| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Fine Enforcement
Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the Lord Chancellor about the impact of the scheduled transfer of responsibility for the system of fine enforcement. [3974]
Mr. Maclean: The Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to remove from the police the administrative work relating to enforcement of warrants which divert them from more essential police work. There has been an exchange of correspondence about the timing of the proposed transfer of responsibility for the enforcement of certain categories of warrants from the police to the magistrates courts. The matter is now the subject of judicial review.
Mobile Telephones
Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4257]
Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during (a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4258]
Mr. Howard: The number of detected instances of cloning of Ministers' official mobile telephones in my Department during (a) the last six months; (b) the previous six months; and (c) the six months before that were zero, two and zero respectively.
The mobile telephones issued to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was serving as Minister of State in my Department, were cloned.
7 Dec 1995 : Column: 356
Mr. Hutton:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if answers to questions tabled by hon. Members which fall within the responsibilities of executive agencies of his Office are submitted to Ministers for approval before publication in the Official Report. [4740]
Mr. Howard:
It is the normal practice for Ministers to see the proposed replies to questions tabled by hon. Members which fall within the responsibility of chief executives of Home Office executive agencies before they appear in the Official Report.
Mr. Kaufman:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out for each of the last 10 years for which information is available (a) according to country of origin the number of applications for asylum from those seeking to enter the United Kingdom from abroad together with the number accepted and (b) the number of applications for asylum from those already in the United Kingdom together with the number accepted. [4516]
Mr. Kirkhope:
Information on the number of asylum applications made and decisions taken, by location of application, for the years 1992 to 1994, is given in tables 4.1 to 4.3 of Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994" issue 15/95. Similar information on asylum applications for the years 1998 to 1991 is given in table 2.2 of issues 13/93 and 12/92 of the same publication. Copies of all issues of this bulletin are available in the Library. An equivalent breakdown of decisions prior to 1992 is not available.
Mr. Chris Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers appealed against the initial decision on their claims in 1994; and what percentage of the total of those whose claims were initially rejected this represented. [4236]
Mr. Kirkhope:
In 1994, there were 16,500 initial decisions to refuse asylum. During the same year, 10,580 appeals against the refusal of asylum were lodged with the Home Office. However, some of these appeals will have been made against decisions which were taken at the end of 1993 and some of those applications who were refused may have exercised more than one right of appeal. For these reasons, an accurate appeal rate cannot be calculated.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to establish a wholly independent authority to consider exclusion orders under prevention of terrorism legislation; and if the persons so appointed will be subject to official secrets legislation in respect of the information provided to them. [4523]
Mr. Howard:
Independent persons have been appointed to consider exclusion orders since the prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was introduced. The European Court of Justice has ruled
7 Dec 1995 : Column: 357
that the method of appointing the independent advisers is satisfactory. They are subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in cases where recommendations to exclude persons under the prevention of terrorism legislation are not approved by the wholly independent persons appointed to consider such cases. [4524]
Mr. Howard:
The Secretary of State is not bound by legislation to accept the advisers' recommendations. Responsibility for national security results rests ultimately with the Secretary of State. However, in recent years, advisers' recommendations have generally been accepted. These recommendations have by no means always supported exclusion orders, which have sometimes been revoked accordingly.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the procedures to be followed by the wholly independent persons appointed to consider recommendations for exclusion under prevention of terrorism legislation with particular reference to the rights of persons being excluded learning of the nature of the evidence offered against them. [4525]
Mr. Howard:
The adviser will offer the individual concerned an interview, either in Northern Ireland or in the British embassy in Dublin. Legal representation is permitted. The adviser will have access to the documentation on the basis of which a recommendation for exclusion has been made. The adviser will submit a report to the Secretary of State who then makes a final decision.
Exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 relate to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or travel for those purposes; details are highly sensitive and could not be divulged without prejudicing the fight against terrorism. That is why any individual may make representations to an independent adviser, and all cases are subject to further oversight as part of the annual review of the operation of the prevention of terrorism Act.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been excluded from the mainland of the United Kingdom under prevention of terrorism legislation; and on what basis he has concluded that none of them will be entitled to compensation. [4526]
Mr. Howard:
Four hundred and forty-one people have been excluded from Great Britain or the United Kingdom since the introduction of this legislation in 1974. Differentiation between those excluded from Great Britain and those excluded from the United Kingdom since 1974 could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.
To claim compensation, an individual would have to show that he had suffered loss as a direct result of the failure to follow procedures deemed necessary by the European Court of Justice. There is no evidence to support this in any of these cases, since the Court has called into question the process, rather than the fact, of exclusion. In
7 Dec 1995 : Column: 358
many instances, the decision to exclude was subsequently backed up by an independent adviser who had had a chance to interview the individual.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he had made of the cost of providing a wholly independent review of persons considered for exclusion under protection of terrorism legislation. [4527]
Mr. Howard:
An independent review process already exists. Each individual who is excluded is offered the opportunity to make representations to an independent adviser. The European Court of Justice judgment in Gallagher concerned the point at which the reference should be made to an adviser. We are currently considering its implications.
Mr. Frank Field:
To ask the Secretay of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with (a) the Church Commissioners and (b) the General Synod on the desirability of the commissioners ceasing to be covered by exempted status in respect of their supervision by the Charity Commissioners. [4591]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |