---

Immigration and Nationality Directorate

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it is currently taking the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to respond to correspondence; what progress has been made in reducing the time taken; and if he will make a statement. [92714]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The latest position is that 60 per cent. of correspondence is responded to within 20 working days, excluding correspondence related to applications and casework. Additional staff are being recruited and overtime exercises are being brought into operation in order to achieve significant improvements in response times.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made in respect of each month in the current year of the average daily number of (a) callers trying to make a call to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, (b) calls made to that Directorate and (c) calls answered by the Telephone Caller Unit. [92843]

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 254

Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The figures relating to telephone calls to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are provided each month by British Telecom and are actuals rather than estimates. Daily averages, by month, are set out in the table:

	Number of callers	Number of calls	Calls answered
January	n/a	60,043	2,109
February	5,281	50,217	1,669
March	5,432	46,334	1,781
April	4,112	42,601	1,495
May	4,610	48,301	1,535
June	5,617	56,223	1,707

Staff in the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB) are being hampered in their ability to deal with calls quickly because of delays in other parts of the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD), arising from the transition to Team Based Caseworking. Measures are in place to improve the situation, including recruitment of around 300 staff to fill vacancies in ICD. INEB staff are being given more in-depth training in call handling and new staff are being recruited and trained. Much of the increase in calls in June has been connected with passport inquiries.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily number of personal callers to each public inquiry office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each month since the beginning of 1999. [92894]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The average daily number of callers to each public inquiry office during 1999 is set out in the table:

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 253

	January	February	March	April	May	June
Public Caller Unit, Croydon	723	627	723	661	663	862
Asylum Screening Unit, Croydon	325	297	175	226	202	239
Liverpool Public Enquiry Office	44	40	32	26	40	34
Midlands Public Enquiry Office	92	97	86	81	81	117
Glasgow Public Enquiry Office	40	33	43	32	32	54
Belfast Public Enquiry Office	17	14	10	11	14	23

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 253

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average waiting time in each month in 1999 and for the most recent date for which information is available for consideration of applications to each of the divisions of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [92893]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The average waiting times in each month of 1999 for nationality cases are set out in the table:

Average waiting times (Months)

Month	Naturalisation	Registration	Overall
January	20.5	9	19.4
February	20.3	7.7	18.9
March	20.6	6.8	19.1
April	20.8	6.4	18.7
May	20.7	7.2	18.9
June	20.5	6.6	18.2

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 254

Average waiting times for immigration and asylum cases are not recorded as Integrated Casework Directorate caseworking procedures give priority to types of application rather than dealing with cases in chronological order. All applications are sifted in the Initial Consideration Unit. Straightforward cases (about 40 per cent.) are dealt with under a fast track procedure within about four weeks of receipt. More complex cases are allocated to Case Management Units for detailed consideration. The length of time between receipt and decision will depend on the complexity of the case. Delays in dealing with cases may be due to a variety of factors, including legal interventions by applicants and court cases.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the backlog of cases for each of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's divisions at the end of each month in 1999 and at the latest date for which information is available. [92896]

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 255

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Integrated Casework Directorate, which was set up at the beginning of 1999, handles all nationality, immigration and asylum casework previously dealt with in five separate Immigration and Nationality Directorate divisions. The backlog of immigration and asylum cases, and separately nationality cases, at the end of each month is set out in the table:

Month	Number of cases
Immigration and Asylum
January	63,622
February	69,388
March	84,404
April	93,943
May	122,102
June	145,991
Nationality
January	101,600
February	101,100
March	101,700
April	101,700
May	101,000
June	95,200

Ms Oona King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries for whose nationals the fast-track service operated by the Public Caller Unit at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for the quick determination of certain types of immigration applications is not available. [93304]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The availability of the fast-track service operated by the Public Caller Unit (PCU) at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) is normally determined by the category of application rather than the nationality of the applicant, as well as by the individual facts of each case. The only exception to general policy is in respect of North Korean and Libyan nationals. However, in the light of the recent resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya, we are in the process of reviewing our policy towards Libyan nationals. In recent months, because of pressures resulting from the major changes which have taken place in IND, the PCU fast-track service has had to be restricted and occasionally suspended altogether.

