Enforced removal contracts: the abusive end-point of a broken immigration system
NCADC welcomes today’s report from the Home Affairs Select Committee, which raises concerns that the potentially lethal ‘head-down’ restraint technique is used during enforced removals, that racist language is used by escort staff, that there are too many escorts used in operations, and that risk assessments focus on the risk to escort staff rather the individual being removed.
We agree with its recommendations of better recording of medical conditions, an independent monitoring procedure, the need for urgent guidance to be issued to escort staff about restraint methods and research into appropriate restrain on aircraft, and the need to abolish the ‘reserve’ system during removals. Read more
Landing in Dover – Office of Children’s Commissioner
January 18, 2012 by admin
Filed under Detention of Children, Reports
Comments Off
Executive summary
0.1 This report follows on from the Children’s Commissioner’s earlier report Landing in Kent.3 It focuses on immigration procedures to which unaccompanied children arriving in Kent are subject between their first encounter with the authorities and the time they are placed in the care of Kent County Council children’s social care services.
0.2 Unaccompanied children are held under detention powers on, and immediately after, their arrival. Government policy is that unaccompanied children should only be detained in the most exceptional circumstances and only while arrangements for their care and safety are made. This policy is in line with the standard set by Article 37(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which requires that children should only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Read more
Reports: too many pregnant women in detention +
Nick Hardwick, Chief Inspector of Prisons, has published a new report on an inspection of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in Bedfordshire. (download the full report here, pdf) The report found that:
Bail for immigrants: a presumption of liberty?
December 18, 2011 by admin
Filed under Members writings, Reports
Comments Off
Immigrants in Britain may be detained indefinitely in removal detention centres. Some are held for months, others for years. Bridget Walker welcomes the government’s bail guidance for judges, but asks whether it will make any difference
Vulnerable Children will lose access to justice with cuts to legal aid
December 18, 2011 by admin
Filed under Reports, What can you do
Comments Off
If you believe in access to justice, please join the campaign and take action now. For more information on what you can do, go to: Save Legal Aid, Justice For All and Sound Off for Justice.
On 13th December, the rights of children were centre stage at a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Legal Aid in Westminster. Speakers including Baroness King and the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dr Atkinson, discussed how children and young people will be affected by Government plans to cut free legal advice and representation. This debate was perfectly timed as the bill setting out the cuts should enter the Lords committee stage on 20th December. If it becomes law, children will lose out on a massive scale: 6,000 children under 18 would go without legal advice and representation, and 140,000 children would be affected because their parents could not get legal aid support. 2,500 children will lose direct legal assistance each year for immigration cases. Read more
QARN: Statement about destitution
December 14, 2011 by admin
Filed under Members writings, Reports, What can you do
Comments Off
Why many asylum seekers are destitute: Minimal support – and none
For those seeking asylum the money allowance historically has been set at 70 per cent of normal income support. Most people now receive less, and at the best an asylum seeker receiving financial support will be living on £5 per day.[i]
Asylum seekers whose claim has been refused lose their financial support and accommodation after 3 weeks unless they appeal. They are expected to leave the UK immediately. If they agree to return or they appeal they may qualify for even lower ‘hard case’ Section 4 support’,[ii] provided only in around 3% of cases. Because they are terrified of return, or for other reasons frightened of bringing themselves to the attention of a system they already know to be harsh, many do not apply. The remainder are not allowed to work and receive nothing. Women who are homeless because of domestic violence also end up destitute as do victims of trafficking. Tens of thousands of people are in this situation. The parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights[iii] said in 2007:
We have been persuaded … that the Government has indeed been practising a deliberate policy of destitution… We have seen instances in all cases where the Government’s treatment of asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers falls below the requirements of the common law of humanity and of international human rights law.
Four years later with a different government things are just the same.
Why are refused asylum seekers still here?
- They are afraid to go back: Most destitute asylum seekers are from countries considered extremely turbulent[iv] like Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Zimbabwe and Iran.
- The numbers allowed to remain have fallen: The number of people given permission to stay has fallen significantly in recent years[v].
- They believe they have a case: Even if a person is correctly refused asylum, it does not automatically follow that their claim is unjustified[vi]. If the government accepts you were persecuted, you may be refused asylum unless you can prove it will happen again.
