Annex A
FAST-TRACK ASYLUM PILOT—RESPONSES TO
QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO SUPPLIERS
HOW MANY
RESPONSES?
Thirty-five questionnaires were sent out.
Twenty responses were received. Of those, 18
questionnaires were returned. In addition, one supplier responded
to say that they have withdrawn from the scheme and one is planning
to withdraw.
Of the 18 questionnaires returned:
Two suppliers have not been called and were
therefore unable to comment.
One supplier had only had one fast-track client
who had voluntarily returned immediately, and they were therefore
unable to comment on the scheme.
Therefore, 15 questionnaires were returned completed
or partly completed.
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
1. Has any aspect of the Fast-Track arrangements
caused you difficulties in gaining access to your client at any
time?
Comments
— Hard to get letter of introduction to interpreter
because of short notice—therefore denied access.
— Group 4 said need 24 hours notice. Group 4 seemed
unaware of the scheme.
— Telephone contact is very difficult, as is faxing
documents to the client.
— Harmondsworth switchboard is appalling—get
cut off.
— Client not yet at Harmondsworth.
— Long waiting time at Hardmonsworth before accessing
client.
— Mere fact that the client is in detention impedes
access.
2. Initial Decision:
Have the short time limits for initial decision-making caused
you any problems preparing a case allocated to you:
| Yes [9] | No [4] |
Other [2] |
| | 2 respondents had not answered the question
|
And in particular, with regard to any of the following:
(a) Taking instructions and advising the client:
Yes [6]<ntNo [8]<ntOther [1]<et<nt<nt1
respondent had not answered the question<et
(b) Obtaining medical reports:
| Yes [9] | No [2] |
Other [4] |
| | 4 respondents answered Not Applicable.
|
(c) Obtaining witness statements:
| Yes [8] | No [5] |
Other [2] |
| | 1 respondent had not answered the question
|
| | 1 respondent answered Not Applicable
|
(d) Obtaining country information:
| Yes [7] | No [4] |
Other [4] |
| | 4 respondents answered Not Applicable.
|
Comments
— Difficult to get interpreter and witness statements
at short notice. Limited time to search for information and prepare
bundle.
— Necessary to spend a lot of time out of the office
and on travel and waiting. Short time period to prepare.
— Long delays before interview with client with
no explanation.
— Time between notification and Home Office interview
is insufficient to take instructions and advise client properly.
Speed kills.
— Short time between notification and interview
means difficult to engage an interpreter. Language line is helpful
but not a perfect substitute for an interpreter who is present.
Telephone interpreting is more time consuming. This leaves less
time with the client.
— Unable to provide a medical report or instruct
a medical expert due to short time frame.
— Representative given only one hour with client
prior to interview. Negotiated two hours but were interrupted
a number by the immigration officer asking if they were finished.
— Experienced counsel are difficult to obtain.
— Timeframe is too short to prepare.
— Timeframe is simply too short to get an expert
opinion—busy professionals cannot do quality work in such
a short time. The IAA does not take these factors into account
when ruling on requests for adjournments to allow time to obtain
a report.
— Client was deprived of the opportunity to obtain
documentary evidence from his own country. An application for
postponement of the decision for removal from the fast track was
rejected.
3. Have you had any difficulties gaining access to interpreters?
| Yes [5] | No [9] |
Other [1] |
| | 1 respondent had not answered the question
|
Comments
— Dealt with problems of obtaining interpreters
by using language line and solicitors translating.
— Interpreters sometimes reluctant to take on work
at short notice x 4.
— Languageline although helpful, is not appropriate,
particularly for new and fearful clients.
