§ Mr. GaleTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been relocated from the Isle of Thanet under the Government's dispersal programme.[11665]
§ Angela EagleThe information requested is not available.
The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) currently does not hold statistics on the location of asylum seekers before they are dispersed by NASS. Statistics are only available on the areas that asylum seekers are dispersed to.
§ Andrew GeorgeTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the case for increasing the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete statement of evidence forms; [11761]
(2) what recent representations he has received on the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete statement of evidence forms;[11760]
(3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of statement of evidence forms on the numbers of asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance.[11757]
§ Angela EagleWe have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) about the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete their statement of evidence forms. There is concern that 10 working days is insufficient time for an asylum seeker to find help completing the detailed Statement of Evidence Form (SEF) in English, and to gather and translate evidence in support of the application.
Asylum seekers are expected to comply with the asylum process and I consider the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete the SEFs to be reasonable. The original 14 day time limit for the return of the SEF was changed to 10 working days, so applicants are not disadvantaged by public holidays.
We do not propose therefore to increase the current 10 day time limit. Most asylum applicants do return their SEF on time. Discretion is exercised where applicants need extra time to obtain translations or submit extra material, such as a medical report, in support of their claim.
A higher proportion of applications was refused on grounds of non-compliance in 1999 and 2000 than had previously been the case. The increase was due partly to the stricter enforcement of the 10 day deadline for return
178W of the SEF and partly to administrative problems which led to a backlog of correspondence within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and some flawed refusals as a consequence. We have made a number of changes over the past 12 months to improve our administrative processes and reduce flawed refusals. These include the introduction of a dedicated PO Box for the return of completed SEFs, and adjustments to internal procedures to ensure that the receipt of SEFs is registered on a database.
Applications for asylum to the UK and refusals on grounds of non-compliance, for cases decided under normal criteria1, not including dependents, 1998–20012 Month/year Asylum applications Percentage change on previous month/year Total refusals Non-compliance refusals3 Percentage change on previous month/year Non-compliance percentage of total refusals 1998 46,015 42 22,315 2,995 -17 13 1999 71,160 55 11,025 1,085 -64 10 20004 80,315 13 75,680 24,295 2,139 32 20014,5 39,280 6— 61,965 15,780 6— 25 We have also taken steps to improve asylum applicants' understanding of the asylum process and of the importance of meeting the time limit. We have done this by simplifying the explanatory leaflet which is sent out with the SEF, and by making it available in the 33 languages spoken by most asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. The SEF form has also been simplified. NGOs were consulted about these improvements.
§ Andrew GeorgeTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) asylum applications and (b) asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance there have been in each month of the last three years, indicating the (i) monthly and (ii) yearly change expressed as a percentage;[11759]
(2) what recent assessment he has made of (a) the number of asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance, (b) the number of cases waiting to be processed by the Appeals Tribunal and (c) the relationship between the two.[11756]
§ Angela EagleThe requested information on refusals to grant asylum on grounds of non-compliance over the last three years is provided in the table.
Non-compliance refusals rose by over 21 times in 2000, due to seven times as many refusals and a three times higher proportion of refusals on non-compliance grounds. Provisional figures show the proportion of refusals made on non-compliance grounds has fallen from 32 per cent. in 2000 to 25 per cent. in the first seven months of 2001.
Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) statistics show the number of asylum 'cases in progress' increased by 168 per cent. over the past 15 months. From 7,735 cases awaiting a final promulgation at the end of June 2000, outstanding cases have risen to 20,751 at the end of September 2001. This is due to the increase in asylum appeals received from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate over the same period, during which the IAA also expanded.
Analysis of cases for which data are available shows that, in percentage terms, refusals on non-compliance grounds result in fewer appeals to the IAA than other refusals.
