| Paragraph No. and text
| Departmental response
| Outcome/Latest progress
|
| Paragraph 20 We assume, in the light of the Minister's comments, that a "reasonable excuse" will include circumstances where a person fleeing persecution has no practical way of obtaining valid documents. We recommend that the Government make this clear explicitly in the text of the Bill.
| | Accepted. The defences to the offence set out in clause 2 of the Bill were expanded via a Government amendment to cover this concern. Section 2(4) of the Act provides:
(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)-
(e) to prove that he travelled to the United Kingdom without, at any stage since he set out on the journey, having possession of an immigration document.
|
| Paragraph 23 We support in principle the Government's new measures to penalise, in certain circumstances, those who deliberately lose or destroy their travel documentation. However, to avoid disadvantaging genuine refugees, we recommend that the Government should take steps to ensure, as far as is reasonably possible, that the potential consequences of deliberately losing or destroying their documentation is drawn to the attention of people arriving in the UK, both immediately on arrival at a port, and (by requiring carriers to provide this information) prior to arrival.
| | Accepted. We have taken steps to ensure, as far as is reasonably possible, that the potential consequences of deliberately losing or destroying their documentation is drawn to the attention of people arriving in the UK, both immediately on arrival at a port. These include:
- Notices have been displayed at all international airports and sea-ports receiving scheduled passenger traffic, and were in place prior to the commencement of section 2 on 22nd September;
- Notices are being displayed in Asylum Screening Units;
- Notices are also being displayed in some French and Dutch ferry feeder ports;
- Notices in local languages are being displayed in targeted British visa sections overseas;
- The majority of international airlines were formally approached to publicise this offence in their overseas stations. Although we have no authority to require carriers to do this a small number agreed to display notices;
- Consultations with welfare groups such as the refugee council took place prior to the offence coming into force; and
- An addition to the UK section of the Travel Information Manual (used by airlines and travel agents world-wide) to include a section 2 warning, has been made.
|
| Paragraph 26 We support the use of surveillance techniques to assist in linking passengers who lose or destroy their travel papers with their flight of arrival. We recommend that consideration be given to extending such schemes to airports other than Heathrow, and to seaports. We also recommend that the tactic of deploying immigration officers to meet passengers as they disembark from selected flights should be used more often, both to establish where people who have disposed of their travel documents have arrived from, and to send a discouraging message to the criminal 'facilitators'.
| | Accepted. We continue to use a range of methods to identify routes to the UK used by inadequately documented arrivals, including:
- The use of surveillance officers deployed on an intelligence-led basis;
- Close co-operation with the port authorities and other border agencies;
- Use of technology such as CCTV.
The operation of UK controls at overseas locations, Juxtaposed controls, prevent inadequately documented passengers embarking for the UK and have contributed significantly to the reduction in illegal immigration and asylum intake. During 2004 juxtaposed controls have been extended and full UK immigration controls now operate at the ports of Coquelles, Calais, Boulogne and Dunkerque, and at Paris, Lille and Calais Frethun covering all French Eurostar services. Full juxtaposed controls in Brussels, covering the Eurostar service to the UK started on 25 October 2004.
|
| Paragraph 29 We recommend that the Government should clarify its intentions as to whether or not, if it were to introduce a power to require carriers to copy travel documents, this would apply to all carriers and all flights.
| | Accepted. We tabled a new clause on 19 January. This was debated by Standing Committee B on 27 January and now forms part of the Act.
Section 16 gives an Immigration Officer the power to require a carrier to provide either a full or partial copy of any document relating to a passenger and containing information about that passenger. This is intended to address the issue of individuals who destroy their passport or travel document before presenting themselves to Immigration Control. Such action makes establishing their true identity and nationality difficult and obstructs any subsequent attempt to remove them from the UK. A 6 months' trial began in Johannesburg on 14th June to test the impact on carriers and with a further trial beginning in Freetown on 29 October. Only if the voluntary scheme proves ineffective will the provision in the Act be commenced. We will only seek to introduce a statutory requirement to copy documents on routes which have high proportions of inadequately and undocumented arrivals. Before any provision in the Act is commenced, it has been agreed that a voluntary scheme should be tried in co-operation with the industry.
