APPENDIX 2
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Beverley Hughes MP, Minister of State, Home Office
I am writing in response to the list of questions
following my appearance before the Committee on 4 March.
Several of the questions ask for statistical information
which I am unable to provide because the data either is not collected
by the Home Office, or is not collected in a format which allows
me to respond to the question.
1. WHAT
IS THE
ESTIMATED NUMBER
OF ASYLUM
SEEKERS WHOSE
CLAIMS HAVE
FAILED AND
APPEALS BEEN
EXHAUSTED IN
THE LAST
FIVE YEARS
AND WHO
ARE STILL
IN THIS
COUNTRY (IE
WHO HAVE
NOT BEEN
REMOVED BY
THE IMMIGRATION
SERVICE OR
LEFT VOLUNTARILY)?
There is no official estimate of the number
of failed asylum seekers who are still in the UK. We collect details
of the numbers of initial decisions by outcome in a particular
year, the number of appeals decisions, again by outcome, and the
numbers removed. However, as I explained when I appeared before
the Committee, the current system of recording information does
not allow us to track a cohort of cases over time. Some people
whose applications are refused in one year will have their appeals
dealt with, and be removed, in subsequent years. Indeed, many
of those whose applications were refused at the very end of 2002
will not yet have had their appeals heard.
There are other considerations which impact
on any attempt to estimate the number of failed asylum-seekers
who remain without permission. First, we do not know how many
leave the UK without informing IND. Strange though it may seem,
we know that this occurs. However, we cannot quantify it. Second,
it is possible that the intake figures have been inflated by people
making multiple applications, or applications in false identities.
Where we discover this we adjust the intake figure accordingly.
But where we do not discover the deception, obviously no adjustment
can be made. The record would show the person concerned as a refused
asylum seeker who has still to be removed, when in fact he has
left the country, or even been removed, in another identity. This
is one of the reasons we no longer accept postal applications
for asylum.
A further factor which affects the calculation
is that our information systems did not allow us to identify people
whose applications had been finally dismissed who were applying
for, or had been granted, leave to remain on other grounds.
We recognise that the number of people subject
to immigration control who are present in the UK without leave
is a matter of legitimate interest, and it is a cause for concern
that no administration has ever been able to measure it. Which
is why, as I mentioned, our research department is looking at
possible methodologies which might produce an estimate in which
one might have some confidence.
2. HOW
WAS THE
TARGET TO
REMOVE 30,000 FAILED
ASYLUM SEEKERS
A YEAR
ARRIVED AT?
The target for the number of removals was agreed
during discussions in the course of the spending review in 2000.
It was based on an assumed "pool" of removable cases
during the years covered by that review. Its achievement assumed
a number of factors, including an increase in the size of the
detention estate, the creation of additional reporting centres,
and a substantial increase in the number of IS staff deployed
on enforcement work.
3. HOW
MANY PEOPLE
ARE NOT
GRANTED ANY
STATUS IN
THIS COUNTRY
AND ARE
WITHOUT SUPPORT,
BUT CANNOT
BE REMOVED?
HOW MANY
OF THESE
ARE DESTITUTE?
There is an important distinction to be made
between people whose applications have been refused, and whom
we cannot remove, but who could return home if they wished to
do so, and those who have likewise been refused and whom we cannot
remove because there is a practical obstacle, eg they require
a passport and their application is still being processed.
We do not know how many of those who have been
refused status leave the country of their own accord, nor do we
know what other means are available to those who choose not to
leave. However, there is a safety-net for those who cannot leave
through no fault of their own which mean that there is no need
for anyone to be destitute. Section 4 of the 1999 Act, as amended,
provides that accommodation may be provided. As a matter of policy,
accommodation is only provided under this section where the person
is unable to leave through no fault of their own. Apart from the
example already given, we will consider providing accommodation
where the person is temporarily unable to travel due to illness;
where there is no safe route of return available; and, in certain
circumstances, where the person is seeking a judicial review of
the decision to refuse them asylum.
100 people were receiving support under section
4 on 12 March, but not all of these will necessarily be destitute.
