| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Jul 2005 : Column 755W—continued
Asylum Seekers
Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last six months asylum detainees have been transported to and from Yarl's Wood and Oakington Detention Centres in vehicles not equipped with CCTV; and if he will make a statement. [8453]
Mr. McNulty: This information is not readily available and the provision of a reply would be at disproportionate cost.
Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the grounds were for an order for deportation made against Anastancia Zulu, a Zimbabwean national detained at Yarl's Wood Detention Centre, on 14 June 2005. [8502]
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 30 June 2005]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 7 July 2005.
Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those applying for asylum in the UK who had their application fast tracked during 2004 were detained for the duration of their application process; and what the average time taken to process a fast track application was in 2004. [8946]
Mr. McNulty: There are two separate detained fast track processes, which were operating in 2004. The Oakington process, which incorporates Non-Suspensive Appeals (NSA) and the Detained Fast Track at Harmondsworth.
During 2004, 6,520 applicants entered the Oakington process. The average length of stay for a detainee is not recorded centrally. However, the fast track process at Oakington is intended for claims which, upon initial screening, appear capable of being decided quickly in about 7 to 14 days. Claimants from countries listed on the designated NSA list at Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 are subject to the NSA procedure from the outset. Claimants who receive a clearly unfounded decision at Oakington can be immediately removed. Some claimants may stay at Oakington after their NSA decision pending re-documentation or because they are seeking to pursue a judicial review. Where appropriate to do so, they are detained at Oakington pending removal, others may be moved to other centres. The majority of claimants who do not receive a certified decision are released on temporary admission on completion of the Oakington process whilst their appeal is processed.
During 2004, 1,105 asylum applicants entered the Detained Fast Track at Harmondsworth. Since its inception in April 2003, the average time of detention
11 Jul 2005 : Column 756W
for applicants in the fast track stands at 44 days from arrival at Harmondsworth to release and/or removal, this information is based on internal management information as such is not published within the official statistics.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were received from Eritrean nationals in (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03, (d) 2003–04 and (e) 2004–05; and how many Eritrean nationals were deported in each year. [9781]
Mr. McNulty: Information on asylum applications and asylum removals are published quarterly on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
n/a=not available.
(55)Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration, and removals on safe third country grounds.
(56)Figures rounded to the nearest five and *=1 or 2, may not sum due to rounding.
(57)Data have been estimated due to data quality issues.
(58)Provisional figures.
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are appealing against refusals. [10101]
Mr. McNulty: Information on asylum initial decision outcomes and appeal outcomes is published quarterly and annually on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications have been made in Scotland since January; and if he will make a statement. [10285]
Mr. McNulty: Applications are made for asylum in the UK as a whole. The available data relates to the UK. Data are not available for constituent countries within the UK. Applications, excluding dependants, fell by 17 per cent. in quarter one (January to March) 2005 compared with the previous quarter. Information on asylum applications in the United Kingdom by nationality are published quarterly on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence his Department has collated on the treatment of people whose applications for asylum in the UK are refused and who are returned to Zimbabwe. [10330]
11 Jul 2005 : Column 757W
Mr. McNulty: We have not received any corroborated reports of systematic mistreatment of returnees to Zimbabwe. We do not routinely monitor the treatment of individuals once removed from the UK. But our assessment of the situation on the ground is constantly monitored from a wide variety of sources, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, media reports and UK Government contacts with NGOs on the ground. Through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with those NGOs operating within the country we follow up any specific allegations of ill-treatment of returned failed asylum seekers. The country of origin information used by Home Office caseworkers is publicly available on the Home Office website.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's use of internal flight alternative as a reason for refusal of asylum applications. [10899]
Mr. McNulty: If a claimant has a well founded fear of persecution in their home area we will consider whether there is another part of their country in which they would be safe from persecution and to which it would be reasonable to expect the claimant to move. If there is, the claimant would not qualify for asylum. However, if there is no other part of the country that is safe from persecution or it would be unduly harsh to expect a claimant to relocate to a safe part of the country, then their fear of persecution in relation to the country as a whole would be well-founded. Instructions to caseworkers on the question of internal relocation are published on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's website.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guarantees have been received by his Department that returned Darfuri asylum seekers will not be at serious risk of torture or inhumane treatment in Khartoum; [11061]
(2) what steps he has taken to ensure the UK fulfils its commitment to avoid refoulement of asylum seekers. [11429]
Mr. McNulty: Each asylum and human rights claim is considered on its individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Claimants who meet the definition of a refugee in the 1951 convention are granted asylum. If they do not qualify for asylum, but there are other circumstances that make them particularly vulnerable and engage our obligations under the ECHR, they are granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. If their application is refused, they have a right of appeal to the independent Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. In this way we ensure that we provide protection to those who need it. Conditions in the countries of origin of asylum applicants are continuously monitored.
Each application is considered against the background of the latest available country of origin information from a wide range of reliable sources including intergovernmental organisations (such as the UN), governmental sources (including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and human rights organisations (for example Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch). We fully recognise that the precarious
11 Jul 2005 : Column 758W
conditions in Sudan for those of non-Arab ethnicity originating from Darfur are such that there are individuals who are able to demonstrate a need for international protection. In particular leading members of non-Arab ethnic Darfuri tribes, those classed as 'intellectuals' or who are prominent human rights activists from non-Arab ethnic groups. We do not however consider that each and every Sudanese national from Darfur who applies for asylum is in need of international protection. In a recent country guidance appeal determination (AE (Sudan) CG [2005] UKAIT 00101, promulgated 3 May 2005), the independent tribunal considered the most recent situation reports by a range of key sources including UNHCR, Amnesty International and Global IDP Project and ruled that ordinary non-Arab ethnic Darfuris may relocate internally to the capital Khartoum where they are safe from persecution. In accordance with these tribunal findings, we consider that, depending on the individual circumstances of the case, internal relocation for ordinary non-Arab ethnic Darfuris is a safe and viable option. In such cases, Khartoum is the most practical location in terms of safety and viability and we specifically advise that this profile of Darfuri is safe from persecution in the capital. We do not routinely monitor the treatment of individuals once removed from the UK. However, any specific allegations of ill-treatment of returned failed asylum seekers would be followed up through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with those NGOs operating within the country concerned.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what evidence he relies on to formulate a view that a country can take back asylum seekers without persecution; and how often such a view is updated; [11169]
(2) what steps the Government and their consular officials take (a) to help and (b) to keep track of returned asylum seekers in their home country. [11168]
Mr. McNulty:
Each asylum and human rights claim is considered on its individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Claimants who meet the definition of a refugee in the 1951 convention are granted asylum. If they do not qualify for asylum, but there are other circumstances that make them particularly vulnerable and engage our obligations under the ECHR, they are granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. If their application is refused, they have a right of appeal to the independent Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. In this way we ensure that we provide protection to those who need it. Conditions in the countries of origin of asylum applicants are continuously monitored. Each application is considered against the background of the latest available country of origin information from a wide range of reliable sources including intergovernmental organisations (such as the UN), governmental sources (including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and human rights organisations (for example Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch). We do not routinely monitor the treatment of individuals once removed from the UK. However, any specific allegations of ill-treatment of returned failed
11 Jul 2005 : Column 759W
asylum seekers are followed up through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with those NGOs operating within the country concerned.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |