§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the Refugee Legal Centre that, where the detention of asylum seekers is contemplated, serious consideration should be given to alternative methods of control, such as reporting requirements, and that, in cases where the individual is detained, he or she should be provided with full written reasons for the detention and be able to challenge the decision to detain, within a reasonable period, before an independent judicial body. [HL2274]
§ Lord RookerThe detention of asylum seekers is authorised only when necessary and against the background of a general presumption in favour of granting temporary admission or release. Alternative methods of ensuring compliance are considered but will not be appropriate in every case.
Individuals who are detained are served with a notice which specifies the Immigration Act power under which they have been detained, the reasons for their detention and the factors that have been taken into account in reaching that decision. This is reflected in the Detention Centre Rules 2001.
Detainees are able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention by way of application for judicial review or by applying for a writ of habeas corpus. We are satisfied that this complies with the requirements of Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Oakington process should be used for certain categories of case in relation to asylum seekers, for example, where the case is not straightforward or the applicant has been the victim of torture. [HL2275]
204WA
§ Lord RookerThe Oakington fast track process is intended for those asylum claims which, upon initial screening, appear to be straightforward and capable of being decided in about seven to 10 days. It is not intended for more complex cases, including victims of torture. Where complicated issues, or evidence of torture leading to an appointment with the Medical Foundation, emerge after arrival at Oakington the applicant is removed from the Oakington process.
§ Lord Greavesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the reasons for not keeping statistics on numbers of failed asylum seekers who are returned to specific countries within each period. [HL2301]
§ Lord RookerThe destination of persons removed from the United Kingdom under Immigration Act powers, including failed asylum seekers, is recorded on case files. This information is not collated centrally since it is not required for immigration management purposes. Reliable information on the destination of removed persons could therefore only be obtained by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.
Information on the nationality of asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom is available on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1 .html.
§ Lord Greavesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current backlog in the issue of "NASS 35" documents to asylum seekers who are granted refugee status or leave to remain; and what action is being taken to eliminate this backlog in order that such people may claim any benefits to which they are entitled from the date when the Nation Asylum Support Service support ceases. [HL2302]
§ Lord RookerThe backlog for issuing NASS 35 documents within the NASS Status Terminations Team as at 17 January 2002 was 210 cases. This backlog will be eliminated by 14 February.
Once notified of a positive asylum decision NASS issues a NASS 35 normally within five working days. Numbers of positive decisions notified to NASS to stop support vary from week to week as they depend upon the outcomes of asylum cases processed. Large numbers in one week will affect throughput time and levels of work in progress. Some cases may take longer if some anomaly requires further investigation.