Annex
Supplementary notes by the Home Office
COSTS AND SAVINGS RELATING TO SUPPORT FOR
ASYLUM SEEKERS
The Committee has asked for information about
the savings accruing from the withdrawal of social security benefits
from certain classes of asylum seeker in 1996, and the costs arising
from providing support to asylum seekers under the National Assistance
Act 1948.
2. In looking at these costs and savings,
it is important to bear in mind that these are a product not only
of the unit cost of supporting an applicant but also the rate
of take-up; and the rate of take-up is itself partly affected
by changes in the overall level of asylum applications. There
is evidence that the level of asylum applications in the United
Kingdom fell substantially following the 1996 changes; and that
take-up of 1948 Act support is significantly lower than take-up
of DSS benefits.
3. The most recent Department of Social
Security estimates are contained in the table below which was
given in a Parliamentary Answer on 28 July 1997:
|
Financial year
| Estimated savings
across all benefits
|
|
1997-98
| £275 million
|
1998-99
| £310 million
|
1999-00
| £320 million
|
2000-01
| £330 million
|
2001-02
| £340 million
|
|
4. This assumes that without the benefit changes, overall
application rates would have remained at the 1995 level of just
over 43,000 a year; that 30 per cent of potential asylum seekers
are deterred from applying for asylum in the United Kingdom; that
the split between port and in-country applicants is half and half;
and that the level of asylum decisions and disposals at appeal
remains at the 1994 projected levels of 45,000 and 9,000 respectively.
In practice, decisions have run at about 80 per cent of the projected
level while disposals at appeal have run at much higher rates
than projected. There will need to be adjustments to reflect these
different out-turns when calculations of savings are next revised.
5. Turning to the National Assistance Act 1948, it is
currently estimated that local authorities are supporting almost
10,000 single adult asylum seekers in London. In this current
year local authorities can claim reimbursement of £165 per
adult asylum seeker per week supported, the same as for 1996-97;
for 1997-98 it was £140. For the last two financial years
the total grant paid for adult asylum seekers was £5.6 million
in 1996-97 and £40 million in 1997-98. The budget for adult
asylum seekers for the current financial year is £92.4 million.
In addition, the unaccompanied children's grant is cash limited
to £3 million for the three financial years 1996-97, 1997-98
and 1998-99. Expenditure on the asylum seeking families grant
was £4.1 million in 1996-97 and £28.4 million in 1997-98.
The threshold attached to the families grant means that local
authorities are only reimbursed 80 per cent of their costs. A
decision has yet to be made on the families grant for 1998-99.
EXPLANATORY NOTE ON HOME OFFICE IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
STATISTICS
DEFINITIONS
Throughout this note: "asylum seekers" means persons
who have, at some time, applied for asylum in the United Kingdom;
and "enforcement action" relates to deportation and
illegal entry action under sections 3(5), 3(6) and 33(1) of the
Immigration Act 1971.
INITIAL ASYLUM
DECISIONS BACKLOG
2. The asylum decision backlog stood at around 51,000
applications in April 1998. That figure represents the number
of asylum seekers (excluding dependants) who were awaiting an
initial decision on their asylum application.
3. During March and April 1997, the last two months of
the previous Government, the asylum decision backlog was in the
range of 54,000 to 55,000 applications.
ASYLUM APPEALS
BACKLOG
4. As at April 1998 the asylum appeals backlog stood
at around 23,800 cases. That figure represents the number of unresolved
asylum appeals before an adjudicator or tribunal, plus cases where
leave to appeal to the tribunal had been lodged.
ASYLUM REMOVALS
BACKLOG
5. The backlog of failed asylum seekers liable for removal,
at May 1998, is approximately 19,500 persons. That figure represents
the latest snapshot, taken from Immigration and Nationality Directorate
(IND) port and enforcement databases, of those failed asylum seekers
(excluding dependants) who have exhausted their rights of appeal
(including any who did not submit an appeal against the refusal
of asylum) and who are liable for removal.
6. The above figure needs to be qualified.
7. Firstly, it does not cover failed after-entry asylum
seekers whose appeal rights have been exhausted, who have no right
to remain, but against whom enforcement action has not yet been
initiated.
8. Secondly, the figure of 19,500 includes a large proportion
of cases (estimated at around 90 per cent) where there are one
or more barriers to immediate removal—such as absconding,
Judicial Review, representations by Members of Parliament, and
difficulties with removal documentation. Typically, absconding
represents a barrier to removal in half of asylum removals backlog
cases.
9. Furthermore, the asylum removals backlog figure may
include some persons who have actually left the United Kingdom
voluntarily but whose departure is unknown to IND. That condition
may also apply to the asylum decision and appeals backlog figures.
10. A scenario has been developed which suggests that
by 2002 the total number of failed asylum seekers liable for removal
will be over 110,000.
11. This figure is based on an increasing flow of asylum
seekers and an increasing number of removals. The projected size
of the backlog is sensitive to changes in the following assumptions.
It starts from the mid 1997 estimated asylum removal backlog of
around 23,000 and assumes that the number of asylum applications
grow at recent rates of increase to around 63,000 applications
in 2002-03. Application, rejection and appeal rates and also the
numbers of applications and appeals processed are assumed constant
at 1998-99 levels. The numbers of actual removals are assumed
to grow at around a third per year to reach 29,000 in 2002-03.
On the basis of these assumptions the removals backlog would increase
steadily to around 115,000 in 2002-03.
INITIAL ENFORCEMENT
ACTION, PORT
ASYLUM APPLICATIONS
AND REMOVALS
12. The latest figures for enforcement cases initiated,
asylum applications made at ports of entry and removals effected
(all excluding dependants) are:
|
| 1995 | 1996
| 1997 (p) |
|
| Enforcement action initiated (1) | 16,370
| 21,340 | 19,830 |
| of which: asylum cases (2) |
9,290 | 14,860
| 13,660 |
| Asylum applications made at ports of entry |
14,410 | 12,440 | 16,590
|
| Enforcement removals (3) (4) | 5,070
| 5,400 | 6,450 |
| of which: asylum cases (2) |
1,290 | 2,120
| 2,990 |
| Port removals | 18,950 |
21,180 | 24,540 |
| of which: asylym cases (2) |
1,880 | 2,690
| 4,030 |
|
(p) 1997 data are provisional
(1) Cases where a notice of illegal entry or intention to
deport has been issued or deportation has been recommended by
a court.
(2) Cases where asylum has been sought at some stage.
(3) Enforcement action may have been initiated in an earlier
period.
(4) Includes voluntary departures after enforcement action
had been initiated.
ABSCONDERS
13. The latest figure for the number of known asylum
absconders is 17,000.
14. This is a snapshot, taken from the IND port and enforcement
databases in May 1998, of those persons (excluding dependants)
who have applied for asylum at some point and who have breached
the conditions of their temporary admission, temporary release
or restriction order, or are otherwise found to be out of contact
with IND.
15. This absconder figure is not a comprehensive measure
of all persons whose whereabouts are unknown to IND. It does not
cover: after-entry asylum seekers against whom enforcement action
has not been initiated, some of whom may have lost contact; and
any very long term port and enforcement absconders whose details
have not been entered onto the databases. The numbers of such
cases cannot be quantified directly from IND databases.
16. A person may lose contact at any stage in the asylum
process. The 17,000 absconder figure may therefore include persons
who are awaiting an initial asylum decision or the outcome of
an appeal as well as those who have exhausted their rights of
appeal.
17. Short of checking out every case and every address,
it is not possible to say exactly how many persons in the asylum
initial decision or appeals backlogs the Home Office does, or
does not, currently have a reliable address for.
18. There are, however, a number of measures in place
aimed at reducing the numbers of asylum seekers we lose touch
with.
19. At any one time, some 700-800 asylum seekers are
detained solely under Immigration Act powers. A condition of release
from detention may be the lodging of a bail surety (on average
£5,000). Non-detained port asylum seekers and persons who
are subject to illegal entry or deportation action, may be required
to report regularly to immigration offices or police stations.
20. Other measures include:
— the setting up of an inter-departmental study
to ensure that asylum decisions are swift and fair and to identify
the best way to tackle delays in the asylum process; and
— the establishment of an enforcement unit in Croydon
to identify immigration offenders early in the asylum process
with a view to maintaining contact throughout the process.
The apprehension of absconders forms an integral part of
the work of immigration enforcement offices around the United
Kingdom and, in addition, a dedicated absconder tracing team has
been established in south east England.
DETENTION OF CHILDREN
Our normal policy is not to detain anyone under the age of
18, and minors are normally granted immediate temporary admission
or release, either to the home of a close relative or friend or
into the care of the local Social Services department. However,
there are times when a short period of detention in such cases
is inevitable, usually when an unaccompanied child arrives at
one of our ports, often late at night, in circumstances where
the local Social Services are unable to make an immediate response
to the Immigration Service's request for assistance. But such
cases are rare, and the child is in any event usually released
the following day.
2. It is occasionally necessary to detain a young person
in order to effect removal, and sometimes it is considered appropriate
to detain when a parent, usually the mother, is being detained
at the same time. Again, such cases are rare, but in the very
few instances where detention is considered essential, accommodation
appropriate to the age of the child is provided and a member of
staff is appointed to act as a chaperon as necessary.
3. Cases where age is in dispute are often difficult
to resolve, particularly when there is no reliable evidence of
the age of someone who has initially claimed to be an adult but
who subsequently alleges that he or she is younger. Some people
arrive with forged documentation, or else hold no travel document
at all, and in such cases resolution of disputes about the age
of the individual is all the more problematic. We are aware that
some people claim to be younger than they really are in an effort
to avoid detention, and the variation between the claimed age
and the age shown in the passport has sometimes been as much as
15 years.
4. Whenever someone claims to be under 18 and the grant
of temporary admission or release does not appear to be appropriate,
the case is referred to the Refugee Council Panel of Advisers
at the earliest opportunity. Although I am advised that age assessment
is at best an inexact science, the Immigration Service will always
give appropriate consideration to reports submitted by a paediatrician,
and it is our policy to give the benefit of the doubt whenever
we can. Furthermore it is, of course, open to those who claim
to be minors, as it is to most other immigration detainees, to
apply for bail to the independent appellate authorities. I am
therefore satisfied that we have in place appropriate safeguards
which protect the position of those whose cases we are unable
to resolve quickly.
July 1998
| 