- The system makes mistakes: Experts have long expressed concerns about whether some asylum seekers receive a full and fair hearing of their claim[vii].
- Because they cannot go back: The Government cannot return people to countries at war, with uncooperative governments or unreliable means of travel.
Once the Government stops supporting an asylum seeker it may lose track of their whereabouts, which makes their removal near to impossible. The policy of making people destitute is therefore ultimately self-defeating.
December 2011
…
Footnotes and additional information
[i] As from 18 April 2011 Asylum Support (Amendment) Regulations 2011 SI No 907) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/907/made/data.pdf
[ii] Asylum seekers on Section 4 support receive £1.23 less per week than they would have received on Section 95 support, delivered through a plastic payment card rather than in cash, making it impossible for them to use vital services like making phone calls or taking buses. Those living with friends and family have to leave that accommodation and go into housing provided by the Government at the taxpayers’ expense in order to receive the support by means of the plastic card.
[iii] The Joint Committee on Human Rights ‘The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, Tenth Report of Session 2006-7, paragraph 120
[iv] Considered dangerous by the UN, Amnesty etc because of conflict, generalised violence and human rights violations.
[v] In the past most people from these countries would almost certainly have been given Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) for four years, and been allowed to work to support themselves. But in 2003 ELR was replaced by more restrictive categories of leave to remain. 2,555 adults were granted such leave in 2009 compared with 20,135 individuals who got ELR in 2002[v].
[vi] Many people apply for asylum in good faith, unaware that their case does not meet the strict criteria of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Nonetheless, they may have fled violently unstable countries and experienced violence, torture, or rape. Cut backs in legal aid have already reduced the proportion of successful claims, and further cuts now coming into effect will make the situation even worse.
[vii] Decision making in relation to some nationalities is especially poor. For example, in 2010, 50% of Somali nationals, 36% of Eritreans and 36% of Zimbabweans who appealed had their refusals overturned. This raises serious doubts about the quality of initial decision making. For every person who successfully overturns a poor decision, many more may be failing due to a lack of quality legal advice.
[Comment: Many Quakers around the UK are involved in projects aimed at relieving some of the misery of those caught up in destitution as a result of seeking sanctuary, and others campaign for changes in the system]
Proposal for an inspection of the UKBA’s administration of the asylum support system
December 2, 2011 by admin
Filed under Reports, What can you do
Comments Off
From: Mike Kaye, Still Human Still Here, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London EC2A 3EA
Att: Inspection Plan Consultation,
To: Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, 5th Floor, Globe House, 89 Eccleston Square, London, SW1V 1PN
25 November 2012
RE: Proposal for an inspection of the UKBA’s administration of the asylum support system
Dear Chief Inspector
I am writing to you on behalf of the Still Human Still Here coalition in response to your invitation for stakeholders to provide views on areas of the UK Border Agency’s work that could be considered for inclusion in your inspection plan for 2012-13. Read more
A thematic inspection of how the UK Border Agency manages foreign national prisoners
Executive Summary
1.The UK Border Agency is responsible for deciding, in accordance with the law, whether foreign national prisoners should be deported from the UK. Where deportation is being considered, it also decides whether a person should be detained at the end of their prison sentence or released into the community with a requirement to report to the Agency if deportation has not occurred prior to the end of the prison sentence. This inspection assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of the Agency in managing foreign national prisoners. Read more
Mapping Statelessness
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The research maps the number and profile of stateless persons in the UK and puts a human face on their situation. It also examines the UK’s legal obligations to stateless persons under international law and analyses the impact of current policy and practice. Based on these findings the report makes recommendations for improvement. While the work owes a debt to previous studies, this is the first time that this hidden issue has been subject to such comprehensive quantitative and qualitative research.
The 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons defines a stateless person as “a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”. Read more
The use of country of origin information in deciding asylum applications: A thematic inspection
Executive Summary
1. The UK Border Agency is responsible for considering asylum applications. In order to do so effectively the Case Owner must fully take into account relevant information from the applicant’s substantive interview and any evidence submitted on their behalf. This is then reviewed in conjunction with available country of origin information, relevant case law and the credibility of the applicant’s statements before a decision can be made on whether the applicant qualifies for protection. Read more
