| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 407
January-March 1994
Appeal Categories BangladeGhana India Jamaica Nigeria PakistanEC All other
|All|Dis|All|Dis|All|Dis|All|Dis|All|Dis|All|Dis|All|Dis|All|Dis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Exclusion-Appeal at Port |- |2 |1 |2 |- |3 |- |2 |- |10 |- |2 |- |- |1 |14
2. Exclusion-External Appeals |- |5 |- |2 |- |6 |1 |18 |1 |5 |- |8 |- |- |15 |207
3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement |3 |66 |1 |5 |3 |18 |- |- |3 |11 |2 |13 |- |- |9 |18
4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Temporary
purposes (not husbands, wives, fiances
or financees) |23 |176|28 |145|140|325|4 |33 |94 |377|187|546|1 |- |168|772
5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for Employment,
Business or Independent Means (not husbands,
wives, fiances or fiancees) |- |1 |- |- |3 |4 |- |- |- |3 |1 |3 |- |- |2 |15
6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by
wives and children, other dependent relatives
and returning residents |9 |138|- |12 |25 |49 |3 |5 |3 |14 |42 |80 |- |- |44 |113
7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by
female fiancees |- |- |- |- |3 |5 |- |- |- |1 |1 |2 |- |- |6 |12
8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by
husbands |14 |35 |- |- |21 |39 |2 |6 |2 |6 |106|180|- |- |12 |37
9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by male
fiances |- |1 |- |1 |14 |25 |- |- |- |3 |5 |10 |- |- |1 |7
10. Variation of Landing Conditions (including
curtailment of stay or duration or conditions of
leave to remain given to persons previously
exempted (S.14(2)) |- |8 |- |6 |- |19 |- |3 |- |10 |- |31 |- |- |12 |106
11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter |- |40 |5 |95 |15 |144|7 |102|12 |404|14 |201|- |- |26 |742
12. Decision to make Deportation Order |1 |11 |3 |42 |1 |28 |- |27 |4 |159|2 |32 |- |- |2 |110
13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order |- |1 |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |3 |- |1 |- |- |2 |7
14. Giving of Removal Directions |- |- |- |1 |- |- |- |1 |- |1 |- |- |- |- |- |-
15. Destination Only Appeal |- |- |- |2 |- |4 |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |-
All: Allowed.
Dis: Dismissed.
Column 409
1993
Appeal Categories Bangladesh Ghana India Jamaica Nigeria Pakistan EC All other
|All |Dis |All |Dis |All |Dis |All |Dis |All |Dis |All |Dis |All |Dis |All |Dis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Exclusion-Appeal at Port |2 |20 |- |23 |7 |20 |- |8 |1 |22 |7 |27 |- |13 |2 |74
2. Exclusion-External Appeals |- |23 |1 |8 |2 |21 |5 |57 |2 |42 |2 |22 |- |1 |50 |680
3. Refusal of Certificate Entitlement |29 |139 |2 |9 |9 |27 |3 |8 |13 |29 |5 |21 |- |- |20 |80
4. Refusal of Entry Clearance for
Temporary purposes (not husbands, wives,
fiances or financees) |125 |629 |114 |43 |609 |1,164|62 |225 |329 |1,362|719 |1,762|- |- |673 |295
5. Refusal of Entry Clearance for
Employment, Business or Independent
Means (not husbands, wives, fiances or
fiancees) |- |5 |- |3 |9 |26 |- |- |3 |12 |19 |51 |- |- |13 |99
6. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by
wives and children, other dependent
relatives and returning residents |83 |477 |7 |40 |68 |213 |10 |31 |14 |37 |81 |32 |- |4 |122 |293
7. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by
female fiancees |5 |7 |- |3 |16 |30 |2 |6 |1 |1 |5 |16 |- |- |31 |42
8. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by
husbands |35 |92 |3 |10 |71 |162 |3 |15 |5 |23 |316 |663 |1 |- |49 |92
9. Refusal of Entry Clearance requested by
male fiances |10 |17 |- |2 |65 |92 |10 |11 |- |2 |59 |86 |- |- |5 |21
10. Variation of Landing Conditions
(including curtailment of stay or duration or
conditions of leave to remain given to
persons previously exempted (S.14(2)) |12 |5 |6 |5 |4 |101 |- |35 |2 |101 |3 |113 |- |6 |40 |287
11. Refusal to Vary Leave to Enter |9 |118 |13 |27 |18 |473 |12 |249 |35 |879 |19 |586 |- |2 |59 |1,823
12. Decision to make Deportation Order |4 |22 |5 |17 |5 |117 |- |55 |8 |338 |1 |112 |- |- |18 |318
13. Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order |- |- |- |5 |1 |4 |- |1 |- |4 |- |3 |- |- |- |8
14. Giving of Romoval Directions |- |- |- |2 |- |2 |- |- |- |6 |- |2 |- |- |3 |10
15. Destination Only Appeal |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |-
All: Allowed.
