Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers were in receipt of section 4 support on (a) 1 January 2004, (b) 1 July 2004, (c) 1 December 2004, (d) 1 January 2005, (e) 1 February 2005 and (f) 1 March 2005. [3301]
Mr. McNulty: The information is not available in the precise format requested. The information available is as follows:
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being held in Prison Service establishments. [4681]
Mr. McNulty: Quarterly snapshots are published showing the number of people detained under Immigration Act powers on the last Saturday of each quarter.
The number of individuals recorded as having sought asylum at some stage detained in Prison Service establishments solely under Immigration Act powers as at 26 March 2005 was 125. This figure has been rounded to the nearest five, in accordance with National Statistics protocols.
Information on persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers is published on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website athttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers are in receipt of section 4 support, broken down by (a) nationality, (b) regional location, (c) type of accommodation provided and (d) accommodation provider. [3302]
Mr. McNulty:
Information on the number of failed asylum seekers in receipt of support under section 4 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 1999 is provided in the table. Information on the nationality of those in
20 Jun 2005 : Column 766W
receipt of support is not readily available and could be produced only by examination of individual records. Information on the type of accommodation provided by individual providers is provided in the table.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his target timetable is for clearing the backlog of decisions on applications for Indefinite Leave to Remain by failed asylum seekers who were granted Exceptional Leave to Remain; and if he will make a statement. [56]
Mr. McNulty: The current aim is to reduce the backlog of applications for Indefinite Leave to Remain from persons who were granted Exceptional Leave to Remain to levels consistent with meeting service standards by March 2006.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of measures he has taken to control (a) illegal immigration and (b) unfounded asylum claims. [3703]
Mr. McNulty:
We have already made significant improvements to border controls by expanding our juxtaposed controls, deploying new detection technology and increasing our airline liaison network overseas. This has had a significant impact both on deterring illegal immigration and reducing asylum intake.
20 Jun 2005 : Column 767W
Recent measures to tackle unfounded asylum applications have been very successfulthe number of claims (and unfounded claims) has reduced significantly since 2002. We are taking further steps to deal with this issue, as set out in the five year strategy for asylum and immigration, Controlling our Borders: Making migration work for Britain" which was published in February 2005 [Cm 6472]. This includes plans to introduce faster, tightly-managed processes for all new asylum claimants and maintaining existing detained processes alongside new, faster, non- detained processes which are currently being developed and will be implemented in phases.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made in relation to the interception of communications under (a) the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and (b) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for each year since such complaints have been permitted; and how many complaints were upheld in each year. [4575]
Hazel Blears: The information requested is as follows:
(a) The records of the Interception of Communications Tribunal show that the number of complaints they received since its inception were as follows:
Number | |
---|---|
198586 | (15)30 |
1987 | 45 |
1988 | 30 |
1989 | 49 |
1990 | 59 |
1991 | 58 |
1992 | 44 |
1993 | 41 |
1994 | 37 |
1995 | 64 |
1996 | 52 |
1997 | 79 |
1998 | 75 |
1999 | 69 |
200001 | (16)60 |
The Interception of Communications Tribunal found that there had been no contravention of sections 2 to 5 of IOCA. Consequently, no complaints were upheld.
(b) The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), came into being on 2 October 2000. From that date the IPT assumed responsibility for the jurisdiction previously held by, amongst others, the Interception of Communications Tribunal.
In his Annual Reports to the Prime Minister, the Interception of Communications Commissioner explained that complaints to the IPT could not be easily categorised" under the three tribunal system that existed before RIPA (i.e. the Interception of Communications Tribunal, the Security Service Tribunal and the Intelligence Services Tribunal). Consequently it is not possible to detail the number of complaints lodged with the
20 Jun 2005 : Column 768W
IPT that relate to the interception of communications that would have previously been considered by the Interception of Communications Tribunal.
The total number of complaints received by the IPT are as follows:
Number | |
---|---|
2000 | (17)11 |
2001 | 91 |
2002 | 130 |
2003 | 109 |
2004 | (18) |
On no occasion did the Investigatory Powers Tribunal conclude that there had been a contravention of RIPA or the Human Rights Act 1998. Consequently, no complaints were upheld.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, like the Interception of Communications Tribunal before it, is a wholly independent body made up of senior members of the legal profession.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |