---

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been relocated from the Isle of Thanet under the Government's dispersal programme. [11665]

Angela Eagle: The information requested is not available.

The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) currently does not hold statistics on the location of asylum seekers before they are dispersed by NASS. Statistics are only available on the areas that asylum seekers are dispersed to.

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the case for increasing the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete statement of evidence forms; [11761]

(2) what recent representations he has received on the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete statement of evidence forms; [11760]

(3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of statement of evidence forms on the numbers of asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance. [11757]

Angela Eagle: We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from non- governmental organisations (NGOs) about the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete their statement of evidence forms. There is concern that 10 working days is insufficient time for an asylum seeker to find help completing the detailed Statement of Evidence Form (SEF) in English, and to gather and translate evidence in support of the application.

Asylum seekers are expected to comply with the asylum process and I consider the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete the SEFs to be reasonable. The original 14 day time limit for the return of the SEF was changed to 10 working days, so applicants are not disadvantaged by public holidays.

We do not propose therefore to increase the current 10 day time limit. Most asylum applicants do return their SEF on time. Discretion is exercised where applicants need extra time to obtain translations or submit extra material, such as a medical report, in support of their claim.

A higher proportion of applications was refused on grounds of non-compliance in 1999 and 2000 than had previously been the case. The increase was due partly to the stricter enforcement of the 10 day deadline for return

6 Nov 2001 : Column: 178W

of the SEF and partly to administrative problems which led to a backlog of correspondence within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and some flawed refusals as a consequence. We have made a number of changes over the past 12 months to improve our administrative processes and reduce flawed refusals. These include the introduction of a dedicated PO Box for the return of completed SEFs, and adjustments to internal procedures to ensure that the receipt of SEFs is registered on a database.

We have also taken steps to improve asylum applicants' understanding of the asylum process and of the importance of meeting the time limit. We have done this by simplifying the explanatory leaflet which is sent out with the SEF, and by making it available in the 33 languages spoken by most asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. The SEF form has also been simplified. NGOs were consulted about these improvements.

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many (a) asylum applications and (b) asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance there have been in each month of the last three years, indicating the (i) monthly and (ii) yearly change expressed as a percentage; [11759]

(2) what recent assessment he has made of (a) the number of asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance, (b) the number of cases waiting to be processed by the Appeals Tribunal and (c) the relationship between the two. [11756]

Angela Eagle: The requested information on refusals to grant asylum on grounds of non-compliance over the last three years is provided in the table.

Non-compliance refusals rose by over 21 times in 2000, due to seven times as many refusals and a three times higher proportion of refusals on non-compliance grounds. Provisional figures show the proportion of refusals made on non-compliance grounds has fallen from 32 per cent. in 2000 to 25 per cent. in the first seven months of 2001.

Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) statistics show the number of asylum 'cases in progress' increased by 168 per cent. over the past 15 months. From 7,735 cases awaiting a final promulgation at the end of June 2000, outstanding cases have risen to 20,751 at the end of September 2001. This is due to the increase in asylum appeals received from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate over the same period, during which the IAA also expanded.

Analysis of cases for which data are available shows that, in percentage terms, refusals on non-compliance grounds result in fewer appeals to the IAA than other refusals.

Applications for asylum to the UK and refusals on grounds of non-compliance, for cases decided under normal criteria⁽⁸⁾, not including dependents, 1998–2001⁽⁹⁾

Month/year	Asylum applications	Percentage change on previous month/year	Total refusals	Non-compliance refusals(10)	Percentage change on previous month/year	Non-compliance percentage of total refusals
1998	46,015	42	22,315	2,995	-17	13
1999	71,160	55	11,025	1,085	-64	10
2000(11)	80,315	13	75,680	24,295	2,139	32
2001(11),(12)	39,280	(13)—	61,965	15,780	(13)—	25
1998
January	2,860	-8	2,130	360	47	17
February	2,650	-7	2,240	250	-31	11
March	3,200	21	2,270	280	12	12
April	3,135	-2	1,850	250	-11	14
May	3,110	-1	1,690	260	4	15
June	3,575	15	1,790	255	-2	14
July	4,215	18	1,840	340	33	18
August	4,420	5	1,595	225	-34	14
September	4,455	1	1,885	230	2	12
October	5,010	12	2,290	245	7	11
November	4,620	-8	2,100	275	12	13
December	4,770	3	645	25	-91	4
1999
January	4,700	-1	540	5	-80	1
February	4,185	-11	810	40	700	5
March	5,060	21	945	50	25	5
April	4,905	-3	1,060	25	-50	2
May	5,370	9	830	45	80	5
June	6,130	14	780	20	-56	3
July	6,440	5	840	30	50	4
August	7,120	11	835	200	567	24
September	7,355	3	830	45	-78	5
October	6,295	-14	1,370	150	233	11
November	6,420	2	1,325	245	63	18
December	7,180	12	855	220	-10	26
2000
January	6,110	-15	2,390	245	11	10
February	6,110	0	5,025	920	276	18
March	6,680	9	7,570	2,115	130	28
April	6,855	3	4,205	(13)—	(13)—	(13)—
May	6,725	-2	5,455	1,520	(13)—	28
June	6,545	-3	6,565	2,035	34	31
July	6,870	5	6,280	1,895	-7	30
August	6,770	-1	7,155	2,895	53	40
September	6,790	0	6,160	2,610	-10	42
October	7,230	6	7,105	2,965	14	42
November	7,500	4	10,060	4,325	46	43
December	6,125	-18	7,710	2,770	-36	36
2001
January	6,380	4	10,935	3,495	26	32
February	5,520	-13	11,235	3,460	-1	31
March	5,815	5	14,180	3,110	-10	22
April	5,000	-14	7,030	1,415	-55	20
May	5,290	6	7,180	1,625	15	23
June	5,300	0	5,970	1,400	-14	23
July	5,975	13	5,435	1,285	-8	24

