|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children of failed asylum applicants are held in immigration detention centres; and what the equivalent figure was for (a) March 2006 and (b) March 2005. 
As at 26 March 2005, there were 40 asylum applicants, including dependants, recorded as being under 18, detained solely under Immigration Act powers. As at 25 March 2006, there were 50 asylum applicants, including dependants, recorded as being under 18, detained solely under Immigration Act powers. These figures are rounded to the nearest five.
The number of children detained with their families solely under Immigration Act powers will change from day to day. However, internal management information shows that, as at 22 March 2007 there were 67 minors detained with their families solely under Immigration Act powers. This figure includes asylum applicants and non-asylum cases. This figure does not constitute part of National Statistics as it is based on management information. This information has not been quality assured under National Statistics protocols and should be treated as provisional.
It is not possible to identify, within three figures, which stage of the asylum process a person has reached when detained; this information would be available by examination of individual records only at disproportionate cost. The decision to detain is made on a case by case basis and may be appropriate in one or more of the following circumstances: to effect removal; while a persons identity and basis of claim are established; where a person presents a risk of absconding or where an asylum application is capable of being decided quickly.
Minors are detained only in two limited circumstances: first, as part of a family group whose detention is considered appropriate; second, when unaccompanied, while alternative care arrangements are made and normally just overnight. While the detention of families with children is very regrettable, it nevertheless remains necessary in appropriate cases in order to maintain an effective immigration control and to tackle abuses of the asylum system.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Treasury on allowing immigrants the right to work while awaiting a decision on their immigration status. 
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people suspected of being in the United Kingdom illegally have been taken into custody by each of the police forces in Wales since April 2006. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 27 February 2007]: The information requested regarding the immigration status of all those arrested is not collated centrally by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform. Records are not broken down by police force and therefore an answer to this question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons taken into custody by the police forces in Wales as suspected illegal immigrants have been released on Immigration Service instructions and failed to report to the destination indicated by the immigration services since April 2006. 
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when (a) he and (b) officials in his Department were first made aware of the case of the five men in North Wales whom the Immigration and Nationality Directorate office in Liverpool instructed to be released; and what actions he took in consequence; 
(2) whether the five individuals apprehended by North Wales Police and then released on Immigration and Nationality Directorate instructions to attend the Liverpool offices reported to those offices or any other immigration facility. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answers 27 February 2007]: I wrote to the chief constable of North Wales on 9 March about the incident and have asked the heads of Enforcement and Removals to meet with him to discuss arrangements between the Border and Immigration Agency and North Wales Police and discuss how the response to such events can be strengthened. This meeting is scheduled to take place later in the month.
The recently published enforcement strategy Enforcing the Rules also announced an increase in resources to position enforcement officers in a number of police centres around the UK to help improve how these referrals are handled.
John Reid: The points-based system will be introduced in line with the dates already announced in the IND review, i.e. April 2008 for highly skilled migrants (referred to as Tier 1) and April 2009 for other tiers applying to skilled workers, students, youth mobility and temporary workers.
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to determine the application of Tahsin Taha Mohammad Ali (reference A1148096) for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. 
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people applied for compensation from the immigration and nationality directorate in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and in how many cases compensation was paid consequently; 
(3) how many compensation payments of (a) less than £500, (b) between £501 and £1,000, (c) between £1,001 and £2,000 and (d) more than £2,000 were paid by the immigration and nationality directorate in the most recent year for which figures are available. 
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has forwarded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the decisions of the Immigration Judge on 23 May and of the Tribunal on 18 August (reference OA/17132/2005) in the case of Mr. W. G. of Pakistan, husband of Mrs. A. M. of Aylesbury; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: In order to make it easier for people who come here legally to comply with the rules, IND plans to increase the level of proactive contact with individuals with limited leave to come to Britain, for example by using proactive phone calls and text messaging to people whose visas are about to expire.
