---

2 Nov 2005 : Column 1158W—continued

Volunteering

Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many volunteering positions her Department has offered in each of the last five years. [17874]

Jane Kennedy: The Department actively encourages volunteering, but information on the number of staff who have undertaken voluntary positions is not held centrally by the Department. Obtaining the data would incur disproportionate costs to the Department; it is therefore not possible to provide this information.

Waiting Lists/Times

Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure as many out-patient and in-patient appointments as possible are booked through choose and book by the end of 2005; and what assessment she has made of the likelihood of this target being achieved. [18380]

Mr. Byrne: There is no target for choose and book. The Government's targets are for all patients to be offered the choice of at least four providers at the point of general practitioner referral and for patients to be able to book the date and time of their hospital appointment by the end of 2005. The choose and book service will greatly assist local health communities in achieving these targets. Where the choose and book service is not yet being used by this date, there will be other systems in place to ensure that patients receive a choice of at least four providers and can book the date and time of their appointment.

Working Time Directive

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures her Department is taking to enable the national health service to meet the targets set by the EU Working Time Directive. [19676]

Mr. Byrne: The working time directive (WTD) was implemented for the vast majority of national health service staff groups in 1998 in accordance with regulations.

The Government negotiated an extension to the WTD for doctors in training to enable phased implementation from August 2004. We worked with the health professions and NHS employers to provide joint guidance and invested an extra £46 million to support WTD implementation, including 20 national pilots and the hospital at night project.
 
2 Nov 2005 : Column 1159W
 

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

All-postal Voting

Mr. Holloway: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment she has made of the Electoral Commission's opinion that all-postal voting should not be pursued for use in future statutory elections or referendums in the UK. [24042]

Ms Harman: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 7 June 2005, Official Report, column 535W.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Jon Trickett: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many offenders in breach of their antisocial behaviour orders (a) have been returned to court and (b) received sentences in the last 12 months. [20739]

Fiona Mactaggart: I have been asked to reply.

The Court Proceedings Database held by the Home Office holds breach proceedings only where there has been a conviction.

Data on convictions for breach of an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) are currently available from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2003. During this period my Department received notification of 1,892 persons receiving ASBOs in England and Wales. Of these, 793 were convicted of breaching their ASBO on one or more occasions. 437 received a custodial sentence for at least one of the breaches. The proportion of persons (356) who did not receive a custodial sentence is 45 per cent.

Jon Trickett: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what proportion of offenders in breach of anti-social behaviour orders have not been committed to custody. [20742]

Fiona Mactaggart: I have been asked to reply.

The Court Proceedings Database held by my Department holds breach proceedings only where there has been a conviction.

Data on convictions for breach of an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) are currently available from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2003. During this period the Home Office received notification of 1,892 persons receiving ASBOs in England and Wales. Of these, 793 were convicted of breaching their ASBO on one or more occasions. 437 received a custodial sentence for at least one of the breaches. The proportion of persons (356) who did not receive a custodial sentence is 45 per cent.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals

Jenny Willott: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average length of time was to process and determine immigration appeals from the date of being lodged to the date of hearing (a) before and (b) since 4 April 2005; and if she will make a statement. [23342]

Bridget Prentice: The latest provisional information available from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) indicates that immigration appeals, comprising both in-country and entry clearance cases, lodged (a) before the 4 April 2005, took on average 54 weeks
 
2 Nov 2005 : Column 1160W
 
from first being lodged to a decision being promulgated by an Immigration Adjudicator of the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA).

Immigration appeals arising from a claim refused by the Respondent prior to the 4 April 2005 were lodged first, in accordance with the Tribunal's procedure rules, with the decision maker (dependent on whether in-country or entry clearance) before being transferred to the IAA to be determined by an Immigration Adjudicator.

The latest provisional information available from the AIT indicates that an in-country immigration appeal, lodged (b) after the 4 April 2005, took on average seven weeks from being lodged to a decision being promulgated by an Immigration Judge of the AIT. Entry clearance appeals are not included within this information due to the current absence of a statistically significant sample of cases having been promulgated by the AIT in the period from 4 April to the end of June 2005.

Immigration appeals arising from a claim refused by the Respondent on or after the 4 April 2005 are lodged directly to the AIT in accordance with Rule 6 of The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005". Appellants bringing an appeal from outside the United Kingdom, following a refusal of entry clearance, can lodge their appeal to the entry clearance officer, who must forward the appeal to the AIT within 10 days of taking receipt.

Jenny Willott: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many immigration appeals (a) lodged before and (b) lodged since 4 April 2005 were processed and determined by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in (i) April, (ii) May, (iii) June, (iv) July, (v) August, (vi) September and (vii) to date in October; and if she will make a statement. [23343]

Bridget Prentice: The latest provisional figures available from the electronic database of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) indicate that the number of immigration appeal decisions, comprising both in-country and entry clearance cases, determined by the AIT in each month from April to the end of June 2005 is as follows:
Immigration appeals determined which were lodged prior to 4 April 2005

	Number
April 2005	2,875
May 2005	2,514
June 2005	2,488

Immigration appeals determined which were lodged after 4 April 2005

	Number
April 2005	0
May 2005	48
June	218

Statistical data confirming the numbers of immigration appeals determined in the period beyond June 2005 are not yet available.
 
2 Nov 2005 : Column 1161W
 

Jenny Willott: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what is the expected (a) date for completing and (b) average length of time for processing and determining for (i) asylum appeals, (ii) immigration appeals and (iii) visitor visa appeals lodged with the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal outstanding on 4 April 2005; and if she will make a statement. [23344]

Bridget Prentice: At present it is not possible to specify the average length of time taken to process and determine outstanding appeals received by the Immigration Appellate Authority prior to the 4 April 2005 and the commencement of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT), nor the estimated time for those cases to pass fully through the system, without incurring disproportionate costs.

---