| Paragraph No. and text
| Progress report 2004
| Progress report 2005
|
| Paragraph 27: It is very difficult to address the problem of over-staying failed asylum seekers effectively in the absence of reliable statistics. It is not satisfactory that the Government is unable to offer even a rough estimate of the number of failed asylum seekers remaining in the UK.
| The Government is continuing its work towards the development of a method to estimate numbers of illegal residents in the UK. The methods used in other countries, identified by Home Office commissioned research, have been given detailed consideration in the light of the availability of appropriate UK based data. Primary data collection exercises specifically for the purpose of estimating the illegal population are not feasible, due to disproportionate costs. A method of estimating the size of the illegally resident UK population is currently under development using existing data sources. The primary goal is to develop a method to produce a 'working estimate', to which further refinements can be made over the medium term.
| Accepted. The Government published its work on sizing the unauthorised (illegal) migrant population in the UK in 2001 as a Home Office Online Report (29/05) in June 2005. Home Office commissioned research identified methods used in other countries and it was decided that the Residual Method, used in the USA, was the only method that could currently be sensibly applied in the UK. The methodology was adapted to obtain an indication of the number of unauthorised immigrants living in the UK using data available in the UK. Using the Residual Method, the total unauthorised migrant population (including failed asylum seekers) living in the UK in April 2001 has a central estimate of 430,000. However, it must be emphasised that this is just one method for such estimation and that over-reliance must not be placed on the results in the absence of the means to produce other estimates using different methods.
|
| Paragraph 27: We believe that the Government should explore the most appropriate method for building a complete picture of net migration into the UK.
| The National Statistics Quality Review on International Migration Statistics was published in September 2003. An implementation plan has been drawn up and progress is being monitored by a project board chaired by the Office of National Statistics.
Expressions of interest have been received for work on the second National Statistics review of the publication the 'Control Of Immigration Statistics: United Kingdom' and invitations to tender are about to be issued. It is expected that work will commence shortly.
| Accepted. An implementation plan for taking forward the 19 recommendations of the review was published in January 2004. Progress has already been achieved against a number of the review recommendations, and further work is planned.
- new questions introduced to the International Passenger Survey (IPS) both to identify shorter-term migrants and to allow investigation of the relationship between peoples' intended and actual lengths of stay; analysis of this new data will be undertaken as soon as it becomes available, and findings will be fed into the methods used to estimate visitor and migrant switchers;
- comparison work of overseas estimates of immigration from the UK with estimates of emigration to those countries is in progress, with initial work having focussed on EU countries;
- work is ongoing to compare data from Home Office sources and the IPS, and to evaluate methods for their integration; some minor methodological improvements have already been implemented for the 2003 Total International Migration estimates (published in November 2004);
- requirements for information on international migration are being fed into the development of future data sources, in particular the Home Office e-borders programme.
Work is ongoing on the second National Statistics review on the Command Paper the 'Control Of Immigration Statistics: United Kingdom', an early findings paper was published in August 2005 at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Consultations/immigrationstats.asp. The report is due for completion by the end of 2005, when it will go to the National Statistician for approval before consideration is given upon how to respond to its recommendations.
|
| Paragraph 36: We are concerned at the number of initial decisions which are not sustained, and this is an issue to which we shall return in our forthcoming inquiry into Asylum Applications.
| One factor in the high overturn of appeals is the time gap between the initial decision and the determination of the appeal. As the speed of appeals increases and the backlog of asylum claims come close to elimination, the rate of overturns should reduce.
We have agreed with Treasury Solicitors and UNHCR a substantial expansion of their involvement in the sampling of asylum decisions. External sampling has quadrupled to 100 cases per month since August 2004.
We are satisfied that, in general terms, caseworkers finish initial training with the skills required to make sound initial decisions on asylum claims.
| Accepted. The New Asylum Model (NAM) includes a case owner, responsible for every claimant until the end of the case, with responsibility for all the key stages of the claim, from when it is first made, through to either integration or removal. Under the New Asylum Model being developed for the handling of asylum claims, case owners will be responsible for both the initial decisions and presentation of the Home Office case on appeal. This will help to ensure that there is direct feedback on the quality of the initial decision.
|
| Paragraph 42: We recommend that—
(1) if the Secretary of State wishes to add further countries to the list in Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, he should append a written memorandum to the relevant Statutory Instrument, explaining the rationale for believing those countries to be safe;
(2) if grounds other than nationality for considering an claim "clearly unfounded" are developed by the Home Office, an explanation of those grounds should be made available to this Committee; and
(3) a review of the practicality and effects of non-suspensive appeals should be carried out after they have been in operation for 12 months.
| We have produced revised instructions to reflect, amongst other things, the commencement of provisions in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, concerning the non-suspensive appeals process, which took effect on 1 October 2004. They contain a section on "case-by-case" certification, i.e. certification of clearly unfounded claims made by those who are not residents of a designated State.
The monitor, Sarah Woodhouse, was appointed in January 2004. She will produce annual reports from 2005 onwards in accordance with the requirements of the legislation.
| Accepted in part. Recommendations 2 and 3 accepted. Recommendation 1 not accepted.