We will be able to use both fixed and mobile phone numbers to send text messages to individuals and initial data retrieval indicates that we have around 200,000 telephone numbers for people given temporary leave to remain.
In relation to failed asylum seekers, the New Asylum Model (NAM) involves an assigned IND caseworker having daily/weekly contact with asylum applicants either in person or over the telephone. This vigorous contact management approach will ensure that regular contact is maintained with the asylum applicant throughout the whole asylum process.
Mr. Byrne: In relation to failed asylum seekers, the New Asylum Model (NAM) involves an assigned IND caseworker having daily/weekly contact with asylum applicants either in person or over the telephone. This vigorous contact management approach will ensure that regular contact is maintained with the asylum applicant throughout the whole asylum process.
Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations he consulted before setting up the Employers' Task Force on the points based system of immigration control. 
Mr. Byrne: Prior to establishing the Employer Taskforce we consulted with the Confederation for British Industry, British Chamber of Commerce, Federation of Small Businesses, Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the DTI and the Treasury on the membership of the Taskforce. Based on their advice, membership has been drawn from a cross section of employers, both large and small, who employ migrant workers, have an interest in working in partnership with the Home Office to shape migration policy and who can represent the interests of all employers.
Mr. Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on which occasions since 2005 officials from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have carried out checks at the ports of (a) Fishguard and (b) Pembroke Dock. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer s 5 March 2007]: This information cannot be disclosed as this could provide information of value to those seeking to circumvent immigration controls, thereby prejudicing the prevention and detection of immigration offences.
Mr. Walter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what date he was informed by the Irish Government of the suspension of the provisions of the Common Travel Area at Irish airports; 
(2) what representations he has made to the Irish Government on (a) the suspension of the provisions of the Common Travel Area at Irish airports and (b) the systematic requests made by the Irish authorities of passengers arriving at Irish airports from the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to produce passports; 
Mr. Byrne [holding answers 21 March 2007]: As the Common Travel Area (CTA) is not the result of a treaty or law, it is subject to change (by either side) without negotiation. UK Home Office officials were made aware, in advance, of the introduction of ID checks at Irish airports from 28 June 1997.
The police service, who carry out selective enforcement and security operations on people entering the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic, retain no central records of the volume of passengers asked to show travel documents.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for differences in the average cost of detaining individuals for one week in different immigration and removal centres. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 13 March 2007]: The difference in the average cost of detaining an individual in different immigration removal centres reflects the differences between the centres, and the market-place at the time of tender. The key differences between the centres are the design, age and location of the buildings and the specific services and facilities that the centres provide.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Indian nationals have been detained at Oakington removal centre in the last 12 months; what the longest period of detention is of one of those nationals; how many Indian nationals have been detained for longer than (a) six months and (b) three months; and if he will make a statement. 
The accompanying table shows the number of Indian nationals detained in Oakington Reception Centre solely under Immigration Act powers
as at the last Saturday of the first three quarters of 2006, broken down by length of detention. Information relating to persons detained as at 30 December 2006 broken down by length of detention is not available due to a change in the system in which detention information is collected.
Information on the number of persons recorded as leaving Oakington Reception Centre solely under Immigration Act powers, which would provide details on the longest period of detention, is not available. Oakington data are centrally recorded only on one day per week. This enables snapshots of statistics for Oakington to be published but is not sufficient for published statistics relating to persons leaving detention solely under Immigration Act powers.
|Indian nationals recorded as being detained in Oakington Reception Centre solely under Immigration Act powers, by length of detention( 1)|
|Number of persons|
|Detained as at:|
|Length of detention( 2, 3)||25 March 2006||24 June 2006||30 September 2006||30 December 2006|
|(1) Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2, may not sum due to immigration powers. (2) Relates to current period of detention only. (3) 2months is defined as 61 days; 4 months is defined as 122 days; 6 months is defined as 182 days. Note: n/a = Figures not available.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|