|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
(a) Fuel smuggled from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland is a matter dealt with by the Republic of Ireland authorities. HMRC have no record of seizures made in the Republic of Ireland.
(b) It is not a smuggling offence to transport fuel from Northern Ireland to mainland Great Britain, as this is an internal movement within the United Kingdom. Therefore, no such seizures have been made.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many applications for statutory review of a refusal to grant asylum were submitted in each year since 1997; how many such applications were granted; and how many substantive re-hearings of asylum applications were successful. 
Bridget Prentice: Appeals against a decision to refuse asylum are heard by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) and prior to April 2005 its predecessor, the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA). Appeals are heard by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of the AIT. Volumes of asylum appeals since 1997 were:
|Calendar year||Adjudicator/Immigration Judge receipts|
Following a decision on appeal, the unsuccessful party can apply for it to be reviewed on the ground that the IJ made an error of law. The provisions on review were established under Section 101 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum (NIA) Act 2002 and amended by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) (AITC) Act 2004.
Prior to April 2005, in an appeal to the IAA, the losing party could apply to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) for permission to appeal against the decision on a point of law. If refused permission to appeal, the party could apply to the High Court (or the Court of Session in Scotland) for statutory review of that decision, on the ground that the Tribunal had made an error of law. If the High Court granted the application, the case was remitted to the IAT.
Since April 2005, losing parties in appeals to the AIT can apply for review of the decision via a transitional filter provision. Applications are considered by Senior Immigration Judges (SIJs) of the AIT. If the application is granted, the SIJ will make an order requiring the AIT to reconsider its decision. If the application is refused, the party can opt in to the High Court for statutory review, which is decided by a High Court Judge on consideration of the papers. If the High Court grants the application, an order requiring the AIT to reconsider its decision will be made.
|Calendar year||IAT permissions applications/AIT filter application decisions (Asylum)||Granted||Asylum applications received at the High Court||Applications allowed|
|Calendar year||IAT Appeals/AIT reconsiderations (Asylum)||Allowed|
In appeals to the IAT (i.e. those prior to April 2005), the outcome (allowed or dismissed) relates to the party who lodged the appeal to the IAT, so may have been the respondent in the initial appeal to the IAA. Since
April 2005, where an appeal is reconsidered by the AIT, the outcome relates to the appeal and not to the application for review. Thus, where an appeal is allowed on reconsideration, that represents a decision in the appellant's favour.
Maria Eagle: All staff employed by Ministry of Justice from the former DCA (including HMCS and Tribunals Service staff) will be invited to opt into a new pay deal which incorporates a regional pay structure. These arrangements do not apply to staff employed by the Home Office or its agencies who transferred to the Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2007.
Regional pay is a reality in the economy as a wholepay variations by location are not new. The system we are introducing offers greater coherence, greater transparency and enables us to target public money most effectively on those areas where there is greatest need. It will allow us to offer competitive salaries to attract and retain staff with the skills we need, where we need them.
In establishing our pay ranges we have explored pay related data for each of the regions of Great Britain (as defined by National Statistics, excluding Northern Ireland). This has included analysing data on average weekly pay and unemployment rates, salary surveys from reputable sources, pay data from other Government Departments and our own staff recruitment and retention data. We have also taken specialist advice from external consultants.
Decisions on the allocation of an office to a pay range were made using that data and following consultation with senior local managers. The involvement of local managers has ensured that local factors, which the economic data might not capture, can be properly reflected in the decisions.
Since the employment market does change over time, we have agreed an annual review mechanism. If the market changes significantly, the allocation of an office to a pay range can be adjusted accordingly.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many persons currently ordered by the courts to be tagged (a) as part of their bail conditions, (b) as part of an early release scheme and (c) as part of their sentence, have not yet had the tagging technology activated; and if he will make a statement; 
(3) for what reasons some persons ordered to be tagged by the courts as part of (a) their bail conditions, (b) early release schemes and (c) their sentence have not yet had the tagging technology activated; and if he make a statement. 
Mr. Hanson: Data relating to installation of electronic monitoring equipment are not routinely collected by the monitoring contractors in the format requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. From 1 January 2007 to 31 May 2007, the latest period for which figures are available, the contractors installed the monitoring equipment in 99.37 per cent. of audited cases within 24 hours of notification by a Court or Prison.
It is the intention of the Department that all persons are tagged at the earliest opportunity. Installation of equipment may not happen for a number of different reasons. The subject may be delayed in travelling to the curfew address from court or custody, or be curfewed to an address with multiple accommodation such as flats or apartments where the contractor may have initial difficulty in accessing the building.
Prompt follow-up action is required by the contractor under such circumstances. If the person is absent at the first attempt the contractor will report the failure to the relevant supervising agency or the Court if the person is not under supervision. One further attempt must be made to complete installation within 24 hours of the start of the first monitoring period. If the second installation attempt is unsuccessful the contractor must report the failure as a breach of the curfew.
Mr. Hanson: Data on re-offending by offenders wearing electronic tags are collated centrally only in respect of offenders released on to the home detention curfew scheme. The data are not broken down by areas in which subsequent offences are committed. To provide such information would involve a manual trawl of the data and would incur disproportionate cost.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many children, and which organisations representing children, responded to the Confidence and Confidentiality consultation on family courts; 
Over 200 children and young people contributed their views to the consultation on Confidence and Confidentiality. Some of them did this by registering on our online discussion forum (32) or visiting the Minister (three children from Southwark council). Some of them did this by attending one of various events held around the country (104 at a children's rights event in Leicester; 13 at an event run by the Family Justice Council/National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS) in Birkenhead; 32 took part in a mock hearing run by the Children's
Commissioner). Others submitted their views as part of a broader response from local authorities (including Oldham and Calderdale) and children's organisations (including NYAS and Voice of the Child in Care). Still others (12) produced a video about young people's views with help from CAFCASS.
Formal responses were received from the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, By the Bridge, Voice, the National Children's Bureau and NSPCC. The full list is available at annex A of the response paper at:
The consultation document was published on 20 June and mailed to over 800 individuals and organisations. The initial mail-out included 148 directors of children's services across England and Wales. In addition, copies were sent to a large number of voluntary organisations that represent children and ensure their voice is heard, such as Young Voice and Voice for the Child in Care. It was sent to organisations that offer children support, including Childline, the Children's Society, Action for Children and the NSPCC. It was sent to organisations that protect children's rights, such as Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Children's Legal Centre and National Children's Bureau.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|