⁽⁸⁾ Exclude cases decided under the backlog clearance exercise, aimed at reducing the pre-1996 asylum application backlog.

⁽⁹⁾ Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five.

⁽¹⁰⁾ Failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

⁽¹¹⁾ 2000 and 2001 data are provisional

⁽¹²⁾ 2001-January to July

⁽¹³⁾ Not available

6 Nov 2001 : Column: 179W

Mr. Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government began requiring asylum seekers to be fingerprinted. [11742]

Angela Eagle [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The power to fingerprint asylum seekers and their dependants was introduced in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals

6 Nov 2001 : Column: 180W

Act 1993. However, the introduction of a computerised fingerprint storage system in December 2000 has allowed for the quick and effective electronic checking of prints of all asylum seekers against the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's records. Remote checking of fingerprints has been made possible which was not the case under the paper system. The introduction of smart cards will build on this technology to tackle fraud.

6 Nov 2001 : Column: 181W

Mr. Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was from first application to initial decision in asylum cases in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [9444]

Angela Eagle: For decisions made in the 12 months to July 2001, the average time between application and initial decision was 15 months. This average includes older cases decided as part of the reduction of the number of cases outstanding (see table).

Average time ¹ between application and decision, for cases decided in the 12 months to July 2001:

	Average time in months(15)	Number of cases(15),(16)
All applications	15	127,060
of which:
Application pre 1996(17)	80	3,315
Application 1996	55	2,740
Application 1997	43	4,410
Application 1998	30	13,450
Application 1999	18	28,740
Application 2000	6	50,310
Application 2001	2	24,095

⁽¹⁴⁾ Calculated using all available data from the date the application is lodged to the date of the initial decision

⁽¹⁵⁾ These data are still subject to revision following quality checking

⁽¹⁶⁾ Figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest five. The number of cases quoted differs from published figures due to uncertainty concerning date of application in a small minority of cases

⁽¹⁷⁾ Cases decided as part of the backlog clearance exercise, as part of measures outlined in the July 1998 White paper entitled "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum"

The corresponding figure for cases decided in April 1997 was 20 months.

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were waiting to be processed by the Appeals Tribunal in each month of the last three years, indicating the (a) monthly and (b) yearly change expressed as a percentage. [11758]

Ms Rosie Winterton: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of cases where work was in progress within the Immigration Appellate Authority, and the change expressed as a percentage, for each month of the last three years are as follows:

	Number of cases	Percentage change
2001
January	14,729	-4
February	15,326	4
March	16,451	7
April	17,741	8
May	18,932	7
June	19,417	3
July	18,815	-3
August	19,960	6
September	20,751	4
2000
January	6,083	-7
February	5,614	-8
March	5,495	-2
April	5,256	-4
May	5,898	12
June	7,735	31
July	10,500	36
August	12,494	19
September	13,859	11
October	14,962	8
November	15,437	3
December	15,347	-1
1999
January	13,891	-13
February	12,289	-12
March	9,744	-21
April	8,423	-14
May	7,590	-10
June	7,294	-4
July	7,170	-2
August	6,187	-14
September	5,597	-10
October	4,911	-12
November	3,362	-32
December	6,572	95
1998
January	24,098	-2
February	23,831	-1
March	23,760	n/a
April	23,814	n/a
May	23,639	-1
June	23,757	n/a
July	22,531	-5
August	22,165	-2
September	20,994	-5
October	19,098	-9
November	17,371	-9
December	16,028	-8

6 Nov 2001 : Column: 182W

The yearly changes in case load expressed as a percentage were:

	Percentage
2000	134 increase
1999	59 decrease
1998	35 decrease

---