This week in parliament: asylum and immigration

sourced via: TheyWorkForYou.com

• Deportation: minimum notice period
• Domestic violence: no recourse to public funds
• Deportations abandoned because medical treatment required
• Children in detention: (50 children entered between 6 May and 30 June)
• Yarl’s Wood: how many children are detained (3 as at 30 June)
• Asylum backlog update (‘legacy’)
• Destitution: “we do not measure the incidence of destitution”
• Cost of deportation flights: £28.4million
• Fast Track deportations and notice periods
• Deportation numbers in last 5 years
• Children: physical force and restraint in deportations

Asylum: Deportation
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 9 September 2010

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what minimum notice period of the date and time of deportation her Department has set for failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
A minimum of 72 hours (including at least two working days) must generally be allowed between informing a person of their removal directions and the removal itself. The last 24 hours of this period must include a working day. There are occasions where this will not apply which officers should consider before setting removal directions.

Persons detained for removal should, where possible, be given access to telephone facilities to enable instruction of and allow contact with representatives.

Instructions can be found in the public domain in chapter 60 of the Enforcement and Instruction Guidance manual which can be found on the UK Border Agency website at:

www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/guidance/enforcement

Domestic Violence: Immigrants
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 9 September 2010

Michael Crockart (Edinburgh West, Liberal Democrat)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been allocated for women with no recourse to public funds to seek refuge from domestic abuse after the end of the pilot period in August 2010.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 9 September 2010, c632W)

James Brokenshire (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office; Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)
A Home Office pilot project for victims of domestic violence with no recourse to public funds commenced in November 2009 and was scheduled to run to the end of August 2010. On 16 July, the Home Secretary announced an extension to the pilot until the end of March 2011 with funding to support it.

The Home Office has allocated over £1.9 million to support the pilot in 2010-11. Costs of the pilot are subject to the number of eligible referrals received and so total costs for the period after August 2010 will not be known until its completion. The Government have also committed to finding a long term solution to this issue

Asylum: Deportation
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 8 September 2010

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions removals by the UK Border Agency have been abandoned or postponed because the deportee has required medical treatment in each of the last two years.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 8 September 2010, c567W)

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
When a UKBA removal is abandoned or postponed, this is called a failed removal.

UKBA attribute failed removals into certain categories. There is no specific category for ‘deportee requiring medical treatment’. However we do record the following categories:

Medical reps received

Subject deemed medically unfit by carrier

Subject medically unfit to fly

The latest full two years worth of data available is for 2008-09 and 2009-10. Over these two years, 602 removals failed due to one of the above three reasons. It should be noted that these are instances of failed removals i.e. the same individual could potentially fail to be removed on medical grounds on multiple occasions.

It should be noted that when a removal has failed every effort is made to ensure their successful removal at a later date.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 8 September 2010

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children are being held at Yarl’s Wood detention centre.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 8 September 2010, c571W)

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
As at 30 June 2010 there were less than three people detained solely under Immigration Act powers at Yarl’s Wood removal centre who were recorded as being less than 18 years of age. This figure includes any cases where the age is disputed at the time.

Detainees: Children
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 8 September 2010

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been detained in immigration removal centres since 6 May 2010.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 8 September 2010, c569W)

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
Published management information shows 115 children entered detention and were held solely under Immigration Act powers in Q2 2010. Of these, 50 children had entered between 6 May and 30 June.

Asylum Backlog
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 6 September 2010

Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress her Department is making in processing the backlog of asylum applications made prior to 2010.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 6 September 2010, c34W)

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
In 2006 a backlog of approximately 450,000 older paper and electronic asylum cases were identified, this is widely known as the “legacy” caseload. I informed this House during oral questions in June 2010 that that the Case Resolution Directorate had concluded 277,000 legacy cases up to the end of May 2010. The chief executive of the UK Border Agency, Lin Homer updates the Home Affairs Select Committee on a regular basis regarding the progress made in resolving these cases. She is due to report again to the Committee this autumn.

Asylum (destitution)
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 6 September 2010

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department measures the incidence of destitution as defined under the National Assistance Act 1948 among the asylum seeker community.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 6 September 2010, c35W)

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
No asylum seeker need be destitute while their claim is being determined. The UK Border Agency provides support to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute from the time they arrive in the UK until their claim is decided, and any appeal rights are exhausted. Therefore, we do not measure the incidence of destitution among the asylum seeker community.

Asylum: Deportation (financial costs)
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 6 September 2010

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the UK Border Agency spent on (a) scheduled air flights and (b) chartering flights for the deportation of failed asylum seekers in each of the last 12 months.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 6 September 2010, c35W)

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
The UK Border Agency spent £18,073,370 on scheduled flights and £10,300,000 on chartered flights for the financial year 2009-10 on public expense removals.

The total cost of scheduled and chartered flights includes administration cost plus cancellation fees.

It is not possible to disaggregate the costs for removal of unsuccessful asylum seekers from the overall removal figures without the examination of individual records at disproportionate cost. Therefore this cost represents the removal of failed asylum seekers, foreign national prisoners and immigration offenders.

Asylum: Deportation (fast track)
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 6 September 2010

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many

(1) failed asylum seekers have been deported under the fast-track process in each of the last 24 months;

(2) deportations of failed asylum seekers were pending under the fast-track process at the time of Mr Justice Silber’s ruling that the process was unlawful;

(3) appeals made by failed asylum seekers deported under the fast-track system were upheld following removal in each of the last two years;

(4) failed asylum seekers deported under the fast-track process were removed with (a) 72 hours of notice, (b) 48 hours of notice and (c) 24 hours of notice in each of the last two years;

(5) failed asylum seekers deported under the fast-track process in each of the last two years were children.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 6 September 2010, c36W)

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
On 16 July 2010 Mr Justice Silber quashed the UK Border Agency’s policy of giving less than 72 hours notice of removal in certain exceptional categories of persons being removed from the UK. This policy applied to all removals, including non-asylum removals, and was entirely different from the detained fast-track process which covers asylum decision making.

According to management information, the policy which was quashed by the court was applied 145 times between 12 March 2007 and 21 May 2010, when the policy was suspended by order of the court as an interim measure. We have broken this down by year as follows:

Number of children served removal directions with less than 72 hours notice

2007 23
2008 28
2009 20
2010 1
Total 72

Total number served removal directions with less than 72 hours notice (includes the children figures above)
2007 43
2008 34
2009 31
2010 37
Total 145

We only have information on the number of cases where less than 72 hours notice of removal was given. We do not have information on how many of these cases were given less than 48 hours or 24 hours notice of removal. We do not have information on how many of these removees were failed asylum seekers.

Cases which would have been removed under this policy are being processed in alternative ways and are currently all being given at least 72 hours notice of removal. There are not any cases on hold pending the outcome of this litigation.

Those who were removed under the policy will have already exhausted any statutory rights of appeal against the UK Border Agency’s decision not to grant leave and/or to remove before removal action was initiated. However, those being removed under the policy may apply for permission to seek judicial review of their removal directions or they may seek an injunction preventing removal from the court. In the 145 cases set out above, management information that we provided to the court shows that 11 removals were prevented from proceeding because an injunction was sought or obtained, a judicial review application was lodged or threatened, or further representations were submitted for consideration.

Home Department
Written answers and statements, 6 September 2010

Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) foreign national offenders, (b) failed asylum seekers, (c) foreign nationals who have overstayed in the UK and (d) illegal entrants to the UK were deported in each of the last five years.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 6 September 2010, c44W)

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
The information requested is shown in the following table:

table>

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total removals⁽¹⁾ 58,215 63,865 63,365 67,980 ^(*)64,750 Asylum cases⁽²⁾ 15,685 18,280 13,705 12,875 10,815 Non-asylum cases⁽³⁾ 42,530 45,585 49,660 55,105 53,930 Non-asylum overstayers⁽⁴⁾ 5,811 5,717 8,775 11,032 10,647 Non-asylum illegal entrants⁽⁴⁾ 2,995 3,445 3,593 4,152 3,909 * Published statistics figures are rounded to the nearest 5 (- = 0, * = 1 or 2) and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. ^{(1 )}In answering this PQ “foreign national offenders” has been taken to mean immigration offenders and deportation has been taken to mean removals. Total removals relates to all immigration offenders removed and includes total removals and voluntary departures from the United Kingdom. This includes both in country and port removals. This data was taken from published immigration statistics (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats.html). ^{(2 )}The PQ asks for the number of failed asylum seekers that have been deported in each of the last five years. It is not possible to say what stage in the asylum process the returnees as a whole have reached at the time of their removal, including whether their claim has failed at that point, because those departing voluntarily can do so at any stage. For this reason we have interpreted this as the number of asylum cases, including dependants, removed and departing voluntarily from the UK. This data was taken from published immigration statistics (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats, html). ⁽³⁾ Data on the number of non-asylum cases, including dependants, removed and departing voluntarily from the UK has been provided from published immigration statistics (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats.html). ⁽⁴⁾ Data on non-asylum overstayers and non-asylum illegal entrants is taken from Management Information as the published statistics do not break the removals down into these case types. These figures form part of the total number of non-asylum cases. Other cases that contribute to this figure include for example, administrative removal cases such as breach of employment restrictions. It should also be noted that Management Information has not been quality assured under National Statistics protocols and hence is subject to change. Statistics to be used publicly or for other Government Departments or agencies must be agreed with the Migration Statistics.

Deportation: Children
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 6 September 2010

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

(1) how many times physical force has been used to board a child under the age of 18 years on to an aeroplane by each company contracted to provide UK Border Agency escorts in each month of the last five years;

(2) whether (a) staff in immigration removal centres and (b) UK Border Agency escort providers have been authorised to use the holds and techniques on children under the age of 18 years referred to in the Physical Control in Care manual;

(3) what training on the control and restraint of children under the age of 18 years has been provided by the Prison Service (a) in each immigration removal centre and (b) to each company contracted to provide UK Border Agency escorts;

(4) how many times (a) she and (b) the manager of a (i) directly-managed and (ii) contracted-out immigration removal centre has ordered a detained child in each removal centre under the age of 18 years to be put under special control or restraint for (A) injuring himself or others, (B) damaging property and (C) creating a disturbance in each month of each of the last five years;

(5) what techniques are in the category of special control and restraint; how many times each of the techniques has been used on a child under the age of 18 years (a) in each immigration removal centre and (b) by each company contracted to provide UK Border Agency escorts in each of the last 12 months; and for how long each technique was used in each case.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 6 September 2010, c44W)

Damian Green (Minister of State (Immigration), Home Office; Ashford, Conservative)
Use of restraint is governed by schedule 13 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and specifically in relation to Immigration Removal Centres, by the Detention Centre Rules 2001.

In order to exercise any use of restraint, detention custody officers and escorts must be accredited by the Secretary of State, a condition of which is that they have undergone training of techniques approved by the National Offender Management Service. Officers receive refresher training every 12 months. Any use of restraint must be justified, proportionate and for the shortest possible period to achieve the objective.

Some officers receive specialist training in the use of restraint on children using non-pain compliant techniques (Physical Control in Care), including shepherding and guiding.

We only use restraint on a child where it is strictly necessary to prevent self-harm or to protect others and property. In very exceptional circumstances, officers may be given authority to restrain a child in order to enforce their removal from the United Kingdom where every effort has been made to secure their compliance, but unfortunately they refuse to do so, often encouraged by their parents.

In the 12 months to June 2010, the period for which data is available, officers have been authorised to restrain children on 18 occasions for the purposes of removal. However, it was only necessary to restrain three of them. One further child was restrained in an immigration removal centre when officers had reason to believe she might self-harm.

The following table shows the occasions from 2008 to the present time when children were restrained by officers to board an aircraft. Such information is not available prior to 2008. The officers were provided by G4S on each occasion.

Number of times restraint used

The above data is based on management information, and is not subject to the detailed checks carried out for National Statistics. It is provisional and subject to change.

Special restraint involves the use of any device other than handcuffs such as leg restraints (velcro straps). No child has been subjected to special control or restraint in the last five years.