---

HOME DEPARTMENT

Fast Track Asylum and Detention Policy

The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): A key element in the Government's strategy to speed up the processing of asylum claims has been the introduction of the fast track asylum processes operated initially at the Oakington reception centre and now also at Harmondsworth removal centre and other locations. The use of detention to fast track suitable claims under these processes is necessary to achieve the objective of delivering decisions quickly. This ensures, among other things, that those whose claims can be quickly decided can be removed as quickly as possible in the event that the claim is unsuccessful.

The lawfulness of detaining asylum claimants for the sole purpose of deciding their claims quickly was upheld by the Court of Appeal and by the House of Lords in the case of Saadi.

When we began the fast track process we said that it was our intention to detain asylum claimants suitable for a quick decision for a period of about seven to 10 days. If we could not decide the claim within that time scale, the claimant would be released or moved to another place of detention with the facilities to support people detained for longer periods. In the vast majority of cases, we have been able to do exactly that. However, the need to ensure a really sharp focus on quality decision making, including for example in non-suspensive appeal (NSA) cases the need for a second pair of eyes, means we cannot always make decisions and serve them on claimants within the original seven to 10 target time scale. While we are able to do this in over 95 per cent. of non-NSA Oakington claims, our experience has shown us that NSA claims take slightly longer, with the majority of decisions being made and
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 158WS
 
served within 14 days. The purpose of this announcement is to set out our revised fast track process detention policy.

The fast track process has scheduled days set aside for specific activities (interviewing, serving the decision etc. but we intend this to be a guide as to how the process will generally operate. There will always be occasions when for operational or other reasons it is not possible to undertake certain activities. This may be because the claimant is temporarily unwell, there is an interpreter problem, the claimant requires longer to obtain further evidence or wishes to submit late representations for example. The process must be flexible enough to accommodate such circumstances. We would not necessarily release people from detention or from the process or move them to another place of detention simply because the timetable cannot be adhered to, if the indications are that we can make and serve a decision within a reasonable time-scale. However, the period of detention for making a quick decision will not be allowed to continue for longer than is reasonable in all the circumstances. We will aim to make decisions within 10 to 14 days, but there will be occasions where it is quicker—for example, at Harmondsworth or a non-NSA decision at Oakington. However, we will continue to detain for the purpose of deciding the claim quickly, even beyond the 10 to 14 day time scale, unless the length of time before a decision can be made looks like it will be longer than is reasonable in all the circumstances. Continued detention may also be merited in some cases irrespective of decision time scale, where our general detention criteria apply. We may also detain claimants after we have made and served a decision in accordance with our general detention criteria.

Applicants with dependants may be detained for the purposes of making a quick decision on their claim, but there may be operational constraints on who can be detained from time to time. For example, the acceptance of families or pregnant females into Oakington may be halted temporarily if there is an illness circulating which might be harmful to them—chicken pox for example. The criteria for acceptance are applied equally to those entering the Oakington and Harmondsworth processes. The principal difference is that at Oakington, individuals with dependants on their asylum claims can be detained at the centre and at Harmondsworth they cannot. Separating dependants on a claim from the claimant can present operational difficulties and for that reason and the fact that it has no female or family accommodation, Harmondsworth will, in general, only accept male claimants who have no dependants on their claims. That is not to say that, at Oakington or Harmondsworth or any other location where fast tracking is carried out, we will never detain a claimant who has dependants on their claim, even where it is not possible to detain the dependants with the claimant. There may be occasions when we believe it is necessary and right so to do.

When deciding whom to accept into fast track processes, account is taken of any particular individual circumstances known to us, which might make the claim particularly complex, or unlikely to be resolved in the time scales, however flexibly applied. The existence of UK based family ties—such as a spouse, partner or child—would not automatically exclude a claimant
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 159WS
 
from the process as some issues, such as article 8 family life ones, can be relatively easy to decide quickly given the case law and the individual's actual circumstances.

We will continually review how our fast track processes are operating, the criteria for acceptance into them and the indicative process time scales we aim for. This will apply equally to those we are presently operating and to any we may seek to introduce as part of our overall strategy of speeding up the asylum process and making it more effective.

Joseph Scoles

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The coroner for the mid and north division of the county of Shropshire wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, on 5 May, recommending a public inquiry into certain issues arising from the inquest into the death of John Peter Joseph Scoles (known as Joseph) at Stoke Heath young offenders institution on 24 March, 2002.

The Treasury solicitors wrote to the legal representatives for Joseph's family to seek their comments on what the coroner had recommended. Having received and considered their comments, together with the coroner's recommendation, I am now able to announce the measures I have taken and am taking to ensure that the matters arising from Joseph's tragic death and the coroner's recommendations are properly considered.

The issues fall into three broad categories. They are: the appropriateness of the sentence Joseph received; the effectiveness of relevant operational procedures in identifying, placing and safeguarding vulnerable young people in custody; and whether the juvenile secure estate has adequate accommodation to meet the needs of vulnerable young people.

The steps I am taking to deal with these are as follows:

I have referred the circumstances in which Joseph received a custodial sentence on three counts of attempted robbery to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, requesting it to take this case into account in its current work to draw up guidelines on sentencing for robbery;

I have appointed David Lambert, a former Assistant Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate, to examine the operational issues raised by this case, including through the coroner's inquest. I have also asked him to provide a summary account of all investigations that have been conducted into Joseph's death;

I have asked the Youth Justice Board, which is preparing proposals for its vision for the future juvenile custodial estate, to take full account of the points made by the coroner on the adequacy of custodial provision for vulnerable young offenders.

I consider that the above measures are the most effective means of addressing the matters the coroner has drawn to the Home Secretary's attention and what lessons should be learned from Joseph's death. I am grateful to the coroner, and to Joseph's family, for highlighting the issues that are of concern to them. Nothing can bring Joseph back, but I do want to ensure that everything is done to prevent the repetition of such a tragic event.
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 160WS
 

NORTHERN IRELAND

Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, Mr Denis Stanley, is responsible for all aspects of electoral administration in Northern Ireland, including the conduct of all elections and referendums; and for electoral registration. In accordance with section 14 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, the chief electoral officer is required to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State.

I am pleased to announce that the annual report of the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland for the year 2003–04 has been laid before Parliament. Copies are available in the Library.

---