some default text...

Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Segregated Prisoners: Policy

Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:

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:

PrisonPrisoners in shared cells
Camphill4
Gloucester26
Leeds14
Lewes16
Nottingham4
Pentonville6
Ranby2
Reading2
Total74

Kainos Courses in Prisons

Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:

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

9 Mar 2000 : Column WA164

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]

9 Mar 2000 : Column WA165

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]

9 Mar 2000 : Column WA166

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.

9 Mar 2000 : Column WA165

Removals and voluntary departures (1) of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, by selected nationality, 1990 to 1999

1990199119921993199419951996199719981999
Turkeyn/an/a130130145120190250185n/a
Sri Lankan/an/a607555658095140n/a
Pakistann/an/a4590170190420650710n/a
Indian/an/a165225290355685825870n/a
Ghanan/an/a90130175210270370285n/a
Nigerian/an/a65105210310400505515n/a
former Czechoslovakia of whom:n/an/a5*201065225390n/a
Czech Republic (2)n/an/an/an/an/a1050110160n/a
Slovakian/an/an/an/an/a015120230n/a
Polandn/an/a1010540245285815605n/a
Romanian/an/a3510590200260305335n/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.


9 Mar 2000 : Column WA167

9 Mar 2000 : Column WA167

Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1990

Total refusalsSubstantive refusals3rd country refusalsNon-compliance refusals
Turkey 65n/an/an/a
Sri Lanka 10n/an/an/a
Pakistan115n/an/an/a
India 80n/an/an/a
Ghana 50n/an/an/a
Nigeria 10n/an/an/a
Czech Republicn/an/an/an/a
Slovakian/an/an/an/a
Polandn/an/an/an/a
Romania 10n/an/an/a

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.


Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1991

Total refusalsSubstantive refusals3rd country refusals(1)Non- compliance refusals(1)
Turkey755025--
Sri Lanka20155--
Pakistan180170*5
India235210205
Ghana7055105
Nigeria15105--
Czech Republicn/an/an/an/a
Slovakian/an/an/an/a
Polandn/an/an/an/a
Romania4040**

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 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.


Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1992

Total refusals(1)Substantive refusals(1)3rd country refusals(1)Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey64515090405
Sri Lanka2151050150
Pakistan1,01568015325
India1,16073565360
Ghana1,21028525900
Nigeria2107510120
Czech Republicn/an/an/an/a
Slovakian/an/an/an/a
Poland15*105
Romania90501030

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.


9 Mar 2000 : Column WA168

Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1993

Total refusalsSubstantive refusals3rd country refusals(1)Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey710485110115
Sri Lanka2609512045
Pakistan75556520170
India1,11592525165
Ghana92560535285
Nigeria35021020120
Czech Republicn/an/an/an/a
Slovakian/an/an/an/a
Poland5525255
Romania1701302515

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.


Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1994

Total refusalsSubstantive refusals3rd country refusals (1) Non-compliance refusals (1)
Turkey1,00077580150
Sri Lanka9558058070
Pakistan1,9701,76515190
India1,4151,19020200
Ghana1,6101,24060310
Nigeria1,48591040535
Czech Republicn/an/an/an/a
Slovakian/an/an/an/a
Poland90602010
Romania5204603030

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.


Asylum decisions (1) (1)in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1995

Non-
TotalSustantive3rd countrycompliance
refusalsrefusalsrefusals (1)refusals (1)
Turkey91072015040
Sri Lanka1,2251,1307520
Pakistan1,6401,5453560
India1,9601,77050140
Ghana1,9601,75040170
Nigeria2,6252,13595395
Czech Republicn/an/an/an/a
Slovakian/an/an/an/a
Poland4353458010
Romania55540014510

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.


9 Mar 2000 : Column WA169

9 Mar 2000 : Column WA170

Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependents, 1996

Total refusalsSubstantive refusals3rd country refusals(1)Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey1,3301,00031020
Sri Lanka2,1152,0305035
Pakistan2,6202,38530205
India3,6903,18545460
Ghana2,2652,15510100
Nigeria5,1204,52560535
Czech Republic501535--
Slovakia1106550--
Poland8307705010
Romania7606308055

(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.


9 Mar 2000 : Column WA169

Asylum decisions (1) (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1997

Total refusalsCertified refusalsOther refusals3rd country refusals(1)Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey1,4756595041050
Sri Lanka1,7107808506020
Pakistan2,8702,5053540295
India2,3951,8002030540
Ghana1,3301,0304010245
Nigeria4,3151,5251,635401,115
Czech Republic210105257010
Slovakia375225201255
Poland860765--5045
Romania635440*45150

(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.


Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1998

Total refusals Certified refusals Other refusals(1) 3rd country refusals(1)Non-compliance refusals(1)
Turkey1,0153582011050
Sri Lanka1,9504151,17026090
Pakistan1,9501,5459075250
India1,4509305050425
Ghana42527555595
Nigeria1,84068570015440
Czech Republic18017010**
Slovakia33590240**
Poland1,0701,0155*50
Romania1,1557801060305

(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.


9 Mar 2000 : Column WA171

Asylum decisions (1), (1) in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, January to May 1999
Principal applicants

Total refusalsCertified refusalsOther refusals3rd country refusals(1)Non-compliance refusals(1)Grants of ELR under backlog criteria (1), (1)Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria (1), (1)
Turkey100--2570*5055
Sri Lanka385751701301085--
Pakistan28022030251060--
India17513010251030--
Ghana452515*58505
Nigeria3101301351035505
Czech Republic502030--*----
Slovakia90585--------
Poland16015010--------
Romania6025*35--5--

(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.


9 Mar 2000 : Column WA171



   Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page