Clearly the position is fluid and the numbers may change from
day to day
4. DO
FEMALE ASYLUM
SEEKERS WITH
CHILDREN HAVE
ACCESS TO
FORMULA MILK
TOKENS ON
THE SAME
GROUNDS AS
BRITISH PEOPLE
RELIANT ON
BENEFITS, OR
AT ALL?
No. Formula milk tokens are not available and
would not be an administratively straightforward way of providing
this additional assistance. However, as I announced in a reply
to a Parliamentary Question from David Cameron (WA 27 January
2003, col 692W), the asylum support regulations have been amended
to allow for additional payments to be made to supported pregnant
women and children under the age of 3 to compensate for this.
The new arrangements took effect on 3 March. Supported pregnant
women and children aged between 1 and 3 each receive an additional
£3 per week. An additional £5 is paid in respect of
babies under the age of one.
5. ARE
FAILED ASYLUM
SEEKERS RETURNED
TO CHECHNYA?
We do not return anyone to Chechnya itself.
However, as I said when I appeared before you, it may be possible
to return them to other parts of the Russian Federation.
6. WHAT
IS THE
AVERAGE WAIT
FROM THE
END OF
THE LEGAL
ASYLUM PROCESS
(INCLUDING APPEALS)
TO REMOVAL
FROM THE
COUNTRY?
This information is not collected.
7. WHAT
ARE THE
ABSCONDING RATES
FOR THOSE
AWAITING REMOVAL
IN THE
COMMUNITY?
I am afraid that the information required to
calculate this is not collected.
8. WHAT
PROPORTION OF
DETAINEES HAVE
NOT ARRIVED
AT THE
END OF
THE LEGAL
PROCESS BEFORE
BEING DETAINED?
I am afraid this information is not collected
either. Our records relating to detainees allow us to identify
those who have applied for asylum at some stage, but not at what
point in the process they were detained. It would require a special
exercise to obtain this information, and even that would only
produce information about people who are currently in detention.
It would be more difficult to identify people who have been detained
and have subsequently been released.
9. HAVE
THE OPERATING
STANDARDS EXPLAINING
THE DETENTION
CENTRE RULES
BEEN PUBLISHED?
IF NOT,
WHEN WILL
THEY BE?
ARE THEY
PUBLICLY AVALIABLE?
The Operating Standards are a series of documents,
rather than a single document.
The operation of most of our removal centres
is, of course, in the hands of contractors and standards are already
promoted insofar that requirements are built into operating specifications
and performance measures in contracts. The Operating Standards
build on the Detention Centre Rules. They are intended to underpin
the arrangements we have with those managing Immigration Service
Removal Centres, and make transparent the way we expect detainees
to be treated and how centres are operated more generally. A key
feature of the standards is that they will be audited.
An important factor in having the Operating
Standards is that they should be public documents. The first set
were published in December 2002 and relate to female detainees,
race relations, religion, suicide and self-harm prevention and
use of force. Details of these standards are enclosed (Annex A),
and I also enclosed details of the various standards currently
being prepared (Annex B). We are in the process of considering
comments made on a second set of draft standards relating to:
activities (separate ones for adults and children), catering,
communications, complaints/requests procedures, healthcare and
temporary confinement. A third set has gone out for consultation
and they relate to: accommodation, arrangements for expenditure,
case progress, incentives schemes, removal from association and
standards audit.
The consultation process invites comments from
various NGOs, other Government Departments (where there is a Departmental
interest, eg regarding healthcare), Visiting Committees, Contractors,
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Prison Service.
10. HOW
MANY INSTANCES
HAVE THERE
BEEN OF
SUICIDE AND
SELF-HARM
IN EACH
REMOVAL CENTRE
OVER THE
LAST 3 YEARS?
Statistics on incidents of self-harm in Immigration
Removal Centres are not available at present. Contractors and
operators of removal centres are required to monitor incidents
of self-harm, but do not presently do so in a consistent form
from which reliable statistics could be drawn. We are currently
working to establish a systematic and standardised method of defining
and recording such incidents.
There have been only two self-inflicted deaths
in Immigration Removal Centres during the past three years. In
January 2000, a Lithuanian man was found hanging in a shower unit
at the old Harmondsworth Detention Centre (the Coroner's Inquest
returned an open verdict); and at the end of January 2003, a Ukrainian
man was found hanging in a dormitory at Haslar Removal Centre.