Immigration and Asylum

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration and asylum cases his Department has had outstanding for over one year; if he will provide a breakdown of the years in which the cases commenced and indicate the progress being made in eliminating the backlog; and if he will make a statement. [92713]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: There are approximately 80,935 immigration and asylum cases that have been outstanding for over one year. The breakdown is:

	Number
1998	36,081
1997	15,964
1996	8,134
1995	9,438
1994	4,820
1993	1,327
1992	343
1991	245
1990	109
Pre 1990	133
Undated	4,341

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 256

A number of measures have already been identified to tackle the general backlog which has built up because of the difficulties encountered in setting up the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD). These include the setting up of an After Entry Clearance Team and a Correspondence Backlog Team. Steps already taken include special exercises to target priority cases such as work permit applications, changes in procedures that will result in increased productivity and increased staffing.

Additionally, immediate and long term plans are in hand to tackle the more substantive backlogs in the areas of asylum, enforcement and nationality.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards (a) the proposed mutual recognition of member states of the European Union and each other's decisions on asylum applications and (b) the proposed harmonisation within the European Union of criteria for the recognition of refugees. [92783]

Kate Hoey [holding answer 23 July 1999]: It is a requirement of The Treaty of Amsterdam for measures that determine minimum standards applicable to the handling of asylum applications be introduced. The United Kingdom has the choice to opt in to such measures. There has been no proposal as yet regarding minimum standards for the criteria in recognising refugees. There has been no proposal to effect the mutual recognition of other member states' asylum decisions and such a proposal is not a requirement of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for asylum have been made in each month since the beginning of 1999 (a) by persons arriving at ports of entry and (b) by persons already in the United Kingdom; [92777]

(2) how many asylum seekers entered the United Kingdom in each month since March 1999; and of these how many were (a) granted asylum, (b) granted leave to remain and (c) refused the right to remain; [92778]

(3) what was the backlog of asylum casework in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the last date for which information is available; [92841]

Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The information requested was made available on the Home Office Internet site at http//www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index/htm, as part of the monthly reporting of asylum figures, on 26 July 1999.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum decisions were made in each month from January 1997 to the latest month for which information is available. [92790]

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 257

Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 23 July 1999]: The requested information is given in the table:

Decisions (18) made on Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, January 1997 to June 1999, by month

Year/month	Decisions
1997
January	3,260
February	3,090
March	2,845
April	3,390
May	2,880
June	2,930
July	3,480
August	2,980
September	2,800
October	3,035
November	2,990
December	2,355
Total	36,045
1998
January	3,065
February	3,035
March	3,070
April	2,520
May	2,360
June	2,675
July	2,710
August	2,480
September	2,825
October	3,255
November	2,780
December	800
Total	31,570
1999 (19)
January	995
February	1,275
March	1,855
April	3,045
May	4,185
June	4,680

(18) Figures rounded to the nearest 5

(19) Provisional

Mr. Love: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were received from Sri Lanka nationals in each of the last 10 years; how many of the applications have been (a) granted, (b) refused but subject to appeal, (c) refused and exhausted appeal, (d) awaiting initial decision, (e) deported and (f) left the country; and if he will make a statement. [93549]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategies he is planning to ensure that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is able to cope with the forecast increase in applications for naturalisation expected 12 months after the granting of indefinite leave to remain to refugees and those affected by the backlog clearance programme, without lengthening current waiting periods. [93336]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: No increase in applications for naturalisation resulting from output elsewhere in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is expected imminently. By the time these applications start to reach

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 258

the Integrated Casework Directorate's Liverpool office (which has superseded the Nationality Directorate), various initiatives to speed up output will have taken effect.

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Ministerial Group on the Family will consider the effect of the immigration rules and the nationality legislation on families with members abroad. [93454]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: In "Supporting Families: summary of responses to the consultation document", published on 8 June 1999, we said that the Ministerial Group on the Family is working on five new initiatives; support for boys, young men and fathers; supporting stepfamilies; adoption policy and practice; the support available to families at different crisis points; and ensuring that Government funding for families fits together well. Given the existing priorities of the group, it has no plans to look into the effect of immigration rules and nationality legislation on families with members abroad at present.

