Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Home Office
QUESTIONS 71-72 (JIM
SHERIDAN): COST
OF LEGAL
AID IN
OTHER COUNTRIES
Neither the Department for Constitutional Affairs
nor the Home Office have information on the comparative costs
of legal aid in other countries for asylum seekers. However, the
Department for Constitutional Affairs would be happy to look into
this further and report back to the committee in due course.
The European Council on Refugees and Exiles
(ECRE) carried out a comparative study in 2000-01 of free and
low cost legal assistance for asylum seekers. This was funded
by the EU. The report sets out the level of legal support that
is provided in each country but does not include details of the
costs. The report may be accessed at the ECRE website (www.ecre.org)
under Policy and Research.
QUESTION 74 (JIM
SHERIDAN): PROSECUTIONS
FOR FRAUDULENT
CLAIMS
Offences commonly investigated by the Immigration
Service include seeking leave to enter/remain by deception (ie
those who claim in multiple identities), facilitation, obtaining
asylum support by false representations and offences under the
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act. The Immigration Service will review
all files passed to it concerning fraudulent asylum claims and,
where evidence exists that an offence under immigration legislation
has been committed, will pass such cases to the CPS for prosecution.
In deciding whether to do so consideration is given to whether
or not there is sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed
to support a realistic prospect of a successful prosecution. In
2003 at ports of entry and at the Asylum Screening Unit at Croydon
644 people were charged with criminal offences of whom 40 were
charged with leave to enter by deception.
QUESTION 86 (MR
JENKINS AND
THE CHAIRMAN):
SAVINGS MADE,
IN TERMS
OF ASYLUM
SUPPORT COSTS,
AS A
RESULT OF
THE INCREASED
NUMBER OF
REMOVALS OF
FAILED ASYLUM
SEEKING FAMILIES
We estimate that the increase in the number
of family removals since 2001 will have saved approximately £50
million in asylum support costs by the end of 2004. Further savings
have been achieved because of the impact of removals on deterring
further asylum seekers.
Assumptions underlying the estimate
The increased speed and volume of failed asylum
seeker removals that has been delivered since 2001 required casework
support, without which the increase in removals would not have
been achieved. The working assumption is therefore that, had we
not increased the number of removals caseworkers from 2001-02,
there would have been no increase in the number of removals above
2001 levels.
The savings figure has been projected to the
end of 2004 for consistency with the approach adopted by NAO in
Appendix 5 to their Report. The available statistics do not permit
family removals to be isolated from total removals before 2001.
In any case, for consistency with the NAO's approach, it is appropriate
to base the analysis on a 2001 baseline.
Similarly, the above figure is based on the
full cost of supporting a family (both fixed and variable costs).
As singles will normally cease to receive support, before they
are removed, the figure does not include any savings in respect
of the additional removals of singles.
Deterrence effect
The estimate of £50 million reflects only
the direct saving in asylum support costs from removing increased
numbers of families. It does not allow for the further costs saved
because of the deterrence impact of increased removals, which
it is not possible to quantify. The substantial reduction in the
intake of asylum seekers into the UK has been due to a number
of factors but one reason has been the clear signal that has gone
out that failed asylum seekers now find themselves more likely
to be removed from the UK than in previous years.
This can be illustrated by considering the impact
of the introduction of fast track processes, which focused on
speeding up the asylum process and linking it to some form of
detention. This allowed for a large proportion of applicants to
be removed. For the relevant nationalities, there was an immediate
and lasting reduction in the number of new asylum claims.
QUESTIONS 103-104
(MR WILLIAMS):
THE NUMBER
OF LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES THAT
IND HAVE REFERRED
TO EITHER
THE OFFICE
OF THE
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
COMMISSIONER (OISC) OR
THE LAW
SOCIETY
IND annually refers over 300 instances of suspected
abuse or malpractice by legal representatives to one or more of
the relevant regulatory bodies including the Law Society and OISC.
The vast majority take the form of information reports, although
a small number of formal complaints are also submitted to the
Law Society in respect of improper conduct by solicitors. IND
does not retain a central record of all referrals.
Information provided by IND regularly results
in investigations or audits by the regulatory bodies. Sanctions
taken include prosecution by the OISC, intervention in a firm
by the Law Society or withdrawal of a legal aid contract by the
Legal Services Commission.
QUESTIONS 105-106
(MR WILLIAMS):
JUDICIARY REPORTING
ON PERFORMANCE
OF LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES
In the first instance an adjudicator who wishes
to make a specific complaint regarding the conduct/standard of
a legal representative forwards a note, giving some detail to
the complaint, to the relevant Regional Adjudicator.
The Regional Adjudicator will determine the
seriousness of the complaint, and weigh this against mitigating
factors such as previous complaints made against the same firm.
If they believe that local intervention would be more appropriate
then correspondence is forwarded to the firm involved detailing
the complaint made against them, asking for a reasoned reply,
and stating that the correspondence will remain on file.
In circumstances where the Regional Adjudicator
believes the complaint is serious enough to warrant official action
it is forwarded with a covering note to the Deputy Chief Adjudicator
who forwards the complaint onto the OISC/Law Society wherein a
caseworker will instigate a formal investigation. Once this has
been completed findings are forwarded to the Deputy Chief Adjudicator
and the original complainant.
The Deputy Chief Adjudicator also receives regular
updates from the Law Society in relation to firms in which they
have intervened, which are circulated amongst the Regional Adjudicators.
QUESTIONS 119-120
(MR DAVIDSON):
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN
LEGAL SERVICES
COMMISSION AND
SCOTTISH LEGAL
AID BOARD
Each year a quadrilateral meeting takes place
between the Legal Services Commission, Scottish Legal Aid Board,
Northern Ireland Law Society and the Legal Aid Board (Ireland).
The respective organisations discuss common issues and areas of
interest.
During the development of the asylum legal aid
reforms last year there was informal contact at official level
with the Scottish Executive (which has responsibility for Scottish
Legal Aid). It is common practice to keep the relevant bodies
in Scotland and Northern Ireland in touch with changes to the
legal aid system in England and Wales.
QUESTION 123 (MR
DAVIDSON): APPLICATIONS
FOR PERMISSION
TO APPEAL
TO THE
TRIBUNAL MADE
BY THE
SECRETARY OF
STATE
Data on the exact proportion of allowed appeals
at the Adjudicator tier that result in applications for permission
to appeal to the Tribunal by the Secretary of State cannot be
provided. This information has only recently been recorded on
IND's case information database in a way that would allow this
calculation to be made.
Historic rates of application by the Secretary
of State seeking permission to appeal to the Immigration Appeal
Tribunal (IAT) can be produced from Immigration Appellate Authority
statistics. It should be noted that, given the timescales involved
in processing appeals, not every appeal allowed at the Adjudicator
tier in a particular period will apply to the IAT in the same
period.
As an indication of the relative proportion
of cases where permission has been sought, the IAA statistics
show that 13,509 appeals were allowed by Adjudicators in 2002.
During the same period, IND sought permission to appeal in 2,379
cases. For 2003, the figures are 15,660 and 4,059 respectively.
QUESTION 130 (MR
DAVIDSON): IMMIGRATION
CONTROL
People who have been recognised as refugees
by another country, including a Member State of the EU, are subject
to the United Kingdom's normal immigration controls. There is
no automatic right for refugees recognised elsewhere in the European
Union to settle here.
Until last year there was no visa requirement
for visits of three months or less for those holding Refugee Convention
travel documents issued by countries which were signatories to
the Council of Europe Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for
Refugees. This exemption was however suspended as there was evidence
of abuse.
The United Kingdom will in some instances accept
responsibility for the protection of a refugee recognised elsewhere,
and give them indefinite leave to enter or remain (ILTE/R) as
a refugee. Any such decision will be based upon the exercise of
the Secretary of State's discretion outside the Immigration Rules.
Some cases will fall within the scope of the Council of Europe
Agreement on the Transfer of Responsibility for Refugees (EATRR).
We are at present satisfied that these arrangements are not being
abused.
The European Commission has been investigating
the possibility of bringing forward a Community instrument on
the transfer of refugee status between EU Member States, probably
by an extension of the Directive concerning the Status of the
Third-country Nationals who are Long-term Residents to include
refugees. The United Kingdom has the right under a protocol to
the Treaties to decide on a case by case base whether to participate
in Community legislation on immigration and asylum. We do not
participate in the "parent" directive referred to above.
The Home Office does not include figures on
transfer of refugee status in the quarterly bulletin of asylum
statistics. We know however from case working figures that these
numbers are extremely low.
QUESTION 144 (MR
WILLIAMS): DATA
PROTECTION ACT
Mr Williams asked whether the Data Protection
Act 1998 (DPA) inhibits the work of IND. Under the DPA, generally
speaking, we are not permitted to provide personal information
on an individual to a third party and as a result are not able
to provide information to MPs who write to us on behalf of third
parties.
In particular, we regularly receive requests
for information from MPs on behalf of estranged spouses who are
alleged to have been subject to abuse. The spouses seek personal
information about their ex partner. Until recently we have not
been permitted to provide information, as the spouse is a third
party. However, recent legal advice suggests that there is some
scope to be a little more forthcoming with information that we
supply in reply to MPs.
Ministers have therefore recently agreed that
in future in such cases IND should disclose the following information:
— confirmation of whether according
to our records, the former spouse is still in the UK or has left
the country;
— confirmation in cases where we intend
to take no further action against the former spouse; and
— confirmation of whether an application
for leave to remain on the basis of marriage to the constituent
has been granted or refused.
In addition to this, once a case has reached
appeal and been determined, the contents of the appeal determination
are a matter of public record and may also be disclosed.
3 August 2004
| 
