47. Seventh supplementary memorandum
submitted by the Home Office
You raised a number of queries in connection
with your Inquiry into Asylum Applications. I will answer these
in the order they were raised.
1. With which countries does the UK have an
agreed return/resettlement programme for returned asylum seekers?
The UK does not in general seek formal agreements
with third countries on returns, because of their obligation to
take back their own nationals in accordance with the provisions
of the Chicago Convention. Wherever possible (and this is the
case with most countries) we return using the EU laissez passer,
which is in our experience the simplest and quickest approach.
Where third countries do not accept the EU letter we seek informal,
or where necessary formal, agreements to return by other means
as simply and quickly as possible.
Similarly we don't have formal agreements with
countries which host refugees we are planning to resettle, instead
we work through the auspices of UNHCR. So far we have interviewed
people living in Guinea and Sierra Leone. Our resettlement hub
is based in Ghana. In future we are looking to other African countries
and possibly South East Asia.
2. What progress has been made with implementing
the recommendations of the independent review of NASS? Has the
action plan promised in a Written Answer on 15 July 2003 (cols
30-31WS) been published yet? If so, could the Committee be supplied
with a copy.
We have developed an agreed action plan following
the independent review of NASS which is now being delivered, and
it is planned that a further statement on progress will be made
in due course.
3. Has the package of measures on children
in detention which the Minister of State referred to in oral evidence
on 21 October (Q 816) been published yet? If so, could the Committee
be supplied with a copy.
The package of measures relating to children
in detention that I mentioned during my oral evidence are not
contained in a published document as such but I announced them
on 16 December in the context of our response to the inspection
report for Dungavel Removal Centre published by HM Chief Inspector
of Prisons. The measures include:
— express Ministerial authorisation
for any family with children to be detained beyond 28 days;
— the appointment of a senior IND official
to oversee cases involving detained children to ensure that there
are no administrative delays that might extend their detention;
— a commitment to consider ways in
which the assessment of the welfare and educational needs of children
detained for more than just a short period might be improved;
and
— a commitment, following consultation
with the Scottish Executive, to work with HM Inspectorate of Education
and South Lanarkshire Education Authority, to ensure that the
educational provision at Dungavel meets the needs of individual
children, particularly in those exceptional cases where children
are detained for more than just a short period.
4. Has the Home Office yet issued its formal
response to HM Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on Harmondsworth
Detention Centre? If so, could the Committee be supplied with
a copy.
We have yet to respond formally to the inspection
report on Harmondsworth Removal Centre but would expect to do
so early in the New Year.
5. Has the Government reached any conclusions
yet on the Committee's recommendation that embarkation controls
should be reinstated at UK borders? (In her response to the Committee's
asylum removals report, the Minister of State said "I will
respond to the Committee about this issue separately in due course."—HC
1006.)
We are keeping the option for embarkation controls
under review, taking into account cost, the move towards capturing
details of arriving and embarking passengers electronically and
our current capability to conduct random, short term embarkation
controls if necessary. Targeted embarkation exercises have already
been undertaken and subject to operational priorities we plan
to undertake further special exercises to help estimate the number
of failed asylum seekers leaving the United Kingdom voluntarily.
6. The meeting of EU justice and home affairs
ministers in November 2003 postponed further consideration of
the draft directives on asylum procedures and on qualification
and status of refugees till May 2004. What are the outstanding
issues in contention on these draft directives and what is HMG's
position on these issues?
Negotiations on the Qualification and Procedures
Directives will continue during the Irish Presidency, which has
indicated that it will be aiming for a general approach by the
Tampere deadline (of May 2004). There are a number of issues in
the Procedures Directive with which the Member States still have
difficulties—for example, the criteria specified for the
designation of Safe Countries of Origin, the Safe Third Country
articles and the Appeals Chapter. The current Safe Countries of
Origin text might prohibit the designation of a country that retains
the death penalty, and the Safe Third Country articles contain
criteria that go beyond the key elements of non-refoulement and
absence of persecution and treatment contrary to Article 3 of
the ECHR. On Appeals discussions are continuing, but we think
it's important to ensure that the final text does not force Member
States to change their judicial systems. The Qualification Directive
is waiting for Germany to resolve internal difficulties on subsidiary
protection before it can be discussed at the JHA Council.
7. The Refugee Council told the Committee
that the removal of the right to work after six months had had
an unintended side-effect of depriving asylum seekers of access
to English for Speakers of Other Languages, orientation and prevocational
training programmes funded by the European Social Fund to which
the right to work acts as a passport. The Refugee Council claimed
that under devolved arrangements in Scotland there is no such
prohibition on asylum seekers taking part in European Social Fund
programmes. Are the Refugee Council's claims correct? If so, does
the Government propose to take any action to enable asylum seekers
in England and Wales to regain access to ESF programmes?
You were concerned that the removal of the right
to work after six months had deprived asylum seekers of access
to European Social Fund programmes to which the right to work
acts as a passport, and that the Scottish Executive was adopting
a more flexible interpretation of the rules of the scheme. There
have been developments since the Committee received its evidence
on this point. The Home Office agreed in the middle of 2003, in
response to representations from the Refugee Council, that access
to certain pre-vocational programmes available under the terms
of the Fund, including some English Language programmes, should
not be ruled out for asylum seekers.
8. Asylum Statistics: 3rd Quarter 2003 show
that India was one of the top 10 source countries in that period,
with 655 asylum seekers to the UK. Does the Home Office have any
information on where within India these asylum seekers come from,
ie are they Muslims coming from conflict areas such as Gujarat
or Kashmir, or do they come from areas of India where there is
little conflict?
We do not keep statistical records of the parts
of a country from which asylum seekers come. However, the impression
from those dealing with the cases is that a very significant proportion
if not the majority of asylum claims from Indian nationals are
from young male Sikhs from Punjab. Most of these applications
are based on having either forcibly or voluntarily supported/harboured
terrorists, having associated with terrorists, or of being a member
of a terrorist organisation.
9. We have been told that NASS hardship support
under s4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 relies on two
centres only, one in Grimsby and one in Penzance, and that 80%
of hard cases claims under s4 are rejected. Is this correct? Can
you give us more information about how claims under s4 are processed
and where accommodation is provided under the section?
The majority of successful applicants for Section
4 support are accommodated through an arrangement with the YMCA
organisation. The person's details are referred to a central point
of contact in the YMCA and accommodation is arranged at one of
the organisation's many centres around the country. The choice
of location depends on availability at the particular time. At
present, out of a total of over 200 persons accommodated by the
organisation only 13 are in the YMCA in Grimsby and five in Penzance.
Most are in YMCAs in the south east. About 100 persons are currently
accommodated by other providers and nearly all of these have been
placed in the north of England (Manchester and Sheffield mainly).
The proportion of applications that are successful
varies over time, but is currently about 50%. In November, 90
applications were refused and 82 accepted and in December 68 refused
and 61 accepted. The reason why so many are refused is that they
do not meet the criteria to be granted accommodation. Section
4 support is not granted to failed asylum seekers who can reasonably
be expected to leave the United Kingdom but choose not to, but
only to those who can show that they are temporarily unable to
do so for reasons outside their control.
Beverley Hughes MP
Minister of State
6 January 2003
| 
