---

10 Apr 2003 : Column 382W—continued

Case Decision

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 3 March 2003m, Official Report, column 825W, on a case decision, for what reason Mr. Xhevat Murtezi, ref M1010576 and ML/LAB 19953, has not yet received notification of a decision; and if he will make a statement. [107381]

Beverley Hughes [holding answer 7 April 2003]: Mr. Murtezi was granted leave to remain on 2 April 2003. The delay in actioning this decision was due to an administrative error, which is very much regretted.

10 Apr 2003 : Column 383W

Children in Need

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the IRT system will allow the sharing of information on children in need before they come to the attention of the police. [106782]

Hilary Benn: Yes. As part of the drive towards more co-ordinated preventive services, IRT systems aim to improve information sharing between agencies working with children and young people at risk before the situation reaches crisis point. The primary focus of IRT is to pick up the early signs of difficulty and ensure a referral is made to the appropriate preventive service.

Correspondence

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what period of time his Department expects letters from the public to be answered. [105315]

Mr. Wills: The Home Office aims to answer 95 per cent. of public correspondence within 20 working days in line with its published Service Delivery Agreement target.

Home Office performance against this target for the period April 2002 to February 2003 for non-immigration matters currently stands cumulatively at 90 per cent. answered within 20 working days. No performance data are held currently for public correspondence on immigration and nationality matters.

Improving performance against published targets is recognised as a priority across the Department. A new computerised Correspondence Tracking System is being introduced currently into non-immigration areas of the Department, and will make it possible for targets to be

10 Apr 2003 : Column 384W

achieved for the first time. The same system will be introduced into immigration and nationality areas later in the year.

Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister will reply to the letters from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, dated 13 September 2002, 11 November 2002, 27 January 2003 and 7 February 2003. [106487]

Beverley Hughes [holding answer 1 April 2003]: I replied to the right hon. Member's letters of 13 September and 11 November on 7 January 2003, and to her letters of 27 January and 7 February on 10 April 2003.

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he has taken in response to the letter from IND to the hon. Member for Leicester, East dated 3 October 2002 concerning the case of Mr.Mahmood Mohd Jibreel, date of birth 31 December 1968; [106930]

(2) if he will make a statement on the case of Mr.Mahmood Mohd Jibreel, of Leicester, date of birth 31 December 1968, and the reasons for the length of time to take a decision on whether he is entitled to indefinite leave. [106929]

Beverley Hughes: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 9 April 2003.

Departmental Invoices

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the instances in which his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104287]

Beverley Hughes: The available information is as follows:

Home Office Payment Performance 2001–02

	Number of invoices paid	Number paid on time	Percentage paid within 30 days	Number of invoices paid late	Percentage of invoice paid late
Home Office	142,025	130,725	92.0	11,300	8.0
Agencies
Forensic Science Service	28,140	27,376	97.3	764	2.7
UK Passports and Records Agency	13,493	12,989	96.3	504	3.7
Prison Service	500,175	475,720	95.1	24,455	4.9
Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)
(See Note 1)
Police IT Organisation	10,461	10,384	99.3	77	0.7
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	2,159	2,158	100.0	1	0.0
Youth Justice Board	11,614	10,731	92.4	883	7.6
Community Development Foundation	4,622	4,595	99.4	28	0.6
(See Note 2)
Commission for Racial Equality	7,829	4,384	56.0	3,445	44.0
Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner	759	740	97.5	19	2.5
Police Complaints Authority	507	506	99.8	1	0.2
Parole Board	300	294	98.0	6	2.0
Police Information Technology Organisation	10,461	10,384	99.3	77	0.7
Criminal Cases Review Commission	2,706	2,701	99.8	5	0.2
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	2,159	2,158	100.0	1	0.0
Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel	21,525	20,664	96.0	861	4.0
Youth Justice Board	11,614	10,731	92.4	883	7.6

Notes:

1. The National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Central Police Training and Development Authority were not constituted as NDPBs until 2002–03.

2. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) had credit control problems with service providers in 2001–02 which resulted in a significant number of invoices being kept back, creating a backlog of payments. The Commission have been making a special effort to improve their payment performance in 2002–03 and this is reflected in a considerable improvement in the figures, with 77 per cent. paid within terms compared with 56 per cent. in the previous year (figures provided by CRE).

10 Apr 2003 : Column 385W

European Working Groups

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with achieving transparency in respect of the European working groups for which his Department is responsible. [105746]

Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The Government have long been committed to greater openness in the EU Institutions. This was a key theme of the UK Presidencies in 1992 and 1998. Making it easier to gain access to non-sensitive documents is crucial to this. The Government welcomed Regulation 1049–2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. As a result, more documents are released to the public, whilst genuinely sensitive documents are given the protection they need.

Much of the Council's work takes place in preparatory bodies, including working groups. Negotiations at all levels are generally held in private. However the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council occasionally holds open debates on general policy subjects. Discussions at the JHA Council are also reported by written answers to PQs in both Houses or by letter to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees during Recesses.

Accountability and transparency of Council business to Parliament are ensured by the scrutiny process, to which the Government are also firmly committed. The scrutiny process offers the opportunity for Parliamentary oversight of proposals which are under negotiation in all but a few cases, such as agreement with third countries, which remain confidential during their negotiation. All deposited documents are placed in the Library and the Scrutiny Committees publish their reports, together with Ministerial correspondence relating to the proposals, on their websites (www.parliament.uk). Home Office Ministers regularly give oral evidence to the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses.

We strongly supported the measures agreed at the Seville European Council to make the Council more open when in legislating mode. We remain committed to increasing transparency. The Future of European Convention is also looking at ways to make the EU more open, including through proposals for the Council to meet in public when it is discussing a legislative proposal.

Immigration and Asylum

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken in the last year was to deal with an application to his Department for travel documents. [108213]

Beverley Hughes: The average time in April 2002 was 68 days. This has decreased to 20 days in March 2003.

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what appeal rights will exist for a person granted humanitarian protection if they are refused all leave to remain in the UK when their case is reviewed at the end of the period of humanitarian protection. [108216]

10 Apr 2003 : Column 386W

Beverley Hughes: Providing the application for further leave is made before expiry of the current leave, an outright refusal is an immigration decision within the terms of section 82(2)(d) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and accordingly, attracts a suspensive right of appeal under section 82(1).

A person who fails to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily after this process, or who applied out of time for further humanitarian protection leave and was refused, is an overstayer. A decision to remove an overstayer is an immigration decision under section 82(2)(g), and again, attracts a right of appeal under section 82(1). This appeal is suspensive if an asylum or human rights claim has been made in the United Kingdom.

In either case, all the grounds listed in section 84(1) of the Act may be cited in the appeal, in particular, that removal would breach the appellant's rights under the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act.

---