§ Mr. PikeTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration and asylum cases his Department has had outstanding for over one year; if he will provide a breakdown of the years in which the cases commenced and indicate the progress being made in eliminating the backlog; and if he will make a statement. [92713]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienThere are approximately 80,935 immigration and asylum cases that have been outstanding for over one year. The breakdown is:
256W
Number 1998 36,081 1997 15,964 1996 8,134 1995 9,438 1994 4,820
Number 1993 1,327 1992 343 1991 245 1990 109 Pre 1990 133 Undated 4,341 A number of measures have already been identified to tackle the general backlog which has built up because of the difficulties encountered in setting up the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD). These include the setting up of an After Entry Clearance Team and a Correspondence Backlog Team. Steps already taken include special exercises to target priority cases such as work permit applications, changes in procedures that will result in increased productivity and increased staffing.
Additionally, immediate and long term plans are in hand to tackle the more substantive backlogs in the areas of asylum, enforcement and nationality.
§ Mr. LidingtonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards(a) the proposed mutual recognition of member states of the European Union and each other's decisions on asylum applications and (b) the proposed harmonisation within the European Union of criteria for the recognition of refugees. [92783]
§ Kate Hoey[holding answer 23 July 1999]: It is a requirement of The Treaty of Amsterdam for measures that determine minimum standards applicable to the handling of asylum applications be introduced. The United Kingdom has the choice to opt in to such measures. There has been no proposal as yet regarding minimum standards for the criteria in recognising refugees. There has been no proposal to effect the mutual recognition of other member states' asylum decisions and such a proposal is not a requirement of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
§ Mr. LidingtonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for asylum have been made in each month since the beginning of 1999(a) by persons arriving at ports of entry and (b) by persons already in the United Kingdom; [92777]
(2) how many asylum seekers entered the United Kingdom in each month since March 1999; and of these how many were (a) granted asylum, (b) granted leave to remain and (c) refused the right to remain; [92778]
(3) what was the backlog of asylum casework in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the last date for which information is available; [92841]
§ Mr. Mike O'Brien[holding answer 23 July 1999]: The information requested was made available on the Home Office Internet site at http//www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index/htm, as part of the monthly reporting of asylum figures, on 26 July 1999.
§ Mr. LidingtonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum decisions were made in each month from January 1997 to the latest month for which information is available. [92790]
257W
§ Mr. Mike O'Brien[holding answer 23 July 1999]: The requested information is given in the table:
Decisions1 made on Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdoms, excluding dependants, January 1997 to June 1999, by month Year/month Decisions 1997 January 3,260 February 3,090 March 2,845 April 3,390 May 2,880 June 2,930 July 3,480 August 2,980 September 2,800 October 3,035 November 2,990 December 2,355 Total 36,045 1998 January 3,065 February 3,035 March 3,070 April 2,520 May 2,360 June 2,675 July 2,710 August 2,480 September 2,825 October 3,255 November 2,780 December 800 Total 31,570 1999 2 January 995 February 1,275 March 1,855 April 3,045 May 4,185 June 4,680 1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 2 Provisional
§ Mr. LoveTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were received from Sri Lanka nationals in each of the last 10 years; how many of the applications have been(a) granted, (b) refused but subject to appeal, (c) refused and exhausted appeal, (d) awaiting initial decision, (e) deported and (f) left the country; and if he will make a statement. [93549]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienI will write to the hon. Member shortly.
§ Fiona MactaggartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategies he is planning to ensure that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is able to cope with the forecast increase in applications for naturalisation expected 12 months after the granting of indefinite leave to remain to refugees and those affected by the backlog clearance programme, without lengthening current waiting periods. [93336]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienNo increase in applications for naturalisation resulting from output elsewhere in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is expected imminently. By the time these applications start to reach258W the Integrated Casework Directorate's Liverpool office (which has superseded the Nationality Directorate), various initiatives to speed up output will have taken effect.
§ Fiona MactaggartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Ministerial Group on the Family will consider the effect of the immigration rules and the nationality legislation on families with members abroad. [93454]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienIn "Supporting Families: summary of responses to the consultation document", published on 8 June 1999, we said that the Ministerial Group on the Family is working on five new initiatives; support for boys, young men and fathers; supporting stepfamilies; adoption policy and practice; the support available to families at different crisis points; and ensuring that Government funding for families fits together well. Given the existing priorities of the group, it has no plans to look into the effect of immigration rules and nationality legislation on families with members abroad at present.