The monitor, Sarah Woodhouse produced her first report in July 2005 and she will produce annual reports from 2005 onwards in accordance with the requirements of the legislation.
|
| Paragraph 48: We recommend that the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme is opened up to detainees in Removal Centres, advertised in the Centres and otherwise brought to the attention of detainees. We further recommend that the Immigration Service advises asylum seekers of the option of voluntary return from the beginning of the asylum process.
| The Government is continuing to look at ways in which the voluntary assisted returns and reintegration programme can be expanded. This includes ensuring that information about the programme is made available to asylum seekers at every stage in the asylum process. The Government is considering the recommendation to extend the scheme to detainees.
| Accepted. IND is already committed to ensuring that the case owners, who will have charge of individual claims handled under the New Asylum Model, ensure that claimants are aware of opportunities such as voluntary departure.
|
| Paragraph 58: We recognise the difficulties posed by the absence of proper travel documents to co-operate with the return of their citizens. We welcome the establishment by IND of a dedicated Documentation Unit and assurances that the Immigration Service now seeks to tackle this problem at an early stage in the proceedings and look forward to seeing these changes reflected in the figures for removals.
| The IS Documentation Unit has continued to build on its earlier success in securing travel documentation as well as playing a key role in formulating and pursuing returns objectives under the Country Action Plans. The "Think Documentation" initiative aims to embed the early address of documentation issues within processes, as well as raising the quality of evidence submitted to receiving countries when seeking re-documentation. The demands upon ISDU remain high, and the unit is currently working to recruit to fill remaining vacancies with a target completion of two months. Over and above this, additional work needs to be completed to meet new targets. The continuing increase in the number of countries that will not accept the use of the EU Letter and insist upon the UK lodging an application for a travel document may require a further increase in resources in due course.
| Accepted. The ISDU programme included setting KPIs in relation to processing applications (which are consistently met) and increasing staff numbers to a baseline of 72. To date, the unit consists of over 60 staff with a designated management team with sole responsibility for managing ISDU. A system of regular reviews is currently being rolled out with Embassies / High Commissions and ports, as is closer working with the International Delivery Directorate, Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Country Targeting Unit. ISDU are working closely with colleagues involved in the New Asylum Model and Documentation Units across the country to ensure a coordinated approach is adopted to achieve the overall objective of increasing the number of removals. In addition, the team are about to embark on a programme of road shows to share best practise and raise the importance of obtaining supporting evidence at the earliest opportunity to assist in obtaining Emergency Travel Documents. ISDU has continued to build on its earlier success in securing travel documentation as well as playing a key role in formulating and pursuing returns objectives under the Country Action Plans. The "Think Documentation" initiative aims to embed the early address of documentation issues within processes, as well as raising the quality of evidence submitted to receiving countries when seeking re-documentation.
|
| Paragraph 60: We consider that the negotiation of Readmission Agreements with countries currently reluctant to accept the return of their nationals should be a diplomatic priority.
| IND and the FCO have been working closely together to resolve these issues as part of a joint HO/FCO taskforce on immigration. The UK has successfully negotiated bilateral returns arrangements on the return of immigration offenders with a number of states, including Afghanistan, India, Somaliland, Sri Lanka and Turkey. We are currently in negotiations to extend these arrangements with other countries. The UK fully supports the European Commission's negotiations on readmission agreements with third countries.
| Accepted. We have now secured agreements with most of our source countries.
|
| Paragraph 65: In the absence of adequate statistics, it is difficult to know the extent of the problems caused by absconding. The current situation, in which the Home Office simply does not know —even in broad outline —what proportion of failed asylum seekers abscond is unacceptable. It ought to be possible to obtain at least a snapshot of the scale of the problem and we recommend that steps are taken to do this without delay.
| Work is ongoing to develop methodology to identify absconders using existing data sources and to collate reliable data. Once this has been completed, we will analyse the data and if the data quality is satisfactory, we will consider the most appropriate method for publishing this information.
| Accepted. Work is still continuing in this area
|
Paragraph 82: We recommend that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate should provide quarterly figures on total numbers detained during the period with lengths of detention.
| Data on the number of persons detained over a period continues to be unavailable. Although a possible methodology for estimating detention over a period has been developed, there is currently no way to independently verify the figures. There is a major quality issue with the data held on people detained in prison establishments under Immigration Act provisions. This is currently being investigated, with a reconciliation of all the relevant data sources. Any necessary revisions to the regular statistics will be considered once the issue has been resolved.
| Accepted. Work is continuing on this issue.
|
| Paragraph 96: We regret the delay in publishing a full set of detailed Operating Standards for Removal Centres. As the Centres have now been operating for some time, the inevitable consequence of this delay has been the emergence of undesirable disparities in standards and conditions between different Centres. We urge that remaining Operating Standards should be published as soon as possible. Standards governing visiting hours and legal access are particularly needed. We further recommend that standards should be raised in those Removal Centres run in former Prison Service accommodation, to match the best practice of privately-contracted Centres, and that a target date should be set by which consistency of standards across private and public Removal Centres is to be achieved. If, after a reasonable time, the public sector is unable to achieve an acceptable standard, the contract should be put out to tender.
| We have now issued 24 operating standards and these cover the following areas: Activities (adults), Activities (children), Admissions/Discharge, Arrangements for Expenditure, Case Progress, Catering, Clothing, Communications, Complaints/Requests, Detainees' Cash, Detainees' Property, Female Detainees, Healthcare, Interpreters/Translations, Personnel/Staff Training, Race Relations, Religion, Removal from Association, Safer Removal Centres, Security, Standards Audit, Suicide and Self-Harm, Temporary Confinement & Use of Force.