Dis: Dismissed.
Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many appeals to the Immigration Appeal tribunal were (a) allowed and (b) dismissed in 1993 and the first quarter of 1994.
Mr. John M. Taylor : In 1993, 350 appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal were allowed and 361 were dismissed. In the first quarter of 1994, 41 appeals have been allowed and 59 have been dismissed.
Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many appellants in appeals under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 have been (a) unrepresented, (b) represented by the Refugee Legal Centre, (c) represented by other voluntary organisations and (d) represented by solicitors or counsel, by hearing centre, since 26 July 1993.
Mr. John M. Taylor : The information requested is not available. No separate record is kept of how--if at all--individual appellants are represented.
Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many applications to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under (i) the Immigration Act 1971 and (ii) the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 have been (a) granted and (b) refused since 26 July 1993.
Mr. John M. Taylor : Since 26 July 1993, nine applications to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Immigration Act 1971 that have been granted ; 58 have been refused.
Of the applications made under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, five have been granted and 16 refused.
Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for leave for judicial review of decisions of a special adjudicator made under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 that a case was without foundation have been (a) made, (b) granted or (c) refused since 26 July 1993.
Mr. John M. Taylor : Since 26 July 1993, 13 applications for leave for judicial review of decisions of a special adjudicator in "without foundation" cases have been made. Of these, six were granted leave, of which three were later withdrawn, and one was dismissed at a substantive hearing. Four applications were refused and three have yet to be considered.
Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what is the average delay, listed by each immigration appeals hearing centre (i) between
Column 412
receiving the explanatory statement and papers about a case (a) from a British post overseas and (b) from the Home Office and sending those papers to an appellant or his or her authorised representative and (ii) between the hearing of an immigration appeal by an adjudicator and the dispatch of the determination to the appellant or authorised representative.Mr. John M. Taylor : Copies of the explanatory statement and related papers are dispatched from the immigration appellate authority's principal office at Thanet house in London to the appellant or his or her authorised representative. The IAA aims to dispatch copies of the case papers to the parties within five days in 95 per cent. of cases. This target is achieved regularly and often exceeded.
In non-asylum cases, the adjudicator's determination issues to the parties, on average, within six to eight weeks of the hearing. For appeals determined under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the average time from the hearing to the issue of the determination is eight to nine days.
Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many appeals under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 have been (a) lodged, (b) heard by special adjudicators, (c) allowed, (d) dismissed and (e) dismissed but with a recommendation to the Home Office to reconsider, at each hearing centre.
Mr. John M. Taylor : Some 2,283 appeals have been lodged to date under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The table shows the outcome of those cases which have been determined, at each hearing centre. The figures exclude cases that are part heard or have been adjourned.
|Allowed |Dismissed|Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------
Hatton Cross |34 |802 |12
Thanet House |4 |117 |7
Birmingham |1 |91 |-
Glasgow |- |20 |2
Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in how many appeals under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 the appellants have been (a) refused leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, (b) granted leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and (c) heard by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal ; and in how many cases heard the appeal was (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed with a recommendation or (iii) dismissed.
