12. Second supplementary memorandum
submitted by the Home Office
Please find below the additional information
I agreed to provide the Committee with when I gave evidence on
8 May 2003.
The Committee asked about the effect that focusing
on asylum cases had had on non-asylum cases. As I have explained
in the House, while we have sought to increase resources across
the board, the clear priority over the last few years has been
on tackling the priorities of asylum. Inevitably that means that
the resources dedicated to non-asylum work have not grown as quickly
as we might have wished and that will have had some impact on
the number of decisions we have been able to take. We have begun
to increase numbers over the past year to begin to redress this.
As far as non-asylum performance is concerned
we normally aim to screen all postal applications within three
weeks and decide those that are straightforward at that point.
Because of the high number of applications in the latter part
of 2002, this increased to ten weeks on average at the end of
last year and the earlier part of this one. As a result of measures
to improve this situation, the processing time for straightforward
applications have now (May 2003) reduced to four weeks on average.
We expect to make further progress towards our three-week target
for initial consideration by early June. Complex applications
needing further consideration have taken over 12 months to decide.
However, the majority is now being considered within nine months
and we aim to be considering all of these cases within six months
by the summer.
The Committee asked about decisions made on
asylum applications from Afghans. In 2002 a total of 8,105 decisions
were made. 110 were to grant asylum, 4,710 to refuse asylum but
grant exceptional leave to remain (ELR) and 3,285 to refuse asylum
and ELR. Data for earlier years is available in the quarterly
and annual asylum statistics bulletins, copies of which are in
the Library. A table with data from the last five years can be
found at Annex A.
The committee was interested in obtaining information
about where in Russia Chechens would be returned to.
There has never been any question or possibility
of removal directly to Chechnya. Our policy is based on advice
from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that while Chechens are
likely to experience difficult living conditions (of a financial
or practical nature) and racial discrimination in much of Russia,
any holder of a valid Russian or Soviet passport, indicating former
residence on Russian territory, should be able to resettle in
any of a number of regions in the Russian Federation, even after
a prolonged absence.
Caseworkers consider all asylum applications
from Chechens (and other Russians) on their individual merits.
Refusals have always been an option, even at the height of the
current conflict, as the UK and wider international community
regard Chechnya as an integral part of the Russian Federation,
despite its declaration of independence in 1991. This means that
those Chechens who are of no interest to the Russian authorities
are free to seek resettlement in the Russian Federation and can
therefore be removed to Moscow or elsewhere. We recognise that
some regions of Russia are more receptive to newcomers than others,
and are currently awaiting more specific advice on this from the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as an update on the situation
generally for Chechens in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Russian
Federation.
The Committee also asked how much notice the
Afghans, who were removed on a chartered flight recently, were
given of their removal and what opportunity they were given to
wind up their affairs, having been detained. All of those Afghans
removed on 28 April will have had a minimum of two months notice
that they had no legal right to remain in the United Kingdom.
That is part of our agreement with the Afghan authorities to effect
these removals . As I said in my evidence on 8 May, the amount
of notice given of their removal varies because of the individual
reporting instructions. However, I can confirm that some of those
removed will have had up to 14 days notice of removal, and others
one to two days notice of removal.
With regard to the package for those who agreed
to return voluntarily to Afghanistan, I can confirm the figures
I gave were correct: £600 for an individual and a maximum
of £2,500 for a family.
I promised also to send information about the
cost of legal aid. The total amount spent on Legal Aid for Asylum
and Immigration cases in the financial year 2003-03 was £174
million (subject to audit). The Legal Services Commission estimates
that £82 million of that was spent on appeals to the adjudicator
and Immigration Appeal Tribunal, and £6.2 million on full
representation, which includes statutory review and judicial review.
The total amount spent on Legal Aid for asylum
and immigration cases has increased over recent years: from £81
million in 2000-01 and £130 million in 2001-02.
Finally I agreed to provide information relating
to the cost of detention. The average daily cost per detention
space is £105. (This figure is an estimate, based upon full
occupancy.)
Beverley Hughes
Minister of State
30 May 2003
| 
