Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence


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



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 26 January 2004