|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Persons proven in court to have breached their ASBO In Each CJS area( 1) and year( 2) from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2005|
|CJS area||2000-02( 3)||2003||2004||2005|
|(1) ASBOs may be issued in one area and breached in another. Breaches are counted in this table on area of breach.|
(2) It is possible for an individual to breach their ASBO in more than one year, so persons may be counted more than once in this table.
(3) From 1 June 2000.
Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
OCJR Court Proceedings Database.
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Answer of 22 March 2007, Official Report, column 1059W, on antisocial behaviour orders: custodial treatment, how many breaches of anti-social behaviour orders occurred in 2005; and how many ended in custodial detention. 
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on antisocial behaviour orders imposed on children and young people with (a) mental health problems and (b) other special needs. 
Mr. Coaker: We have received no such representations. We have regular discussions with interested parties including those that represent childrens interests. For example we worked with a wide range of stakeholders on revising our guidance on antisocial behaviour orders for practitioners which includes information on vulnerable people who commit antisocial behaviour. We monitor the overall use of ASBOs on an ongoing basis and adjust policy in response. We will continue to build on that and extend existing ASBO legislation as appropriate. For example, we announced that we would be seeking to put on a statutory footing the existing good practice, as set out in our comprehensive guidance, that juveniles ASBOs should be reviewed after one year.
Mr. Byrne: As the Home Secretary set out in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23 May 2006, following the dismantling of embarkation controls beginning in 1994, no Government have been able to produce an accurate figure for the number of people who are in the country illegally, and that remains the case. On 7 March the Border and Immigration Agency published its enforcement strategy Enforcing the Rules available to view at:
This strategy sets out clear objectives and measures to tackle and identify, amongst others, those individuals who have been refused asylum and not removed and re-enforces the Border and Immigration Agencys commitment to ensuring and enforcing compliance with our immigrations laws.
Mr. Randall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to reimburse local authorities for the cost of providing housing and other forms of support for asylum seekers who have exhausted all avenues of appeal waiting for deportation. 
Asylum seekers whose claims are unsuccessful are required to leave the UK. However destitute unsuccessful asylum seeking families with minor dependants normally continue to receive support under section 95 of the Immigration and
Asylum Act 1999 from the Border and Immigration Agency. Other destitute unsuccessful asylum applicants who meet the eligibility criteria may be supported by the Agency under section 4 of the 1999 Act.
Local authorities may in some circumstances have a responsibility to provide support, including accommodation, to unsuccessful asylum seekers under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Support may also be necessary under the Children Act 1989. This may include ongoing support for those leaving care. Eligibility for support under these provisions is subject to the application of the provisions of schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Local authorities receive funding from central Government towards their revenue expenditure on social services and education. Local authorities also receive funding from DfES for those leaving care. There is no additional payment made in respect of failed asylum seekers.
The Home Office has agreed to establish a working group to discuss a wide range of issues raised by local authorities in respect of asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers, including the costs of supporting those who are destitute but are not supported directly by the Home Office.
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers have been deported to countries which have not signed the UN Convention against Torture 1988 during the last 12 months, broken down by country. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 26 March 2007]: The table shows the number of principal asylum applicants removed from the UK in 2006 as a result of enforcement action, to countries which have not signed the UN Convention against Torture (1984). A number of countries have ratified the Convention, but have not formally signed it. Removals to these countries have been included in the table.
Voluntary departures are included in figures on removals and therefore it is not possible to say at what stage in the asylum process people are removed, since those departing voluntarily can leave the UK at any time.
The UK looks at all asylum claims, and claims relating to torture on their individual merits and with anxious scrutiny. We take into account the individuals circumstances, the circumstances in the country to which they would be removed and any other relevant information, including, where relevant, any undertakings given by that country. We would not return any individual to a country where it was considered that there was a real risk that he/she would be tortured or made to suffer inhuman or degrading treatment. The decision to remove anyone who claims to fear torture is subject to the right of appeal to the independent Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, or, where applicable, to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and from there to the higher courts.
|Removals and voluntary departures, excluding Assisted Voluntary Returns( 1,2) , of asylum applicants( 3) , excluding dependants, to countries who have not signed the UN Convention against Torture( 4) , in 2006( 5,10)|
|(1 )Includes enforced removals, persons departing Voluntarily following enforcement action initiated against them and those who it is established have left the UK without informing the immigration authorities.|
(2 )Excludes Assisted Voluntary Returns.
(3 )Persons who had sought asylum at some stage, excluding dependants.
(4 )Some countries have ratified the CAT, but not signed it. These countries have been included in these figures.
(5 )Figures rounded to the nearest five, with * = 1 or 2.
(6 )Excludes persons where the recorded destination is unknown.
(7 )Includes Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia. Excludes Cyprus, Hungary and Poland.
(8 )Includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Krygyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Excludes Belarus.
(9 )Includes only those countries who have not signed the CAT and not all other countries in the relevant continent.
(10 )Provisional figures.
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to assist asylum seekers who have no access to English language learning to manage everyday tasks. 
Mr. Byrne: The Border and Immigration Agency provides assistance, support and funding to asylum seekers throughout the asylum process. The application is managed by a single case owner who explains how the asylum process works, is responsible for any support issues, is the single point of contact at any stage during the claim, and who provides information about how to seek access to legal representatives. An interpreter will be provided, if required, at each key eventthe screening interview, the first reporting event, the asylum interview and the decision service event.
Key voluntary sector partners are funded by the Border and Immigration Agency to provide a national network of One Stop Services where provision of advice and support is given to asylum seekers, wherever possible in their own language. This is in addition to separate information, given in a language that is understood, which accommodation providers relay to asylum seekers about the property and the locality in which they live, and about how to access statutory and non-statutory services, including the voluntary sector.
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent in the last 12 months on (a) specialist support systems, (b) appropriate (section 20) accommodation and support and (c) culturally sensitive counselling services for (i) asylum-seeking children and (ii) asylum-seeking children who have had experiences of torture, political violence or been victims of trafficking and other forms of persecution. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 4 June 200 7 ]: The Home Office does not collate expenditure for the different items listed and does not keep separate expenditure data for asylum-seeking children and asylum-seeking children who have had experiences of torture, political violence or who have been victims of trafficking and other forms of persecution.
Responsibility for providing support to Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) rests with local authorities which provide an appropriate range of services according to their assessment of the needs of individual children. The Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) reimburse local authorities for most of these costs through the UASC expenditure grant. In the financial year 2005-06, the most recent year for which audited accounts are available, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) paid local authorities £151 million in UASC grants.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|