Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Consultation Workshop Update Date: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Consultation Workshop Update Date: Thursday 25 June 2015

Welcome Welcome to the Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Consultation Workshop Update Lunar House, Croydon Slide 2

Hosts AVR Consultation Workshop Update Hosts: • Ben Kelso , Director, National Removals Command, Immigration Enforcement • David Owen, Deputy Director, Voluntary Departures & Data Matching Facilitator: • Ophelia Elliott , Assistant Director, Head of Assisted Voluntary Returns Slide 3

Housekeeping Ophelia Elliott • Fire exits • Fire alarm – 11:00am • WC facilities • Mobile phones • Refreshment break • No smoking in Lunar House (or the vicinity) • The use of cameras, video or recording equipment is not permitted on Home Office premises Slide 4

Agenda Ophelia Elliott • 10:00 - Registration and coffee • 10:30 - Welcome (Ophelia Elliott) • 10:35 - Introduction and purpose of the day (Ben Kelso) • 10:40 - AVR from 2016 onwards (Ben Kelso / David Owen) • 10:55 - Consultation Review Responses (David Owen) • 11:30 - Refreshment break • 11:50 - Q & A session • 12:25 - Summary of discussions and next steps • 12:30 - Close Slide 5

Introduction and purpose of the day Ben Kelso To update you on the: • AVR programme from 2016 onwards; • Strategic direction of Immigration Enforcement following the outcome of the General Election; • AVR timescales for implementation; • AVR Consultation responses received. Slide 6

AVR from 2016 Onwards Ben Kelso Whilst no decision has yet been formally agreed, it is time to provide clarity on the possible design of AVR in the future. • We are committed to assisting people in returning voluntarily in the future. • We want to work with stakeholders to make that provision effective, especially in assisting with overseas reintegration and support. • We need to ensure the service is cost effective and aligns fully with the government’s approach to managing immigration. Slide 7

AVR from 2016 Onwards Ben Kelso The tone and provision of AVR will look different: • AVR will supplement not diminish enforced and other types of return. • AVR will cater for a limited audience of those who would not otherwise return. • Those who still fail to return will find access to services increasingly reduced and will be liable to arrest and detention. • AVR will be an integral part of an integrated voluntary departure service that makes it easier to leave. Slide 8

AVR from 2016 Onwards Ben Kelso Outreach and Overseas Casework Marketing Integration • Undertaken and resourced within Vulnerable Cases Home Office. We will seek partnerships with • Supported by the sector in the Other Undertaken and future to deliver Families Government resourced within increasingly flexible Departments. Home Office. reintegration, bespoke to • Delivered with individual needs. contribution from Asylum the voluntary sector. Slide 9

AVR Consultation Review Responses Ophelia Elliott An overview of the responses received: • 64 individuals attended the AVR Consultation on 23 March; • 11 responses from organisations were received by 17 April. Slide 10

1. What are your thoughts on our plans to focus the AVR programme on vulnerable persons? David Owen • Any additional assistance is perceived as a positive initiative . • Vulnerable migrants should be a specific focus of the programme . • Very sensitive [for some individuals]. • Vulnerability is very difficult to assess . • Interaction with Local Authorities is key. • ARE care leavers should be included in the definition . • Reintroduce access to AVR for all immigration detainees. • Opposition to exclude irregular migrants . Slide 11

2. What do you think about our proposals to focus the AVR programme on families? David Owen • Families are a rich source of persons who may be willing to return. • Families should be a specific focus as they are likely to find the process of return difficult . • Family Returns model and independent panel are useful instruments . • Important that future programmes preserve the opportunity to enable families to have the best chance of a sustainable return . • Important to think carefully about the impact of the return on each family member. • Local Authorities need to consider whether return [to country of origin] is in the best interests of the child . Slide 12

