| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Segregated Prisoners: Policy
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their policy on the sharing of cells by prisoners segregated either for their own protection or for reasons of good order and discipline; and how many prisoners are sharing cells in segregation units, in what prisons.[HL1284]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The policy is that all prisoners segregated in their own interest or for reasons of good order or discipline should be located in single cells. There are no statistics held centrally but a survey of all prisons on 2 March 2000 revealed that there were no prisoners sharing cells in segregation units who have been segregated for reasons of good order or discipline.
On the same date there were 74 prisoners segregated in their own interest sharing cells in segregation units in eight prisons as follows:
| Prison | Prisoners in shared cells |
| Camphill | 4 |
| Gloucester | 26 |
| Leeds | 14 |
| Lewes | 16 |
| Nottingham | 4 |
| Pentonville | 6 |
| Ranby | 2 |
| Reading | 2 |
| Total | 74 |
Kainos Courses in Prisons
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- In what prisons the Kainos Community is allowed to operate, under what contractual or other arrangements and at what cost to the Prison Service; whether they intend to measure the recidivism rates of prisoners who have been through courses run by the Kainos Community; and, if so, with what control groups such prisoners will be compared.[HL1285]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Kainos Community is currently operating in three establishments, The Verne, Swaleside, and Highpoint, in order to enable an independent evaluation to take place of the programme. The Kainos Trust and the Prison Service are drawing up a joint memorandum of understanding for the period of this evaluation. The Prison Service is providing no funding for the programme. As with any voluntary group that operates in a prison, there are some minimal costs in providing facilities.
The measurement of the recidivism rates of prisoners who have been through the programme will be part of the evaluation of the Kainos programme. The evaluation will include an assessment of the extent to which those rates vary from the normal rate for such offenders. It will be for the researchers to propose the
best way of doing this--for example, by a control group or by comparison of actual and predicted rates.Country Assessments
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the Country Assessment Unit of the Home Office has studied the reports of the Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups of the United Nations Human Rights Commission; and which country assessments have been amended so far in the light of this information.[HL1286]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Officials in the Country Information and Policy Unit draw on a wide range of material in preparing all the country assessments, including the reports of the United Nations' Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups. These reports carry significant weight and are studied as a matter of course. An index that forms part of each assessment identifies the documents from which the assessment has been sourced. In a few instances, the reports may not feature as a source reference--for example, when the issues reported on are not commonly raised by asylum seekers in the United Kingdom or where the information they contain is reflected in other material in the public domain.
Amendments are made every six months and take account of all the latest information and comments. It is not possible to ascribe particular changes to particular publications or comments.
Financial Bonds for Visitors to UK
Lord Harris of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many comments have been received about the proposal contained in Fairer, Faster and Firmer for a bond scheme for visitors to the United Kingdom; how many responses have been received to the consultation document Financial Bonds for Visitors; and, of both of these, how many have supported the proposal and how many have opposed it.[HL1292]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We shall make an announcement about the results of the consultation process on the design of a pilot study for financial bonds in due course, covering both the White Paper proposal and the specific consultation paper.
Lord Harris of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many cases of applicants for visitors' visas in the last 12 months have involved the difficult decisions referred to in Fairer, Faster and Firmer, such that the applicant would therefore be required to put forward a financial bond.[HL1293]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: No figures are available for family visits (the category that the bond scheme is intended for) involving decisions of this kind. The proposal arose not from statistics on refusals but from representations to Ministers from members of ethnic minority communities who expressed concern that some relatives might have had their entry clearance applications refused because of doubts as to their intention to leave the United Kingdom at the end of their visit.
Lord Harris of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many people in a full year they expect to be deterred from visiting the United Kingdom as a result of the scheme to require financial bonds from certain visitors; and how many people they expect to be able to visit the United Kingdom, a bond having been supplied, who would not otherwise have been given a visa.[HL1294]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We do not expect that anybody will be deterred from visiting the United Kingdom as a result of the bond scheme; its purpose is to facilitate the grant of entry clearance in borderline cases where there are doubts as to the intention of the visitors to leave the United Kingdom at end of their visit. The number of extra grants is expected to be small, with most cases (as now) being clear grants or refusals of entry clearance.