4. Preparing Appeals
Have the short time limits provided for preparing and lodging
appeals caused you any problems with any of the following:
(a) Taking further instructions from the client:
| Yes [6] | No [5] |
Other [4] |
| | 2 respondents had not had any cases go to appeal
|
| | 1 respondent had not answered the question
|
| | 1 respondent was unable to grant CLR due to CLS guidelines
|
(b) Drafting grounds of appeal:
| Yes [3] | No [8] |
Other [4] |
| | 2 respondents had not had any cases go to appeal
|
| | 1 respondent had not answered the question
|
| | 1 respondent was unable to grant CLR due to CLS guidelines
|
| Yes [4] | No [5] |
Other [6] |
| | 2 respondents had not had any cases go to appeal
|
| | 1 respondent had not answered the question
|
| | 1 respondent was unable to grant CLR due to CLS guidelines
|
| | 2 respondents answered Not Applicable
|
| Yes [5] | No [3] |
Other [7] |
| | 2 respondents had not had any cases go to appeal
|
| | 2 respondents answered Not Applicable
|
| | 1 respondent was unable to grant CLR due to CLS guidelines
|
| | 2 respondents had not answered the question
|
(e) Collating country information:
| Yes [5] | No [6]
| Other [4] |
| | 2 respondents had not had any cases go to appeal
|
| | 1 respondent had not answered the question
|
| | 1 respondent was unable to grant CLR due to CLS guidelines
|
(f) Preparing appeal bundles:
| Yes [6] | No [5]
| Other [4] |
| | 2 respondents had not had any cases go to appeal
|
| | 1 respondent had not answered the question
|
| | 1 respondent was unable to grant CLR due to CLS guidelines
|
Comments
— Problem getting documentary evidence from Pakistan.
— Shortage of time means that preparation is rushed
and not as good as it should be.
— Problems caused if need to re-visit the client
to complete instructions—must put everything else aside.
— Work is extremely pressurised.
— Very little time for any other work following
taking instructions.
— Refusal letter did not refer to objective information
so preparation was very difficult.
— Little time to prepare court bundles.
— Unavoidable difficulty in finding counsel and/or
free to accept matters at very short notice.
— Problem due to lack of time to obtain relevant
documentary evidence about the country client fled.
— The need to be on standby causes a strain especially
if cases are not allocated, but not free to take on other work.
5. How has your involvement in the Fast-Track pilot affected
the remainder of your caseload?
| Yes [11] | No [3] |
Other [1] |
| | One respondent had not answered the question
|
Comments
— We have made strategic plans.
— We block out the time in diary but a substantial
amount of time is required within the following two weeks. This
inevitably requires the rescheduling of other non-urgent work.
— We have enough capacity to cope with the additional
work coming through the scheme.
— We have reduced the number of cases taken on and
reallocated existing work.
— Disruption to two consecutive days work/caseload
is inevitable due to attending Harmondsworth, which is a full
day's job.
— Need to ensure cover for rest of caseload when
out of the office and when preparing papers in office.
— Caseload gets neglected whilst we attend to clients
under the fast track.
— Messes up my timetable on other casework. End
up staying late/working on Sundays to catch up.
— Much more time and resources have to be reallocated
for the fast track.
— Although we are a small firm (three solicitors)
we have been able to manage our existing caseload relatively well
with this added responsibility.
— Other caseworkers help me with my caseload.
— Very badly. I cannot give any attention to the
remainder of the caseload. The fast track case becomes the sole
activity for about 10 days.
— Have to abandon other casework to a certain extent
so that we can concentrate and focus on the fast track case so
that can comply with the deadlines.
— Short notice and travel to Harmondsworth means
a large amount of time is spent outside the office. Usually have
to attend Harmondsworth three times in five days.
6. Have you experienced any difficulties with the out of
hours aspect of the scheme?
| Yes [4] | No [10] |
Other [1] |
| | One respondent had not answered the question
|
| |
|
Comments
— Denied access by Group 4. Group 4 needs to be
aware of the duty scheme. They are unaware of the time limits.
— One, pay rates too low.
— Happy to work under the duty scheme, but the time
limits must be reconsidered.
— Out of office time ie social/family/personal life
is "bought" and retained for the ridiculous fee of £4.25
per hour.
— We were led to believe that a 9.00 pm finish would
be very unusual, but it has happened on the two times we have
been called.
— It affects my family and social life. I work under
the scheme as I do not wish to be left out. I fear my livelihood
in case the pilot becomes the norm.
— Have to pay out costs for safety late at night.
| 