|
| Paragraph 33 We recognize that a power [to require carriers to copy travel documents] such as the Government envisages may be useful if used in the targeted manner described by the Minister. We believe that the Government should demonstrate that the proposal would not cause undue delays to legitimate passengers and that the costs imposed on airlines would be commensurate with the benefits to be gained in tackling abuse of the asylum system. We hope that the Government will not seek to amend the Bill to introduce this provision without first publishing the results of its consultations with carriers and other interested parties. We believe that it would be desirable for the Government to publish an assessment of the operation of similar powers in the Netherlands.
| | Accepted. The summary report on consultation responses was published on 17 December 2003. An amendment was tabled on 19 January and a Regulatory Impact Assessment published. The proposal is being tested in the Johannesburg and Freetown trials as stated above. A full RIA will be published once the results of the trial are known. We are not seeking to impose a particular copying technology upon carriers; the trial will be used to demonstrate whether the copying of documents of all passengers on a flight is feasible.
We are in contact with colleagues in The Netherlands. Due to the different nature of the system used there a separate report would be of limited value. The effectiveness of the system used in the Netherlands will be considered as part of our evaluation.
|
| Paragraph 43 We recommend that, in considering the Government's proposed simplification of the asylum appeals system, the House should consider whether the Government has made sufficient commitment to investing the necessary resources, and making other improvements to the quality of initial decision-making on asylum cases. The real flaws in the system appear to be at the stage of initial decision-making, not that of appeal. We recommend that the implementation of the new asylum appeals system should be contingent on a significant improvement in initial decision making having been demonstrated. In particular, the relevant sections of the Act should not be brought into force until the statistics show a clear reduction in the number of successful appeals at the first-tier, adjudication level.
| | Accepted. We are determined to build on these improvements to ensure that the highest standards are consistently achieved. UNHCR are now working with us to provide an additional external assessment of the quality of decisions, and we are sampling some cases at each stage of the initial decision process.
|
| Paragraph 53 We repeat our earlier recommendation, in respect of non-suspensive appeals, and make a similar recommendation in respect of the proposals relating to 'safe third countries' in the present Bill, i.e. that if the Secretary of State wishes to add further countries to the list in Schedule 3 to the Bill, he should append a written memorandum to the relevant Statutory Instrument, explaining the rationale for believing those countries to be safe.
| | Accepted. We have set a high test to designate countries as safe in the context of the provisions in Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. We have undertaken detailed research to comply with the obligation that we are satisfied as a matter of fact that countries are safe from an ECHR and 1951 Convention point of view within the structure of the legislation. By taking a graduated approach on a statutory basis to deal with human rights claims, we acknowledge that not all countries are the same in that regard and that exceptional cases may arise. The potential remains for an in-country challenge to removal on human rights grounds except where that challenge is certified as clearly unfounded, with that certificate being susceptible to judicial review in an appropriate case. Furthermore Part 6 of Schedule 3 as enacted ensures active Parliamentary scrutiny of the decision to add a country to any of the lists. Parliament will therefore have an opportunity to debate the issues raised and the appropriateness of including a particular country on a list.
|
| Paragraph 69 The principle behind Clause 7, of removing taxpayers' support from those with no right to asylum, is justified, and we do not recommend that Clause 7 be removed from the Bill. However, we recommend that the Government should give assurances that Clause 7 will not come into effect until the House is satisfied that in practice it will not lead to significant numbers of children being taken into care.
| | Accepted. During the passage of the legislation the Government set out clearly the process prior to any withdrawal of support under section 9 (clause 7 as was). Families will receive an initial letter advising them that they have no basis on which to remain and explaining the consequences if they fail, without reasonable excuse, to take reasonable steps to leave the UK voluntarily or to place themselves in a position in which they can do so. They will be offered the opportunity for an interview and will then receive a further warning letter before consideration is given to the withdrawal of support.
The Government remains determined to keep to an absolute minimum the number of instances where it is necessary for children to be accommodated by the local authority and will work closely with local authorities in the 3 local enforcement areas where the procedures will be introduced initially.
|
| Paragraph 70 If the provisions in Clause 7 are brought into effect, we recommend that the Government should submit a written report to Parliament once a year on the number of families from whom benefit has been removed under the terms of the clause, and the number of children who have been taken into care as a result of the operation of the clause.
| | Accepted. We have not published any statistics because sec 9 does not come into force until 1 December. These statistics will only become available once we have started, and when families whose support has been terminated approach Local Authorities for assistance. I understand that they are obliged to tell NASS of any such cases, and NASS will therefore have these statistics eventually.
|