Mr. John M. Taylor : The number of appeals under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 where the
Column 413
appellant has been refused leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is 607. Leave to appeal has been granted in 183 cases. Of those, eight appeals have so far been allowed ; 80 have been remitted for rehearing by an adjudicator ; and 33 have been dismissed.Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many appeals against claims for asylum certified by the Secretary of State to be unfounded have been (a) lodged, (b) heard by special adjudicators, (c) allowed and (d) dismissed, by appeals hearing centres, since 26 July 1993.
Mr. John M. Taylor : Since 26 July 1993, 766 appeals against claims for asylum certified by the Secretary of State to be unfounded have been lodged. These cases are determined at Hatton Cross in west London. To date, 20 have been allowed, 398 dismissed, 11 withdrawn, and 86 referred back to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many applications to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal in cases under (i) the Immigration Act 1971 and (ii) the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 have been (a) granted and (b) refused since 26 July 1993.
Mr. John M. Taylor : Since 26 July 1993, three applications have been made to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal in cases under the Immigration Act 1971. Of these, one application was dismissed by consent of the parties, one was refused and the other has not yet been heard. In the same period, seven applications have been made under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Of these, one was allowed, one was refused and five have not yet been heard.
Mr. Allen : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many judicial reviews of decisions of a special adjudicator made under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 that a case was without foundation have been (a) heard, (b) granted relief and (c) dismissed since 26 July 1993.
Mr. John M. Taylor : Since 26 July 1993, one such judicial review was heard and was dismissed.
TRANSPORT
Public Safety Zone Policy
Mr. Channon : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review public safety zone policy and its administration.
Mr. Norris : I have asked officials to review public safety zone policy and its administration. The terms of reference for the review are as follows :
Review of Public Safety Zone Policy and Administration Terms of Reference
1. The review will consider how the Public Safety zone policy set out in Department of the Environment Circular 2/92 and Scottish Development Department Circular 16/82, and its administration, are working in practice ; and whether changes are needed. It will cover in particular :
(i) the criteria for establishing Public Safety zones, including the level of third party risk against which the policy should seek to provide protection ;
the relevant number and type of aircraft movements ;
Column 414
the size and shape of the Zones.(ii) the policy towards existing and new development in the Zones, including
the posibility of different policies for different parts of the Zones, or different levels of risk ;
the policy towards roads and railways in Public Safety Zones ; how the policy can be translated into clear guidance for administration.
(iii) the administration of the policy.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Mr. Dunn : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce the location for intermediate stations on the channel tunnel rail link.
Mr. Watts : I will write to my hon. Friend.
Northolt Airfield
Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the status and purpose of current developments at Northolt airfield ; what was the result of his consultation with industry on the way in which the private sector could be involved in making better use of the existing capacity for civil operations at RAF Northolt ; what arrangements he is making to consult local residents ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Norris : We are undertaking a consultation with business aviation users and operators on the ways in which the private sector might become involved in making better use of the existing capacity at RAF Northolt through development of a civil enclave. This is in line with the policy set out in the 1985 White Paper. The purpose of the present consultation is to find out what might be a commercially feasible way forward within current operating constraints at RAF Northolt. The consultation period ends on 19 August. The defence lands agent will be discussing this with local authority officials. We are not consulting on the basis of any change in the limits on civil use at Northolt and therefore the consultation is not intended to be any broader at this stage. Should a development be proposed for such an enclave, then planning permission would be required from the local authority, with an opportunity for all views to be taken into account.
Airports
Mr. Cox : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on future airport development covering existing airports in southern England.
Mr. Norris : The last major statement on airport development was in the 1985 White Paper "Airports Policy" Cmnd 9542. Although this remains relevant today, the Government have acknowledged that it needs to be updated. The recent consultation on the report of the runway capacity to serve the south east--RUCATSE--working group provides a focus for such a statement and we intend to make this before the end of the year.
Disabled Drivers
Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what study his Department has made of the number of fines imposed on severely disabled drivers for parking in central London ; what assessment he has made
Column 415
of whether the level is increasing or decreasing ; what action he has taken or will be taking ; and if he will make a statement.Mr. Norris : My Department has not carried out any such studies and has no plans to do so at the moment.