The latter incident is still under investigation, and there has
yet to be a Coroner's Inquest.
11. TO
WHICH COUNTRIES
ARE PEOPLE
RETURNED THROUGH
THE VOLUNTARY
ASSISTED RETURNS
PROGRAMME?
We record details of the nationalities of people
leaving under VARP, but I am advised that the return was to the
country of nationality in each case. I attach details of the nationalities
of people who returned under VARP in 2001 and 2002 (Annex C).
The stateless person in 2001 returned to Israel.
Annex A
FEMALE DETAINEES
Standard:
To provide a safe and secure environment, which
meets the needs of women.
Minimum Auditable Requirements
1. Women must only be housed in accommodation
certified as suitable under the terms of Rule 15 of the Detention
Centre Rules (Certification of accommodation).
2. The Centre must inform female detainees
by means of house rules and by any other method that they are
entitled to ask to be examined by a female nurse/doctor (Rule
33 (10) of the DC Rules refer).
3. The Centre must ensure that women are
not required to undress within sight of another detained person
or within sight of a male member of staff (Rule 7(3) of the DC
Rules refer), except that is where the detainee has consented
to be treated by a male member of the healthcare team.
4. The Centre must provide for women to
be served their meals within the dedicated female dining area.
If they wish to do so, women will be allowed to eat their meals
in association with men in a communal dining room.
5. The Centre must ensure that female detainees
are accompanied by at least one female detainee custody/escorting
officer when being escorted to or from the removal centre.
6. The Centre must ensure that the female
population has equal opportunity of access to all activities within
the Centre.
7. The Centre must provide female detainees
with the option of eg, single sex gym sessions and other activities
appropriate to their needs and interests and monitor take up to
ensure that those provided are appropriate.
8. The Centre must involve female detainees
in the process of identifying appropriate activities.
9. Females must only be search by a member
of staff of the same sex (Rule 7(3) refers).
RACE RELATIONS
Standard:
To ensure that policies and practices are in
place which reflect the legal context and which are designed to
tackle and eliminate improper discrimination on the part of staff,
detainee or any visitor to the centre and to promote race equality.
Minimum Auditable Requirements
1. The Centre must establish a Race Relations
Committee (RRC), chaired by the centre manager or a senior manager,
to monitor and evaluate procedures and practices. Where the chairman
is not the centre manager he will be required to report directly
to the centre manager.
2. The RRC must include amongst its members
(but not to be limited to), the religious affairs manager, representatives
from the detainee population, the catering manager and the Race
Relations Liaison Officer (RRLO).
3. The Centre must invite a member of the
Visiting Committee to attend its meetings.
4. The RRC must hold minuted meetings and
have set terms of reference. Amongst other matter the RRC must
address incidents/complaints of a racial nature. The RRC will
agree clear action points to address issues of concern. It will
be for the chairman to ensure that these are progressed and that
outcomes are recorded.
5. The Centre must appoint a Race Relations
Liaison Officer (RRLO) who must be trained to Prison Service standards
to assist in the process of monitoring complaints, their outcomes
and to ensure that any necessary action is taken.
6. The Centre must keep records of the training
the RRLO received and when.
7. The RRLO must be responsible for developing
a programme for the training of all staff in race awareness and
will maintain a record of those staff who have received such training.
All staff must have refresher training annually.
8. The Centre must ensure that information
on policy and practice relating to race relations is readily available
to staff, detainees and visitors.
9. The Centre must ensure that the Home
Office Race Relations Policy Statement is displayed around the
centre, in relevant languages, and in prominent places so that
it is readily accessible to staff, detainees and all others who
visit the centre.
10. The Centre must report on race relations
to the Immigration Service as required and in any event annually.
RELIGION
Standard:
Removal Centres must ensure that detainees'
religious/spiritual needs are met as far as practicable and that
facilities are available for prayer, religioius services and for
their pastoral care.
Minimum Auditable Requirements
1. The Centre must seek the Secretary of
State's approval for the appointment of a manager of religious
affairs (Rule 22(1) of the DC Rules refer).
