Cookies: We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our site. By continuing to use the site you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
House of Lords Hansard
x
The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
Asylum Seekers: Interview Locations
25 January 2001
Volume 621
The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why asylum seekers living in London are being required to travel for interviews at cities in the north of England; and how they propose to prevent the inconvenience caused by such arrangements.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, in order to reduce overall delays and maximise efficiency in the asylum system, it is necessary to use all available interviewing and screening capacity. Every effort is made to take account of the distance travelled by applicants and to allocate those with longer journeys to later slots. Early interview slots have recently been rescheduled to ten o'clock. Interviews are booked at least seven working days in advance to enable the applicant to plan the most economical way of attending. That period should allow sufficient time for National Asylum Support Service arrangements to be finalised. The interview booking unit in Liverpool is now also booking travel vouchers and, where necessary, overnight accommodation for NASS-supported applicants.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, I am grateful for the news of those rather slight improvements. Is it not absurd that people living in London are required to travel to Leeds and Liverpool while other asylum seekers dispersed to the north are required to go to Croydon and even to Dover? Is the Minister aware of an extreme case of an Iranian in Glasgow, already in ill health, required to travel to Croydon? Can something be done to cut that ridiculous cross-traffic?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing that case to my attention. I should be grateful to have the full details and will follow it up. We are trying to make maximum use of all the available interviewing times so that we can speed up the applications process. There is no doubt that we are being very successful in that regard. Yes, of course, it creates some difficulties but, as I suggested in my response, there is flexibility. The interviewing arrangements are designed to be as flexible as possible. We want to be helpful. We want the interviews to take place. We want to ensure that the applications process is kept on track and that we maximise all interviewing opportunities.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if someone arrives for the hearing stressed and exhausted, he is not likely to do himself justice and that cannot be conducive to a just outcome? Can we have a total assurance that where someone must travel a long distance, convenient transport and proper accommodation will be made available?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, a person within the NASS scheme is provided with travel vouchers and accommodation where appropriate. The service is performing well and is extremely alive to individual sensitivities. It does all that it can to be as accommodating as possible. But it is in everyone's interests—and I repeat this point—that the application process is kept on track and that applications are processed as speedily as possible. Most people would accept that.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is a proposal to house some asylum seekers in Cardiff prison, along with other gaols, and that the National Assembly for Wales is very much opposed to the proposal on humanitarian grounds? What reply will the Minister give to the Assembly when he receives its protest?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, I was not aware of that proposal. Perhaps I should have been, if, indeed, it is a proposal. I should be very interested to hear from the noble Lord, perhaps in writing, the details as he understands them. Whatever proposals there are, I am sure that there will be detailed consultation. That is a very important part of the way in which we do our business. It is the case that from time to time we have had to use the Prison Service to house some asylum seekers but we are reducing that number. That is our commitment. We are trying to manage properly an estate to facilitate the applications process. I believe there is common agreement that that is working very well.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be more efficient and economical, as well as more compassionate, to move the interviewers to where the majority of asylum seekers are than the other way round?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, at one stage interviews took place only in Croydon. We have established two other regional centres, in part for the convenience of applicants and to ensure that the process is speeded up. We are making great strides in that direction. It is worth recalling how many applicants we have to deal with. Because of those volumes of people, it is only right to maximise the amount of interviewing time.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that movement of people from one place to another is putting severe strain on community relations in local areas? Is he aware of the concern expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers in relation to asylum seekers and refugees being victims of harassment, violence and so on? Will he please note that there has been a resurgence of bodies like the National Front, the British National Party and Combat 18? What is being done to protect asylum seekers from such violent attacks upon them?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, I thought that the Association of Chief Police Officers gave very good advice this week. We are all grateful for the way in which it has drawn out some of the problems which have undoubtedly existed. We all need to be vigilant against such racist attacks. They are appalling. Nobody can endorse them in any shape or form. It is important that we take a moral lead in government and a moral stand against those racist attacks. We must do all we can to ensure that where there are asylum seekers, asylum applicants, they are treated with dignity and humanity. That is in their best interests and it shows our country in a good light.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, will the Minister now agree that the mess of the dispersal system, which has been demonstrated in the past few minutes by the exchanges in this House, has done absolutely nothing so far to deter applications, as the Minister, the Prime Minister and others promised at the time of the Bill? There were more applications last year—two and a half times the number four years ago—over three-quarters of which were judged to be bogus.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My Lords, last year was, indeed, a year in which there were a very large number of applications. But it must be remembered that last year was the year in which the new system was introduced. That system is working well, as are the dispersal and NASS systems. None of those things is absolutely perfect.

As for deterring unfounded applications, it is desirable that people who are not making a bona fide application are deterred. The system that we put in place is designed to be fair, firm and proportionate. It deserves to be supported. Our policies are proving successful. I should point out that we inherited a complete mess of a system, with lengthy delays in the processing of applications; employees in the service had been laid off; and queues were growing longer. We are reducing those queues. The backlog is down to some 66,000 applicants. I believe that the service is doing a very good job and that it deserves to be supported in that work.