§ Fiona MactaggartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the funding of immigration advice under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971. [93452]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienSubject to the approval of Parliament, funding for advice, assistance and representation will be available through legal aid from January 2000. In due course, when we have had the opportunity to assess the true level of need for immigration advice, we will consider whether funding under section 23 should be transferred from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
§ Fiona MactaggartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to curtail the use of prison accommodation for those detained solely under Immigration Act powers; and by what date he expects to cease to use prison accommodation. [93516]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienThe Government are committed, as resources become available, to the pursuit of a strategy of detaining those detained soley under Immigration Act 1971 powers in dedicated detention centres and holding centres, not prisons. Key to this strategy is the replacement of the Harmondsworth centre and the use of Her Majesty's Prison Rochester by two larger, purpose designed centres at Heathrow and Aldington. These facilities are expected to be available by the spring of 2002 and will offer an increase of some 250 beds. There are more immediate plans to provide a dedicated centre in the North of England for about 150 detainees within the next six to nine months. This will reduce the ad hoc use of prisons. In order that this can be delivered quickly, it is likely to be provided and managed by the Prison Service. It will however be a self contained, discrete unit solely for the use of Immigration Act detainees.
This strategy will ensure a net gain of about 300-350 detention places by 2002 and will greatly reduce the use of prison accommodation. However the Government accept that there will always be a need to use prisons for a minority of detainees, due to their special requirements, and this practice will continue. The number of such detainees detained in prison accommodation by 2002 is expected to be minimal.
259W
§ Fiona MactaggartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds Immigration Service staff refuse to accept those who are themselves asylum seekers, with permission to work, as interpreters or representatives of other asylum seekers at interviews. [93514]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienI refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 16 June 1998,Official Report, column 178.
§ Fiona MactaggartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warnings have been given to employers concerning liability to prosecution under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 for the hiring of persons who do not have authority to work in the United Kingdom in the last year. [93450]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienI am afraid there is no central record of the number of section 8 warning letters that have been issued to employers.
§ Fiona MactaggartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) breaches of airport security have been occasioned by and (b) immigration offences have been committed by the solicitors or other representatives of persons attending interviews with the Immigration Service at airports. [93335]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienAviation security is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). I am, however, advised that the Transport Security (Aviation) section of the DETR maintains a voluntary reporting system of aviation security incidents at airports, but the information does not categorise incidents of this kind. Similarly, the Immigration Service does not hold information about immigration offences in the form requested.
§ Fiona MactaggartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid out in repatriation expenses under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 in each of the past five years. [93453]
§ Mr. Mike O'BrienThe International Social Services of the United Kingdom is funded to administer the Voluntary Return Scheme on behalf of the Government.
The financial returns indicate the following expenditure for the last five years:
£ Year Assistance Administration Total 1998–99 48,610 63,500 112,110 1997–98 59,113 54,713 113,826 1996–97 50,464 57,221 107,685 1995–96 38,819 88,128 126,947 1994–95 73,182 89,406 162,588
§ Fiona MactaggartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions to deport, pursuant to section 3(5)(a) Immigration Act 1971 have been taken, in the past 12 months for (i) failure to report to a medical officer, (ii) failure to support and accommodate without recourse to public funds, (iii) obtaining leave to enter by deception, (iv) obtaining260W leave to remain by deception, (v) assisting the entry of another person an illegal entrant and (vi) assisting the entry of another person as an asylum claimant. [93334]
§ Mr. Mike O'Brien3,930 decisions to deport were taken under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 in 1998. 210 of these were for breach of conditions but the records do not show the nature of the conditions which had not been compiled with. It is, therefore, not possible to identify whether any of this latter group of decisions were taken for either of the first two reasons listed in the question other than by examining the individual case files.
Someone who obtains leave to enter by deception is an illegal entrant and would not be subject to deportation action under section 3(5)(a). Someone who obtains leave to remain by deception is currently liable to deportation under section 3(5)(aa) of the Act. No more than five decisions to deport were taken under that section in 1998.
It is extremely unlikely that someone who had assisted the entry of an illegal entrant or an asylum claimant contrary to section 25(1) of the Act would be subject to deportation under section 3(5)(a). In those circumstances, deportation action under either section 3(5)(b) or, where applicable, section 3(6) of the 1971 Act would be more appropriate, 120 decisions to deport were taken under section 3(5)(b) in 1998 and 340 people were recommended for deportation by a court in that year, but again records are not sufficiently detailed to show whether or not the decision was taken for one or other of the last two reasons listed in the question and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examining each individual case file.
Apart from the number of decisions to deport under section 3(5)(aa), the figures in this reply have been rounded to the nearest 10.