Lord Harris of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What criteria they will use to determine whether the financial bond scheme proposed in Fairer, Faster and Firmer is discriminatory; and what process will be used to assess whether those criteria have been met.[HL1295]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The criteria for assessing whether a bond has been requested in a genuinely borderline case, and for ensuring that the scheme is not operated in a discriminatory way, have yet to be decided, but we expect to compare pre-pilot family visitor entry clearance application, grant and refusal figures with those arising during the pilot, together with random checking of a selection of applications where a bond has been requested.
Lord Harris of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Which Embassies or High Commissions are likely to be included in the proposed pilot scheme envisaged in the consultation document Financial Bonds for Visitors.[HL1296]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have not yet decided where to run the pilot scheme.
Asylum Refusals
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
- For each year since 1990, how many asylum seekers from each of Turkey, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, Ghana, Nigeria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Romania were refused asylum and exceptional leave to remain after full consideration; how many were refused under paragraph 340 of the Immigration Rules; how many were refused on safe third country grounds; and how many were removed from the United Kingdom.[HL1308]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The available information is given in the tables.
| 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | |
| Turkey | n/a | n/a | 130 | 130 | 145 | 120 | 190 | 250 | 185 | n/a |
| Sri Lanka | n/a | n/a | 60 | 75 | 55 | 65 | 80 | 95 | 140 | n/a |
| Pakistan | n/a | n/a | 45 | 90 | 170 | 190 | 420 | 650 | 710 | n/a |
| India | n/a | n/a | 165 | 225 | 290 | 355 | 685 | 825 | 870 | n/a |
| Ghana | n/a | n/a | 90 | 130 | 175 | 210 | 270 | 370 | 285 | n/a |
| Nigeria | n/a | n/a | 65 | 105 | 210 | 310 | 400 | 505 | 515 | n/a |
| former Czechoslovakia of whom: | n/a | n/a | 5 | * | 20 | 10 | 65 | 225 | 390 | n/a |
| Czech Republic (2) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 10 | 50 | 110 | 160 | n/a |
| Slovakia | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0 | 15 | 120 | 230 | n/a |
| Poland | n/a | n/a | 10 | 105 | 40 | 245 | 285 | 815 | 605 | n/a |
| Romania | n/a | n/a | 35 | 105 | 90 | 200 | 260 | 305 | 335 | n/a |
Data are rounded to 5.
* represents 1 or 2.
n/a data are not available.
(1) Includes any voluntary departure up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum application for port applicants.
Includes removals under enforcement powers and those departing voluntarily following enforcement action for in-country applicants.
(2) Figures for Czech Republic include holders of Czechoslovakian passports.
n/a=Not available
1 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * =1 or 2.
2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
n/a=Not available.
(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'=1 or 2.
(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1)Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
(1)Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1)Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
(1)Paragraph 101 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
n/a = not available.
(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant has arrived from a safe third country.
(1) Paragraph 101 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
n/a=Not available.
(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'=1 or 2.
(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
(1) Paragraph 180F of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
n/a=Not available.
(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'=1 or 2.
(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
n/a = Not available.
(1)Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
(1)Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1)Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
(1)Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'=1 or 2.
(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with *=1 or 2.
(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant has arrived from a safe third country.
(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
(1) Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.
(1) Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(1) Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.
(1) Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview.
(1) Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre '96 act asylum backlog.
(1) May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted.
(1) May include a small number of cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.
Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals Non-compliance refusals
Turkey 65 n/a n/a n/a
Sri Lanka 10 n/a n/a n/a
Pakistan 115 n/a n/a n/a
India 80 n/a n/a n/a
Ghana 50 n/a n/a n/a
Nigeria 10 n/a n/a n/a
Czech Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a
Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a
Poland n/a n/a n/a n/a
Romania 10 n/a n/a n/a
Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non- compliance refusals(1)
Turkey 75 50 25 --
Sri Lanka 20 15 5 --
Pakistan 180 170 * 5
India 235 210 20 5
Ghana 70 55 10 5
Nigeria 15 10 5 --
Czech Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a
Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a
Poland n/a n/a n/a n/a
Romania 40 40 * *
n/a = Not available.
Total refusals(1) Substantive refusals(1) 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey 645 150 90 405
Sri Lanka 215 10 50 150
Pakistan 1,015 680 15 325
India 1,160 735 65 360
Ghana 1,210 285 25 900
Nigeria 210 75 10 120
Czech Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a
Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a
Poland 15 * 10 5
Romania 90 50 10 30
Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey 710 485 110 115
Sri Lanka 260 95 120 45
Pakistan 755 565 20 170
India 1,115 925 25 165
Ghana 925 605 35 285
Nigeria 350 210 20 120
Czech Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a
Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a
Poland 55 25 25 5
Romania 170 130 25 15
Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals (1) Non-compliance refusals (1)
Turkey 1,000 775 80 150
Sri Lanka 955 805 80 70
Pakistan 1,970 1,765 15 190
India 1,415 1,190 20 200
Ghana 1,610 1,240 60 310
Nigeria 1,485 910 40 535
Czech Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a
Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a
Poland 90 60 20 10
Romania 520 460 30 30
Non-
Total Sustantive 3rd country compliance
refusals refusals refusals (1) refusals (1)
Turkey 910 720 150 40
Sri Lanka 1,225 1,130 75 20
Pakistan 1,640 1,545 35 60
India 1,960 1,770 50 140
Ghana 1,960 1,750 40 170
Nigeria 2,625 2,135 95 395
Czech Republic n/a n/a n/a n/a
Slovakia n/a n/a n/a n/a
Poland 435 345 80 10
Romania 555 400 145 10
Total refusals Substantive refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey 1,330 1,000 310 20
Sri Lanka 2,115 2,030 50 35
Pakistan 2,620 2,385 30 205
India 3,690 3,185 45 460
Ghana 2,265 2,155 10 100
Nigeria 5,120 4,525 60 535
Czech Republic 50 15 35 --
Slovakia 110 65 50 --
Poland 830 770 50 10
Romania 760 630 80 55
Total refusals Certified refusals Other refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey 1,475 65 950 410 50
Sri Lanka 1,710 780 850 60 20
Pakistan 2,870 2,505 35 40 295
India 2,395 1,800 20 30 540
Ghana 1,330 1,030 40 10 245
Nigeria 4,315 1,525 1,635 40 1,115
Czech Republic 210 105 25 70 10
Slovakia 375 225 20 125 5
Poland 860 765 -- 50 45
Romania 635 440 * 45 150
Total refusals Certified refusals Other refusals(1) 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey 1,015 35 820 110 50
Sri Lanka 1,950 415 1,170 260 90
Pakistan 1,950 1,545 90 75 250
India 1,450 930 50 50 425
Ghana 425 275 55 5 95
Nigeria 1,840 685 700 15 440
Czech Republic 180 170 10 * *
Slovakia 335 90 240 * *
Poland 1,070 1,015 5 * 50
Romania 1,155 780 10 60 305
Total refusals Certified refusals Other refusals 3rd country refusals(1) Non-compliance refusals(1) Grants of ELR under backlog criteria (1), (1) Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria (1), (1)
Turkey 100 -- 25 70 * 505 5
Sri Lanka 385 75 170 130 10 85 --
Pakistan 280 220 30 25 10 60 --
India 175 130 10 25 10 30 --
Ghana 45 25 15 * 5 850 5
Nigeria 310 130 135 10 35 50 5
Czech Republic 50 20 30 -- * -- --
Slovakia 90 5 85 -- -- -- --
Poland 160 150 10 -- -- -- --
Romania 60 25 * 35 -- 5 --