179W
Applications for asylum to the UK and refusals on grounds of non-compliance, for cases decided under normal criteria1, not including dependents, 1998–20012 Month/year Asylum applications Percentage change on previous month/year Total refusals Non-compliance refusals3 Percentage change on previous month/year Non-compliance percentage of total refusals 1998 January 2,860 -8 2,130 360 47 17 February 2,650 -7 2,240 250 -31 11 March 3,200 21 2,270 280 12 12 April 3,135 -2 1,850 250 -11 14 May 3.110 -1 1,690 260 4 15 June 3,575 15 1,790 255 -2 14 July 4.215 18 1,840 340 33 18 August 4,420 5 1,595 225 -34 14 September 4,455 1 1,885 230 2 12 October 5.010 12 2,290 245 7 11 November 4,620 -8 2,100 275 12 13 December 4,770 3 645 25 -91 4 1999 January 4,700 -1 540 5 -80 1 February 4,185 -11 810 40 700 5 March 5,060 21 945 50 25 5 April 4,905 -3 1,060 25 -50 2 May 5,370 9 830 45 80 5 June 6,130 14 780 20 -56 3 July 6.440 5 840 30 50 4 August 7,120 11 835 200 567 24 September 7,355 3 830 45 -78 5 October 6,295 -14 1,370 150 233 11 November 6,420 2 1,325 245 63 18 December 7,180 12 855 220 -10 26 2000 January 6,110 -15 2,390 245 11 10 February 6,110 0 5,025 920 276 18 March 6,680 9 7,570 2,115 130 28 April 6,855 3 4,205 6— 6— 6— May 6,725 -2 5,455 1,520 6— 28 June 6,545 -3 6,565 2,035 34 31 July 6,870 5 6,280 1,895 -7 30 August 6,770 -1 7,155 2,895 53 40 September 6,790 0 6,160 2,610 -10 42 October 7,230 6 7,105 2,965 14 42 November 7,500 4 10,060 4,325 46 43 December 6,125 -18 7,710 2,770 -36 36 2001 January 6,380 4 10,935 3,495 26 32 February 5,520 -13 11,235 3,460 -1 31 March 5,815 5 14,180 3,110 -10 22 April 5,000 -14 7,030 1,415 -55 20 May 5,290 6 7,180 1,625 15 23 June 5,300 0 5,970 1,400 -14 23 July 5,975 13 5,435 1,285 -8 24 1 Exclude cases decided under the backlog clearance exercise, aimed at reducing the pre-1996 asylum application backlog. 2 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five. 3 Failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity. 4 2000 and 2001 data are provisional 5 2001-January to July 6Not available
§ Mr. LilleyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government began requiring asylum seekers to be fingerprinted.[11742]
§ Angela Eagle[holding answer 1 November 20011: The power to fingerprint asylum seekers and their dependants was introduced in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals 180W Act 1993. However, the introduction of a computerised fingerprint storage system in December 2000 has allowed for the quick and effective electronic checking of prints of all asylum seekers against the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's records. Remote checking of fingerprints has been made possible which was not the case under the paper system. The introduction of smart cards will build on this technology to tackle fraud.
181W
§ Mr. MalinsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was from first application to initial decision in asylum cases in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.[9444]
§ Angela EagleFor decisions made in the 12 months to July 2001, the average time between application and initial decision was 15 months. This average includes older cases decided as part of the reduction of the number of cases outstanding (see table).
Average time1 between application and decision, for cases decided in the 12 months to July 2001:
Average time in months2 Number of cases2,3 All applications 15 127,060 of which: Application pre 19964 80 3,315 Application 1996 55 2,740 Application 1997 43 4,410 Application 1998 30 13,450 Application 1999 18 28,740 Application 2000 6 50,310 Application 2001 2 24,095 1 Calculated using all available data from the date the application is lodged to the date of the initial decision 2 These data are still subject to revision following quality checking 3 Figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest five. The number of cases quoted differs from published figures due to uncertainty concerning date of application in a small minority of cases 4Cases decided as part of the backlog clearance exercise, as part of measures outlined in the July 1998 White paper entitled "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" The corresponding figure for cases decided in April 1997 was 20 months.
§ Andrew GeorgeTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were waiting to be processed by the Appeals Tribunal in each month of the last three years, indicating the(a) monthly and (b) yearly change expressed as a percentage.[11758]
§ Ms Rosie WintertonI have been asked to reply.
The numbers of cases where work was in progress within the Immigration Appellate Authority, and the change expressed as a percentage, for each month of the last three years are as follows:
182W
Number of cases Percentage change 2001 January 14,729 -4 February 15,326 4 March 16,451 7 April 17,741 8 May 18,932 7 June 19,417 3 July 18,815 -3 August 19,960 6 September 20,751 4 2000 January 6,083 -7 February 5,614 -8 March 5,495 -2 April 5,256 -4
Number of cases Percentage>change May 5,898 12 June 7,735 31 July 10,500 36 August 12,494 19 September 13,859 11 October 14,962 8 November 15,437 3 December 15,347 -1 1999 January 13,891 -13 February 12,289 -12 March 9,744 -21 April 8,423 -14 May 7,590 -10 June 7,294 -4 July 7,170 -2 August 6,187 -14 September 5,597 -10 October 4,911 -12 November 3,362 -32 December 6,572 95 1998 January 24,098 -2 February 23,831 -1 March 23,760 n/a April 23,814 n/a May 23,639 -1 June 23,757 n/a July 22,531 -5 August 22,165 -2 September 20,994 -5 October 19,098 -9 November 17,371 -9 December 16,028 -8 The yearly changes in case load expressed as a percentage were:
Percentage 2000 134 increase 1999 59 decrease 1998 35 decrease