3. What are your thoughts on our plans to include those who have already sought asylum in the AVR programme? David Owen • Asylum seekers should receive flexible assistance, including enhanced overseas provision . • AVR is a dignified option. • AVR remains a better and more effective option than forced returns where possible . • Local Authorities support the retention of this group in the programme . • People who have sought asylum in the UK are grateful for the opportunity for AVR . Slide 13

4. What do you think about our proposals to exclude those persons who do not meet the vulnerability threshold? David Owen • Appropriate for additional support to be reserved for those who have sought asylum, families and vulnerable groups . • AVR should be as inclusive as possible to ease the public purse . • Concerned about the impact of withdrawing AVR for irregular migrants . • All people should have an opportunity to consider AVR at any point in their claim . Slide 14

5. Do you have any further suggestions on which categories of persons that we should consider including in the AVR programme? David Owen • Care leavers to be included under the vulnerability threshold . • Individuals on spouse visas but who have separated because of domestic violence. • People granted short term compassionate leave after the death of their partner. • All migrants in administrative detention should be included within the AVR programme. Slide 15

6. What other audience can the third sector access on behalf of the AVR programme? David Owen • All irregular migrants • Visa overstayers • Work places • Initial accommodation • Dispersal regions • Community diasporas • Communities and Voluntary Organisations • Public sector • Ethnic diaspora media • International Embassies and High Commissions • International organisations Slide 16

7. What categories of persons do you think we should consider including on the scope of vulnerable for the purposes of AVR? David Owen • UASCs • Disabled Persons • Elderly • Pregnant • Lone parents with child • Person subject to torture, exploitation, etc • Victims of Trafficking • Those where individual evaluation has identified a need • Lack of reading and writing – inability to understand UK systems • Lack of confidence to communicate • Those with acute mental or physical health needs • ARE cases • Females from particular ethnic minorities – certain foreign countries within the EEA i.e. Romania / Bulgaria Slide 17

8. Do you think there are any categories of persons that should be excluded from the scope of vulnerable for the purposes of AVR? David Owen The following were suggested as groups who should be excluded: • Human traffickers – conflicting assists both Victims of Trafficking and their perpetrators. • The Home Office should investigate how balance can be struck to introduce a system whereby individuals guilty of an offence cannot access the service. Most respondents did not believe that any categories should be excluded. Slide 18

9. Do you agree with our current proposals to reduce the current three month maximum timescale for return? David Owen • Generally long enough although vulnerable might need longer . • Takes time to make the necessary preparations to return via AVR . • Existing three month timescale in respect of AVR is sometimes inadequate. • Average length of time for departure – 1 .3 months for a VARRP case – 1 . 6 months for an AVRIM case – 2 . 6 months for AVRFC. • Return is a major decision and not one that applicants should be pressured into making . Slide 19

10. What are your thoughts on our intention for the AVR team to refer and receive cases to and from vol deps? David Owen • Seems like a sensible approach as there is a clear cross over. • Supportive of a more defined referral route between AVR and Vol Deps. • On the surface not an unreasonable suggestion but open to suspicion by potential returnees. • Migrants often distrustful of government departments. HO could include Vol Deps into the AVR programme • This would compromise the independence of the AVR provider. • Fairness needs to be ensured. Criteria for judging vulnerability and eligibility must be uniform. • Risk it will become routine to refer AVR cases to Vol Deps and fewer people will receive AVR. • Need to ensure cohesive responsive programmes between AVR and Vol Deps. • If the AVR team referred and received cases to/from Vol Deps this would lead to fewer people engaging with AVR. Slide 20

11. We are considering restricting AVR to one application per person / family only. Do you agree? David Owen • As a general rule this makes sense . • Yes providing there is a meaningful effective and accurate appeals process in place . • Restricting the number of AVR applications to one per person/family could increase the number of eligible migrants who wish to return home but do not have the means to do so . • Disagrees with this policy . • If AVR is restricted to one application per family what happens if there are administrative delays or change in country guidance? Slide 21