would be psychologically affected, their education disrupted, become vulnerable on return and would not be able to cope. Currently the Home Office issues ELR to unaccompanied asylum seeking children only up to the 18th birthday and then the applicant is liable to be removed. Kannan Subramaniam (Home Office ref: S1133358) has been granted ELR up to his 18th birthday and his position remains uncertain which is affecting his work and education. By the time the child reaches 18, he/she has been resident for several years and sometimes has entered universities.

  4.2.  Residence permits should be given on compassionate grounds to those who receiving medical treatment, particularly psychological treatment, to ensure continuity and success of treatment and cure. The position of the elderly should also be considered on compassionate grounds.

5.  INCENTIVES

  5.1.  A financial package may be made available for those who wish to return. In addition, a programme of vocational training would be most useful to returnees.

October 2002