Underground (Infrastructure)
Mrs. Roche : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the London Regional Passengers Committee about tunnels and their integrity, water pumps, signals and rolling stock and the effects of these factors on train speeds and thus on overall service ; what recommendations the committee has made to him ; and if he will publish this information.
Mr. Norris : The LRPC regularly makes representations to me on a wide range of issues to do with passenger services on the underground. All the committee's proceedings and representations to the Department are in the public domain.
Mrs. Roche : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which stations or sections of tunnel on London Underground do not meet the standards set by the Health and Safety Executive.
Mr. Norris : It is for London Underground to ensure the safety of those who work on their railway or those--for example, passengers--who are affected by their work in accordance with the appropriate legislation. Her Majesty's railway inspectorate enforces health and safety on the underground and monitors to see that recommendations arising from its routine inspections are acted upon.
Barge, South Hams
Mr. Steen : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to complete the removal of the jagged metal part of the barge sunk at Hallsands, South Hams ; how many days he gave the National Rivers Authority to complete this work from 23 July 1993 ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Norris : The Department is not responsible for removing the remains of the barge from the beach at Hallsands. We refused to allow the barge to remain in the sea as it was a danger to navigation. The National Rivers Authority declined to accept responsibility for the barge, which was owned by its contractor. The remains were sold to a salvage company and they were then hauled on to the beach to be cut up. We have no powers to order the clearance of the remains from the beach.
Heavy Goods Vehicles
Mr. Cox : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had, and with whom, as to reducing present restrictions on heavy goods vehicles travelling within residential areas within the Greater London area.
Mr. Norris : The Government are not proposing to reduce the present restrictions on heavy goods vehicles travelling within residential areas in London.
Franchise Expenses
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of (a) legal fees and (b) in-house expenses spent by the franchise director for each
Column 416
month since he took up office in relation to the preparation and negotiation of specifications, tenders and contracts relating to prospective franchises.Mr. Watts : Total expenditure, net of recoverable VAT, by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising on (a) fees to legal advisers and (b) running costs is as follows :
|Amount
----------------------------------------------------
1993-94 (from 8 November)
Legal fees: |£826,543.88p
Running costs: |£691,310.67p
1994-95 (to 19 July)
Legal fees: |£514,375.73p
Running costs: |£557,744.10p
It is not practicable to apportion these totals between the matters mentioned in the question and other matters on which the office has incurred expenditure.
Ministerial Visits
Mrs. Roche : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many overseas visits he and each of his Ministers have made between 1 January and 30 June ; during how many he, or each of his Ministers, participated in fundraising activities for the Conservative party ; and if he will name the Ministers and the countries in which these activities took place.
Dr. Mawhinney : The Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and my noble Friend Lord MacKay have made 18 visits abroad on departmental business to-date this year. Details of all visits are as follows :
John MacGregor OBE MP, Secretary of State for Transport Sunday 6 February- Tuesday 8 February : Visit to Informal Council meeting in Athens, Greece.
Wednesday 9 March : Trilateral, German-French-British meeting in Dresden, Germany.
Monday 14 March-Wednesday 16 March : Second Pan-European Conference in Crete, Greece.
Sunday 17 April-Monday 18 April : EC Transport Council meeting in Luxembourg.
Friday 6 May : Official opening of the Channel Tunnel, Calais, France.
Thursday 26 May-Saturday 28 May : European Conference of Ministers of Transport in Annecy, France.
Thursday 9 June-Friday 10 June : European Civil Aviation Conference meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Monday 13 June-Tuesday 14 June : EC Transport Council, Luxembourg.
The Right Hon. Roger Freeman MP, Minister for Public Transport Friday 7 January : Visiting international stations in Lille, France.
Friday 6 May : Official opening of Channel Tunnel in Calais, France.
Robert Key MP, Minister for Roads and Traffic
Monday 6 June-Wednesday 8 June : Italy.
Steven Norris MP, Minister for Transport in London
Mr. Norris visited Cyprus in his capacity as a Constituency MP. The trip was not funded by public monies.
