Executive set target of ten asylum seeker removals per week
Review of cases affecting 4,000 people may take five years to conclude
Last month a Nepalese man died after setting himself on fire in protest
THE number of failed asylum seekers forcibly removed from Scotland is set double, the man in charge of immigration north of the Border has revealed.
Phil Taylor, Scottish regional director of the new Border and Immigration Agency (BIA), said an average of five asylum seekers refused permission to stay are currently being forcibly removed every week. But he said steps were being taken to reach a target of ten per week over the coming months.
The announcement triggered threats of a public backlash, with warnings of a major scaling-up of protests against forced removals.
The issue was highlighted in The Scotsman last month when a Nepalese man died after setting himself on fire.
The move is being taken to deal with a backlog of cases, with the BIA beginning a review of 1,100 asylum-seeking families - affecting 4,000 people - with no legal right to remain in Scotland, which it admits will take as much as five years to conclude.
The government has previously denied the existence of targets for removing failed asylum seekers, amid public fury over the practice of dawn raids and growing concern for the welfare of children of asylum seekers, many of whom were born in Scotland and have settled into schools and communities.
The revelation of an imminent doubling in forced removals has been met with a furious reaction from campaigners, who claim it flies in the face of remarks by Jack McConnell, the First Minister, who last week said so-called “legacy” cases would be treated “sensitively”.
Mr Taylor said a target of ten removals a week had been set, and said last year’s number was “particularly low” because of organisational restructuring.
He said: “We are currently operating at about 50 per cent. We are building staff resources back to be able to meet the target.”
Mr Taylor said that while a large number of failed asylum seekers were living in Glasgow, a “considerable number” were elsewhere, including Aberdeen where many work illegally in the fish processing industry.
He said the agency was in discussions with the Advocate General for Scotland to examine ways to hasten the legal process, which can allow for an appeal and subsequent judicial reviews.
One of the main reasons given for delays is poor-quality decisions on applications which have led to appeals. Mr Taylor said better training for case workers and a new “case ownership” approach - which will mean each case being dealt with by a single officer - were in the process of being introduced.
Mr Taylor said asylum decisions in Scotland were “subjected to more judicial scrutiny” than south of the Border and revealed that his department was working with law officers on steps to improve the process.
Meanwhile, the chief executive of the BIA, Lin Homer, said the length of time an asylum seeker has spent in Scotland would be one of the factors considered in the legacy cases reviews.
She also said the BIA would consider whether asylum seekers had committed crimes or been dishonest during the application process.
Robina Qureshi, the director of Positive Action in Housing, warned of a public backlash over forced removals.
“If what Mr Taylor says is borne out, we will see a doubling in the protests,” he said. “This is a tragedy. There are kids [who] fear the worst when a van pulls up at their door. It’s a disgrace.”
Sally Daghlian, chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council, said: “The government is setting itself high and arbitrary removal targets. Compassion is being sacrificed to meet these targets.”
Q & A: HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS
How many ‘failed’ asylum seekers are living in Scotland at present?
According to current figures, there are 4,020 asylum seekers in Scotland whose application to remain in the country has been rejected.
Why are these people being allowed to stay in Scotland?
Most are legally challenging the refusal. An unspecified number have exhausted the legal process and face imminent repatriation.
Are there other reasons why rejected applicants can stay?
Yes. More than 400 failed asylum seekers are classed as unable to return home.
Why can’t they be returned home?
Some are from countries which the government decides would be too dangerous to return them to. Zimbabwe is the only country on that list. Others are from countries that will not allow asylum seekers to return, such as China.
How quickly does it take to process an application?
The Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) says decisions are being reached within a month, a vast improvement on previous years, when it could take 22 months. Legal challenges can spin cases out for years. About a third are delayed by judicial reviews.
Are there any plans to speed the system up?
Yes. The BIA wants to eventually conclude all cases within six months.
How will it achieve this?
Case workers are being given additional training in a bid to improve original decisions, driving down appeals.
How are failed asylum seekers removed?
Usually either by being arrested when they check in at immigration centres or, if they are judged to be a high risk of absconding, in dawn raids.
How many leave voluntarily?
Not many. The government offers financial assistance of up to £3,500 to depart the country, but last year only 40 people in Scotland took up the offer.
Do failed asylum seekers get support?
They receive certain benefits until their case has been concluded. Applicants with children, however, will continue to receive some support.
Related topic
Immigration and refugees
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=16
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=510622007
Last updated: 03-Apr-07 01:02 BST