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the funding of immigration advice under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971. [93452]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Subject to the approval of Parliament, funding for advice, assistance and representation will be available through legal aid from January 2000. In due course, when we have had the opportunity to assess the true level of need for immigration advice, we will consider whether funding under section 23 should be transferred from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to curtail the use of prison accommodation for those detained solely under Immigration Act powers; and by what date he expects to cease to use prison accommodation. [93516]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government are committed, as resources become available, to the pursuit of a strategy of detaining those detained soley under Immigration Act 1971 powers in dedicated detention centres and holding centres, not prisons. Key to this strategy is the replacement of the Harmondsworth centre and the use of Her Majesty's Prison Rochester by two larger, purpose designed centres at Heathrow and Aldington. These facilities are expected to be available by the spring of 2002 and will offer an increase of some 250 beds. There are more immediate plans to provide a dedicated centre in the North of England for about 150 detainees within the next six to nine months. This will reduce the ad hoc use of prisons. In order that this can be delivered quickly, it is likely to be provided and managed by the Prison Service. It will however be a self contained, discrete unit solely for the use of Immigration Act detainees.

This strategy will ensure a net gain of about 300-350 detention places by 2002 and will greatly reduce the use of prison accommodation. However the Government accept that there will always be a need to use prisons for a minority of detainees, due to their special requirements, and this practice will continue. The number of such detainees detained in prison accommodation by 2002 is expected to be minimal.

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 259

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds Immigration Service staff refuse to accept those who are themselves asylum seekers, with permission to work, as interpreters or representatives of other asylum seekers at interviews. [93514]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 16 June 1998, Official Report, column 178.

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warnings have been given to employers concerning liability to prosecution under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 for the hiring of persons who do not have authority to work in the United Kingdom in the last year. [93450]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am afraid there is no central record of the number of section 8 warning letters that have been issued to employers.

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) breaches of airport security have been occasioned by and (b) immigration offences have been committed by the solicitors or other representatives of persons attending interviews with the Immigration Service at airports. [93335]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Aviation security is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). I am, however, advised that the Transport Security (Aviation) section of the DETR maintains a voluntary reporting system of aviation security incidents at airports, but the information does not categorise incidents of this kind. Similarly, the Immigration Service does not hold information about immigration offences in the form requested.

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid out in repatriation expenses under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 in each of the past five years. [93453]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The International Social Services of the United Kingdom is funded to administer the Voluntary Return Scheme on behalf of the Government.

The financial returns indicate the following expenditure for the last five years:

£

Year	Assistance	Administration	Total
1998-99	48,610	63,500	112,110
1997-98	59,113	54,713	113,826
1996-97	50,464	57,221	107,685
1995-96	38,819	88,128	126,947
1994-95	73,182	89,406	162,588

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions to deport, pursuant to section 3(5)(a) Immigration Act 1971 have been taken, in the past 12 months for (i) failure to report to a medical officer, (ii) failure to support and accommodate without recourse to public funds, (iii) obtaining leave to enter by deception, (iv) obtaining

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 260

leave to remain by deception, (v) assisting the entry of another person an illegal entrant and (vi) assisting the entry of another person as an asylum claimant. [93334]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: 3,930 decisions to deport were taken under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 in 1998. 210 of these were for breach of conditions but the records do not show the nature of the conditions which had not been compiled with. It is, therefore, not possible to identify whether any of this latter group of decisions were taken for either of the first two reasons listed in the question other than by examining the individual case files.

Someone who obtains leave to enter by deception is an illegal entrant and would not be subject to deportation action under section 3(5)(a). Someone who obtains leave to remain by deception is currently liable to deportation under section 3(5)(aa) of the Act. No more than five decisions to deport were taken under that section in 1998.

It is extremely unlikely that someone who had assisted the entry of an illegal entrant or an asylum claimant contrary to section 25(1) of the Act would be subject to deportation under section 3(5)(a). In those circumstances, deportation action under either section 3(5)(b) or, where applicable, section 3(6) of the 1971 Act would be more appropriate. 120 decisions to deport were taken under section 3(5)(b) in 1998 and 340 people were recommended for deportation by a court in that year, but again records are not sufficiently detailed to show whether or not the decision was taken for one or other of the last two reasons listed in the question and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examining each individual case file.

Apart from the number of decisions to deport under section 3(5)(aa), the figures in this reply have been rounded to the nearest 10.

---