The final set of draft standards is currently out to consultation.
| Accepted. A full set of 36 operating standards has been issued and are available on the IND website. The final standards being issued in January 2005.
|
| Paragraph 99: We accept that current arrangements for access to legal advice are inadequate. It may be that the matter can be resolved by appointment of a welfare officer, as we have recommended at paragraph 75 above, who can either put detainees in touch with their own legal representatives or who can provide access to emergency legal advice. Failing that, however, consideration should be given to providing detainees with access to a duty solicitor.
| The Government remains concerned to ensure that detainees have access to competent, independent legal advice and representation. IND is facilitating a research project to be conducted jointly by the Office of the Immigration Service Commissioner, the Law Society and the Legal Services Commission to assess the extent of the problem in particular removal centres.
| Accepted. A welfare officer post is being piloted at Haslar Removal Centre and, if successful, will be extended to all centres.
Asylum claimants subject to detained fast track processes have access to a legal representative before their asylum interview. At Harmondsworth and Yarl's Wood this is via a duty solicitor scheme administered by the Legal Services Commission.
|
| Paragraph 114: We believe that the welfare of the child should be paramount, and that separation of a child of an asylum seeker from both parents by removal is nearly always unjustified.
| The Government position and the working practices in respect of this recommendation remain unchanged.
| Accepted. The Government position and the working practices in respect of this recommendation remain largely unchanged.
Ministerial consent must now be sought when the family are being separated by the actions of IND either for removal to different countries or where we are not seeking to remove one or more members of the family if;
a) the family had been a family unit before arrival in the UK and it remains subsisting, or
b) it is a subsisting family unit.
|
| Paragraph 130: We recommend that the Home Office, through the Advisory Panel on Country Information, commissions research into the reception of failed asylum seekers by the authorities in their source countries, after removal
| The evaluation of the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) 2003, undertaken by IRSS together with Deloitte Consulting, has explored the effectiveness of reintegration support provided to failed asylum seekers and others who have returned voluntarily to their countries of origin. This exploration has included qualitative fieldwork with returnees to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of their return and reintegration. It also seeks to ascertain how support could be improved in the future. The evaluation is due to be published by the end of the year. No research is planned on non-voluntary returns.
A new Voluntary Returns Steering Group, composed of Home Office officials and members of refugee NGOs, UNHCR and the IOM, has been established to help develop strategy and to inform policy on voluntary returns. It will consider the sustainability of returns and will aim to identify gaps in existing research and recommend research proposals for the future.
| Accepted. A programme for the ongoing monitoring of VARRP is now being finalised, to go to tender before Christmas. This is a three year programme, combining analysis of IOM data with interviews with returners and stakeholders in the most common destination countries.
No research is planned on forced returns.
|
| Paragraph 133: We believe it is self evident that the efficient removal of asylum seekers whose claims have failed is a precondition for the credibility of the entire asylum process.
| There has been a substantial increase in the removal of failed asylum seekers and an increase in those who are returning home voluntarily. In 1996, the number of removals was equivalent to only 20% of unsuccessful claims. So far this year, that proportion has increased to alm.ost 50%.
The Government has introduced, and continues to introduce, a number of initiatives in order to remove those people who have no legal basis of stay in the United Kingdom. These include the 'Back on Track' scheme, the expansion of the detention centre estate, using contact management more intelligently in order to maintain contact with failed asylum seekers, and developing routes to overcome barriers to return to prioritised countries.
| Accepted. The end-to-end role of the New Asylum Model case owner has been developed in order to achieve in non-detained cases the close case management and swift integration or removal at the conclusion of the case which is normally achievable where the claimant is detained.
|
| Paragraph 135: We also reach a number of conclusions and make recommendations about how to make the system quicker and more efficient. There is a pressing need for more accurate statistics. Improvements are essential to the process of initial decision-making. Enforced removals need to be carried out more rapidly, effectively and humanely.
| The Government is continuing to promote voluntary returns through a number of different avenues. A new Voluntary Returns Steering Group, composed of Home Office officials and members of refugee NGOs, UNHCR and the IOM, has been established to help develop strategy and to inform policy on voluntary returns.
| Accepted. IND is already committed to ensuring that the case owners, who will have charge of individual claims handled under the New Asylum Model, ensure that claimants are aware of opportunities such as voluntary departure.
|