2. The Centre must ensure that the religion
to which a detainee wishes to belong is recorded, provided that
the detainee so wishes, and the relevant religious minister informed
(Rule 22(2) of the DC Rules refer).
3. If detainees so wish, they must be visited
by a minister of their religion as soon as practicable after reception
and thereafter as often as reasonably possible.
4. Where a detainee makes a request to see
his minister of religion, the relevant minister must be notified
within 24 hours of that request and notification details recorded.
5. The manager of religious affairs must
establish a multi-faith team, which will hold minuted meetings
at least quarterly.
6. The Centre must publish a calendar of
religious festivals/observances so that recognition is given to
those events and those concerned are enabled to observe such events.
7. Where a detainee is removed from association
(DC Rule 40) or placed in temporary confinement (DC Rule 42),
the manager of religious affairs must be advised without delay
with a view to making arrangements to visit the detainee (40 (5)
and 42(6) of the Rules refer).
8. Where practicable a minister must visit
all detainees of his religion who are in hospital, in temporary
confinement or removed from association if the detainee so wishes
(Rule 22(4) of the DC Rules refers).
9. The manager of religious affairs, members
of the multi-faith team and the centre manager must agree arrangements
to be made for ministers to conduct services for detainees of
their religion at specified times.
10. Religious books relating to their religion
must be available for the personal use of detainees.
SUICIDE
AND SELF
HARM PREVENTION
Standard:
Removal Centre staff will identify and provide
care and support to those detainees at risk of suicide or self-harm.
Minimum Auditable Requirements
Identification
1. The Centre must ensure that all detainees
are first assessed for risk of self-harm/suicidal behaviour within
two hours of admission (see also the minimum requirement in the
healthcare standard).
2. The Centre must be alert to the risk
of self-harm/suicidal behaviour by detainees throughout their
detention. The Centre will pay particular attention to this on
the first night of detention and in cases where the detainee knows
he is subject to removal directions and immediately prior to removal.
3. The Centre must ensure that all staff
are trained in the use of Prison Service F2052SH procedures, which
will include information on recognising those who may be at risk.
Prevention
1. The Centre must ensure that all staff
receive suicide awareness training to the standard delivered within
the Prison Service and that they receive annual refresher training.
Details of staff training and when it was delivered must be recorded.
2. The Centre must display notices to visitors
and detainees in relevant languages setting out that where they
have concern about a detainee they should bring this to the attention
of a member of staff.
3. The Centre will establish a Suicide Prevention
Committee (SPC) chaired by the centre manager or a senior manager.
Where the chairman is not the centre manager he is required to
report directly to the centre manager.
4. The SPC's terms of reference must include
a requirement to meet monthly and must include amongst its members
representatives of the detainee population. The SPC must invite
a member of the Visiting Committee to attend.
5. All staff must receive basic and refresher
training (at least every three years) in suicide awareness.
Response
1. All incidents of actual self-harm or
use of F2052SH procedures must be reviewed by the SPC to assist
with the management of individual detainees at risk.
2. The F2052SH care plans must be developed
for those identified to be at risk of suicide or self-harm.
3. The Centre must establish measures, which
ensure active engagement with detainees rather than passive monitoring.
4. The Centre must ensure that staff are
trained in the provisions of emergency aid following self-harm
attempted suicide.
5. Emergency first aid kits containing specified
equipment must be accessible and appropriately maintained.
6. The Centre must seek to involve contact
with someone from the detainee's own family or cultural group.
7. The Centre must ensure that there are
arrangements in place to care for the needs of others affected
by suicide or self-harm.
USE OF
FORCE
Standard:
In accordance with Rule 41 of the DC Rules 2001,
when the application of force is deemed necessary, no more force
than necessary will be applied.
Minimum Auditable Requirements
1. The Centre will ensure that force is
used only when necessary to keep a detainee in custody, to prevent
violence, to prevent destruction of the property of the removal
centre or of others and to prevent detainees from seeking to prevent
their own removal physically or physically interfering with the
lawful removal of another detainee.
2. Force will only be used as a measure
of last resort and strictly within the terms of the Rule 41 of
the Detention Centre Rules 2001.
3. If handcuffs are used as part of use
of force Detention Services Order 1/2002 must be adhered to.
4. The Centre will use and purchase training
for control and restraint techniques from the Prison Service for
England and Wales. Advance training should be carried out by the
Prison Service training establishments for England and Wales.
Basic training may be carried out by the Centre's own instructors
provided that they have been trained and currently certified by
the Prison Service for England and Wales.
5. Use of force must only be applied by
members of staff who have undertaken necessary training.
6. In the event of force being used, the
Centre must ensure that detainees are seen by a member of the
healthcare team as soon as practicable.
7. The Centre must have a system for recording
all incidents where use of force is applied and to monitor that
use. Where use of handcuffs is planned in advance and the detainee
does not resist, this should not be recorded under use of force.
Annex B
CONTENTS LIST
FOR OPERATING
STANDARDS
Accommodation
Activities (Adults): Education, Library, Physical
Education and Recreation
Activities (Children); Education, Physical Education
and Play facilities
Admission/Discharge
Arrangements for Expenditure
Audit Compliance
Case Progress
Catering
Clothing
Communications: Correspondence, Phone Calls and Visits
Complaints/Request Procedures
Detainees' Cash
Detainees' Property
Detainees' Records
Disabled Detainees
Escorts
Families and Children
Female Detainees
Handling Death in Custody
Health Care
Hygiene
Incentive Schemes
Interpreters/translations
Personnel: Staff Training
Race Relations
Religion
Removal from Association
Safer Detention Centres
Security Order and Control
Suicide and Self Harm
Temporary Confinement
Treatment of the Public
Use of Force
Annex C
VARP DEPARTURES
| Country | 2001
| 2002 |
| Afghanistan | 0 | 30
|
| Albania | 556 | 548
|
| Algeria | 6 | 3
|
| Armenia | 11 | 1
|
| Azerbaijan | 1 | 1
|
| Bangladesh | 3 | 0
|
| Bosnia | 5 | 0
|
| Belarus | 5 | 0
|
| Bolivia | 1 | 3
|
| Bulgaria | 7 | 1
|
| Cameroon | 0 | 2
|
| China | 0 | 1
|
| Colombia | 3 | 12
|
| Congo | 1 | 1
|
| Croatia | 2 | 3
|
| Cyprus | 2 | 0
|
| Czech Republic | 12 | 93
|
| Ecuador | 6 | 10
|
| Eritrea | 6 | 1
|
| Estonia | 15 | 8
|
| Ethiopia | 1 | 4
|
| Egypt | 1 | 0
|
| Georgia | 1 | 1
|
| Hungary | 0 | 1
|
| India | 8 | 1
|
| Indonesia | 0 | 1
|
| Iran | 181 | 112
|
| Iraq | 3 | 0
|
| Ivory Coast | 0 | 1
|
| Jordan | 0 | 3
|
| Kazakhstan | 0 | 2
|
| Kenya | 0 | 3
|
| Latvia | 5 | 16
|
| Lebanon | 12 | 4
|
| Libya | 1 | 0
|
| Lithuania | 5 | 23
|
| Macedonia | 5 | 13
|
| Malaysia | 0 | 1
|
| Moldova | 14 | 7
|
| Mongolia | 1 | 2
|
| Mozambique | 2 | 0
|
| Niger | 1 | 0
|
| Nigeria | 1 | 1
|
| Pakistan | 18 | 15
|
| Palestine | 0 | 3
|
| Peru | 0 | 2
|
| Poland | 6 | 12
|
| Romania | 35 | 39
|
| Russia | 16 | 9
|
| Sierra Leone | 0 | 4
|
| Slovakia | 4 | 5
|
| South Africa | 0 | 4
|
| Sri Lanka | 14 | 52
|
| Sudan | 0 | 1
|
| Syria | 6 | 0
|
| Tanzania | 0 | 1
|
| Togo | 1 | 0
|
| Turkey | 6 | 9
|
| Uganda | 4 | 1
|
| Ukraine | 8 | 7
|
| Venezuela | 1 | 0
|
| Yemen | 1 | 0
|
| Yugoslavia | 201 | 113
|
| Zimbabwe | 0 | 6
|
| Stateless | 2 | 0
|
| Total | 1,220
| 1,204 |
March 2003
|
| |
| 
