|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum applicants whose applications were refused for non-compliance were subsequently granted (a) refugee status and (b) exceptional leave to enter or remain in each month of (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001; and what proportion this represents of the total numbers refused on that basis; 
Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were granted (a) refugee status and (b) exceptional leave to enter or remain in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001, including those granted such status following an initial refusal of asylum. 
2 May 2001 : Column: 681W
Mrs. Roche: The information requested is not readily available and would be obtained only by examination of individual case files relating to the outcomes of initial decisions and of appeals, which would incur disproportionate cost.
Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons whose asylum applications were refused in each month of (a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001 were refused for (i) failing to return a statement of evidence within the time specified, (ii) returning a statement of evidence in a language other than English and (iii) returning a statement of evidence on time but inadequately completed. 
Mrs. Roche: Information relating to asylum applicants who did not submit their statement of evidence form (SEF) within the 10 working day deadline, or submitted it within the time specified but inadequately completed or in a language other than English, is not currently routinely collected and so could be obtained only through examination of individual case records and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.
The available information relates to total refusals of asylum on non-compliance grounds (failure to comply with our procedures and regulations) including failure to provide further evidence as required, failure to respond to invitations to interview to establish identity, failure to complete a SEF correctly and within the time allowed.
Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department makes a decision to refuse an asylum application on non-compliance grounds and later withdraws that decision to grant or refuse asylum in that case, if the second decision on that case is included as a decision made in the monthly statistics published by his Department. 
Mrs. Roche: A small number of refusals on non-compliance grounds are reconsidered for a variety of reasons. Those cases are granted asylum, exceptional leave to remain or are refused based on the individual merits of each case. If in due course we find that a significant number of those cases result in the grant of asylum or exceptional leave to remain, we will consider what is the best way to publish the data on the outcomes of reconsidered decisions once we are satisfied that it is reliable.
2 May 2001 : Column: 682W
confirm the identity of Ms Rachel Akuary of the Leeds, Central constituency in respect of her claim for income support. 
Mrs. Roche [holding answer 26 April 2001]: Central records are not maintained specifically for suicide attempts by individuals detained under Immigration Act powers. Information is, however, maintained on actual self-inflicted deaths. In terms of immigration service detention centres, there has been one such incident: this occurred in January 2000 at Harmondsworth detention centre. Similarly, in terms of immigration detainees held in Prison Service accommodation, there has been one incident of self-inflicted death: this was in August 1995 at Her Majesty's prison, Norwich.
Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in (a) 2000 and (b) the period to April 2001; and if he will make a statement. 
Data are not yet available about the number of section 8 prosecutions in the first quarter of 2001. The latest provisional information is that there have been 18 prosecutions to date under section 8 of the 1996 Act.
We are aware of the problem caused by unscrupulous gangmasters, and by others who commit offences under this section. Operation Leighton is a recent example of our commitment to combat illegal working and the exploitation of vulnerable people. Conducted on the morning of 24 April, it resulted in the arrest of 18 people on suspicion of involvement in facilitation, production of false documents and organising labour and the arrest of a further 107 people on suspicion of entering the United Kingdom illegally, overstaying or working in breach of entry conditions. To date, 111 people have been removed. The arrests mark the outcome of a comprehensive investigation demonstrating the value of a multi-agency approach against highly sophisticated and organised criminal activity.
Mr. Grogan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the outcome of consultations on the proposals for reform of the licensing laws set out in the White Paper, "Time for Reform". 
2 May 2001 : Column: 683W
Mr. Mike O'Brien: We are grateful for all the responses to our proposals. We have concluded that they confirm the case for comprehensive modernisation of the alcohol and entertainment licensing laws in England and Wales. They show that the White Paper proposals represent a sound basis for legislation and strike the right overall balance between the needs of business, the enlargement of consumer choice, and the interests of local residents.
As to the former, the responses to the White Paper showed a great divergence of opinion. We have considered with care the views of those who argued that the new licensing authorities should be based on magistrates courts. However, there remains a clear need to bring greater democratic accountability to licensing, and we remain persuaded that local authorities are the right bodies for this purpose. It will of course be important for all licensing decisions to be taken, as the White Paper stressed, in accordance with fair and consistent procedures.
The balance of opinion among those who commented specifically on licensing hours in responding to the White Paper clearly supported our proposals for more flexible arrangements. They will make an important contribution to dealing with the problems of alcohol-related crime and disorder, alongside the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
The responses to the White Paper include a number of reservations or suggestions which are helpful, and which we shall want to pursue as we work up the detail of legislative proposals to bring before Parliament in due course. There is, however, one major point on which we have been persuaded by the consultations that a substantive change to the White Paper proposals is required.
The appeal arrangements described in the White Paper gave rise to considerable anxiety for many interested parties. We now intend to provide in legislation that appeals against licensing decisions should go to local magistrates courts on both law and merits, rather than to the Crown court.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|