Friday 6 May : Official opening of the Channel Tunnel, Calais, France.
Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, Minister for Aviation and Shipping Wednesday 26 January : Paris.
Column 417
Sunday 13 February-Friday 18 February : Israel.Wednesday 23 March : Brussels.
Tuesday 3 May : Le Havre.
Tuesday 7 June-Thursday 9 June : Athens.
Wednesday 22 June : Calais.
Fund-raising activities for the Conservative party are not part of our official duties.
Bus and Coach Fares
Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the percentage change in (a) bus and (b) coach fares, between (i) January 1987 and May 1994 and (ii) August 1992 and May 1994 ; and what contribution was made in each case by the increase in unit labour costs.
Mr. Watts : Information supplied to the Department by a panel of operators indicates that local bus fares in Great Britain increased by 63 per cent. between January 1987 and May 1994, and by 9 per cent. between August 1992 and May 1994. The contribution made by increases in unit labour costs is not known. No information is collected about changes in other--non -local--bus and coach fares.
Rail Strike
Mr. Nigel Evans : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of losses sustained by British Rail due to the signalmen's strike to date ;
(2) what estimates he has made of the effects on the economy of the signalmen's strike to date.
Mr. Watts : British Rail estimates that it loses of the order of £9 million per day in revenue for each one day strike. The overall loss to British Rail will depend on the rebate to the access charge made by Railtrack.
It is impossible to estimate the damage to the overall economy, but continued strike action is clearly detrimental to passengers, the railway industry and the economy as a whole.
Property Acquisition
Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the property acquired by his Department on possible routes for (a) the A36 Beckington-East of Bath road scheme and (b) the A46 Upper Swainswick- Tormanton road scheme ; what was the total cost of acquisition of this property ; and what is the current total estimated market value.
Mr. Norris : The question is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. The chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, is writing to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 20 July 1994 :
I am writing in response to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Transport about properties acquired in connection with the proposed A36 Beckington to East of Bath and A46 Upper Swainswick to Tormarton improvement schemes. This is a matter for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
Three properties have been purchased as a result of the A36 scheme--The Villa and Dry Arch Cottage, Farleigh Wick, Bradford on Avon, Wiltshire, and Warleigh Lodge, Bathford Avon. For the A46 scheme, one property, Dunsdown Farm House, West Littleton, Avon, has been acquired. The total cost of acquiring these properties was just under £900,000.
Column 418
The combined value of these properties was assessed by the Valuation Office Agency earlier this year as £785,000. The difference between the two figures arises mainly because purchase costs are assessed on an unblighted basis (ie ignoring the effect of the road proposals) whereas current value takes account of blight.Motorways
Mr. Butcher : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will mount a television advertising campaign to remind motorists that the middle and outside lanes of motorways are for overtaking purposes only.
Mr. Corbett : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to mount a publicity campaign to encourage drivers on motorways to use the nearest vacant inside lane.
Mr. Norris : In the past we have tried to persuade drivers to show better lane discipline--in particular, in collaboration with the police motorway safety campaign. Unfortunately, this has had no perceptible effect. I am therefore reluctant to divert publicity funds from the child road safety or drink/drive campaigns. We have announced proposals, backed by the insurance companies for post-test driver training which will include instruction in motorway driving techniques. The problem of poor lane discipline will also be addressed as part of the controlled motorway pilot scheme due to begin at Easter 1995 on the south-west sector of the M25.
Road Schemes
Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the Yorkshire and Humberside region (a) the number of houses bought by his Department since 1988-89 for road schemes, (b) the total cost of purchases, (c) the number and cost of houses bought and then subsequently sold as they were not required for particular road schemes and (d) the level of income received from selling properties surplus to the requirements of road schemes.
Mr. Norris [holding answer 13 July 1994] : As this is an operational matter, the question will be dealt with by the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 20 July 1994 :
I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questioin asking for information about the number and cost of property purchases and sales in Yorkshire and Humberside region since 1988.
The information you request is as follows :
| Next Section
| Home Page |