APPENDIX 20
Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Immigration Advisory Service
The Committee will be aware of widespread public
concern, now much articulated in the media, on the disparity in
the numbers of those asylum seekers who are not granted any status
entitling them to remain in the UK and the numbers of those removed.
We are concerned that there may be elements of double counting
in that a person recorded as an asylum seeker may then undergo
a change status, such as marriage, and then be recorded as a separate
statistic. Moreover, we believe that there are many others who
cannot be removed from the UK, either for reasons of lack of documentation
or because of Human Rights Act considerations (such as Article
3 ECHR), but are not formally given exceptional leave to remain.
We hope that the Minister will be asked about the accuracy of
the statistics as well as the numbers of those who cannot be removed
for these reasons beyond those who are given exceptional leave
to remain. We hope, also, that the Minister will be asked to explain
how the new status of humanitarian protection will differ from
exceptional leave to remain and whether it is intended, thereby,
to increase the numbers of persons without any category of status
who, nevertheless, cannot be removed.
We are also concerned about the increasing incidence
of wrong notices being sent out by NASS which causes great distress
to individual asylum seekers receiving them as well as an added
burden on the voluntary organisations to which they go for assistance.
The latest example of this is in Scotland where are a number
of asylum seekers whose appeals are still pending have been sent
notices informing them without their support and accommodation
is ceasing and that they must leave the country. IAS has attempted
to ask NASS to remedy this but unsuccessfully. This leaves agencies
such as ourselves no choice but to challenge such decisions in
the courts when a better course would be through discussion with
NASS. It has become almost impossible to communicate with NASS.
On 5 October 2002 the IAS Chief Executive of
IAS wrote to Ms Freda Chaloner, Head of NASS, with a copy to IND,
explaining the following situation but has never received a reply
despite a reminder:
"an increasing problem where NASS support
is terminated on the Home Office notifying you of the refusal
of a claim but without notifying the claimant or the representative.
This leaves claimants confused and asking for support from ourselves
which, of course, we cannot give. Moreover, until we receive official
notification of the refusal we cannot lodge the appeal notice.
The following details from our Liverpool office are a typical
example. "Our client, Mrs D, arrived in the UK on 15 April
2002 and made an asylum application at Gatwick Immigration Centre
on the same day. She was subsequently dispersed to Liverpool on
24 May 2002, at which point she also applied for and was granted
subsistence by NASS. She was dispersed to accommodation in Liverpool,
L17 0PZ.
"Enquiries were made to the Home Office,
by our staff at IAS Ebury (Hounslow), as to the outcome of our
client's asylum application on 11 June 2002, and 15 July 2002,
to which no reply was given. On July 12 NASS purportedly sent
our client a letter informing her she would be allowed to stay
in the accommodation until 19 July 2002, because her asylum appeal
has been refused. Ebury were representing as at 31 May 2002, but
confirmed a refusal letter was not served on them. Client also
said she had no knowledge of refusal. She was asked to move out
of her NASS accommodation and subsequently became homeless. Concerning
subsistence, she appealed against the decision to terminate her
support by NASS.
"The Asylum Support Adjudicator found in
her favour and allowed the appeal but despite that NASS refused
to reinstate her subsistence stating that an appeal has not been
lodged in her case. She was and is left destitute without maintenance
or accommodation, and had to live off fellow asylum seekers in
Bradford that she met on arrival in the UK. Since our client had
been dispersed to Liverpool, Ebury had sent the file to us and
we contacted the Immigration Service at Gatwick, and the immigration
& Nationality Directorate with a series of phone calls and
letters, on 26 July, 9, 14, 16, 20 August, and on 4 and 10 September,
to make enquiries regarding this situation and to request a full
set of appeal papers and a refusal letter. Despite our efforts
the IND have proved to be extremely unco-operative, been rude
to our staff, and have blatantly refused to agree to forward a
refusal letter to our office or even to confirm where the original
was sent. In our last letter of 10 September, we requested again
that the appeal papers and refusal letter be served on us, and
if they would not, then they accept that letter as an appeal itself
so that subsistence can be reinstated. To date we still have received
no reply nor be served with the refusal letter or appeal forms
we requested."
The result of this administrative incompetence
is that the lady remains homeless without any support. She makes
frequent distressed telephone calls to us.
The Committee will be aware of the recent statements
by the Home Secretary about detaining those suspected of terrorism.
We hope that the Minister will be asked if this affects the present
plans for expanding the detention estate or whether additional
places are being sought. Also, bearing in mind the many thousands
of Iraqis presently in the UK, the Minister should be asked if,
in the event of a war, these will be detained under Immigration
Act powers and, if so, where.
The removal of the right to work for all asylum
seekers by the Home Secretary has been at great public expense,
coupled with the redesignation of detention centres to removal
centres (£1.09 million) [16]where
detainees were allowed to occupy themselves with cleaning, kitchen
and other work and gain small payments with which they could purchase
telephone cards etc. We understand that this is likely to be changed
yet again in the light of European developments but we hope that
the Minister can clarify this.
IAS is concerned about the situation in several
removal centres which have been visited by HM Chief Inspector
of Prisons. In one, there were no facilities for religious worship
for those in the families wing. We hope that the Minister will
be asked when she expects to receive the reports from the Chief
Inspector. [17]
January 2003
16 4 November 2002. Mr Malins: To ask the Secretary
of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made for
a full year of the cost of the withdrawal of the work concession
to asylum seekers in (a) added benefit and (b) payments to detainees;
and what he estimates to be the net difference in the costs to
each removal centre of employing contract and agency labour in
place of detainees working in cleaning and kitchens. [78484] Beverley
Hughes [holding answer 31 October 2002]: We do not have figures
on the additional costs, if any, of providing support to asylum
seekers who can no longer seek permission to work. Internal management
Information indicates that during the financial year 2001-02 we
made initial decisions on the vast majority of new substantive
applications within the initial six months. The number who might
have been able to benefit from the concession is therefore much
reduced. The percentage of new substantive cases in 2001-02 which
were decided within six months will be available from 29 November
2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate
website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1 .html
The work concession for asylum seekers did not extend to asylum
seekers in detention. Immigration detainees held in Immigration
Service removal centres have never been required to work nor are
they expected to assist in the running of the centres. Following
their redesignation earlier this year as removal centres, the
Prison Service detention facilities at Dover, Haslar and Lindholme
ceased to operate under Prison Rules. As a consequence, detainees
no longer had the opportunity to undertake paid employment in
the centres and the practice of relying on such work for the provision
of certain ancillary services came to an end. Work formerly undertaken
by detainees at these centres has been contracted out or transferred
to agency staff. For this year this has resulted in a net additional
cost of £1.09 million. This will be met from the Immigration
and Nationality Directorate's budget. Back
17
3 December 2002. Mr. Humfrey Malins: To ask the Secretary of State
for the Home Department what reports he has received during the
last 12 months from the Chief Inspector of Prisons about immigration
removal and detention centres; when he intends to respond to them;
and if he will publish the reports and his responses. [85030]
Beverley Hughes: We have not received any reports during the last
12 months from the Chief Inspector of Prisons about immigration
removal centres. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP)
has, over the last few months, visited a number of immigration
removal centres. However, no reports of these visits have yet
been published or received. Back
|
