| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Immigration: Appeals
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, resulted from appeals against decisions of immigration judges (formerly chairmen or vice-presidents) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for each year from 2002 to 2006. [HL1924]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): The latest information taken from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and Court of Appeal's electronic databases states that the number of appeals received by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, as a result of appeals against decisions made by immigration adjudicators/immigration judges in each calendar year during the period 2002-06 were:
| Calendar Year | Number of appeals decided by Immigration Adjudicators/Immigration Judges | Number of appeals from IAT/AIT granted permission to proceed to the Court of Appeal. |
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of the work of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, consisted of appeals from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for each year from 2002 to 2006. [HL1925]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The latest information taken from the Court of Appeal's (CoA) electronic database states that the proportion of Court of Appeal work concerning decisions on immigration and asylum cases in each calendar year during the period 2002-06 was:
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, concerning decisions of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal involve challenges to determinations of a single immigration judge on reconsideration of appeal for each year from 2002 to 2006. [HL1926]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The information required is not available from databases of either the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal or the Court of Appeal. To obtain the information entails manually checking individual files, which would incur disproportionate cost.
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of Asylum and Immigration cases listed for hearing by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, were conceded by the Home Office before the hearing took place (a) in time for another case to be listed, and (b) too late for another case to be listed, for each year from 2002 to 2006. [HL1927]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The information required is not available from databases of either the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal or the Court of Appeal. To obtain the information entails manually checking individual files, which would incur disproportionate cost.
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the average cost to the taxpayer of (a) effective, and (b) abortive appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, relating to appeals against the determination of an immigration judge. [HL1928]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: A precise average cost to the taxpayer for Court of Appeal work relating to asylum and immigration could be provided only at a disproportionate cost by scrutinising individual case files. Similarly, an assessment of the variance in cost between effective and abortive cases is unavailable.
Estimates from the Court of Appeal indicate an average cost per case of £6,000. Taking representation into account, and on the basis of estimates from the Legal Services Commission and Treasury Solicitors, this could rise to approximately £12,000.
20 Feb 2007 : Column WA230
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in light of the reported increase in the burden of work in the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ascribed to appeals from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, they have any plans to review the current work of the Tribunal. [HL1929]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The work of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) was reviewed internally and a report publishing findings was completed in April 2006. The review concluded that it was as yet too soon to determine the effect of policy changes on the workload of the Court of Appeal. The AIT recognises the need to assess continually the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of its work and this will continue as part of wider reform of tribunals and administrative justice.
Legal Aid
Baroness Deech asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the estimated cost in the last financial year of legal aid for representation in alternative dispute resolution, ombudsman and adjudication schemes; and whether they have any intention of reviewing this funding. [HL1931]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): In terms of cases that closed during 2005-06, £14.9 million was spent on family alternative dispute resolution cases and £0.8 million on civil alternative dispute resolution cases. It is not possible to identify how much was spent on alternative dispute resolution in cases that proceeded further.
From July 2005, most applicants for legal aid have been expected to pursue any available complaints system before they are funded to take proceedings. There are no plans to review funding in alternative dispute resolution.
National Lottery: Big Lottery Fund
Lord Fearn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Of the grant moneys allocated each year by the Big Lottery Fund, how much was allocated in 2005 and 2006 to the following categories (a) education; (b) health; (c) environment; and (d) the voluntary sector. [HL1930]
Lord Davies of Oldham: The DCMS is unable to supply the information in the format requested as many of the projects funded by the Big Lottery Fund cover two or more areas in its statutory remit. However, information on how much was allocated to the voluntary sector will be available for 2006-07, when the Big Lottery Fund reports for the first time against its new undertaking to allocate 60 to 70 per cent of all its funding to the voluntary sector.
20 Feb 2007 : Column WA231
Official Visits
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much revenue they collect from facilitating meetings and arranging private drivers for visiting United Kingdom parliamentarians in overseas countries. [HL1982]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): Our posts overseas are not generally responsible for arranging the programmes of visiting parliamentarians. Where posts have the resources to facilitate meetings for visiting parliamentarians, no charge is made.
Where resources allow the use of official transport by parliamentarians, our posts recover the full economic cost. Information on receipts is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
Visiting parliamentarians meet the costs of the hire of private drivers.
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much revenue has been raised by the High Commission in Darfur from facilitating meetings and arranging private drivers for visiting United Kingdom parliamentarians. [HL1983]
Lord Triesman: We do not have a separate diplomatic mission in Darfur.
When parliamentarians have visited Sudan, they have been responsible for their own expenditure and no revenue has been raised by our embassy in Khartoum.
Where resources allow the private use of official transport by parliamentarians, our posts recover the full economic cost. Visiting parliamentarians meet the costs of the hire of private drivers. No charges are made for facilitating meetings.
In the past year, the embassy has arranged meetings and provided transport for parliamentarians on two occasions, but no charges have been made as embassy officials have accompanied the parliamentarians.
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which of their high commissions and embassies most frequently charge visiting United Kingdom parliamentarians for facilitating meetings and arranging private drivers. [HL1984]
Lord Triesman: Our posts overseas are not generally responsible for arranging the programmes of visiting parliamentarians. Where posts have the resources to facilitate meetings for visiting parliamentarians, no charge is made.
Where resources allow the use of official transport by parliamentarians, our posts recover the full economic cost. Information on receipts is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
20 Feb 2007 : Column WA232
Visiting parliamentarians meet the costs of the hire of private drivers.
Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have proposals to enable the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to provide visiting United Kingdom parliamentarians with services to facilitate meetings and arrange private drivers without a charge. [HL1985]
Lord Triesman: We have no plans to introduce a free programme-arranging service, or to arrange transport at no cost to visiting parliamentarians.
In many cases our posts provide appropriate contact details and in some cases are able to facilitate meetings. There is no charge for this, but they do not have the resources to arrange programmes.
Posts make no charge for providing the details of local private car hire companies. The cost of private cars and private drivers falls to the visiting parliamentarian.
Olympic Games 2012: Relocation of Businesses
Lord Luke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they do not consider the expenses of relocating businesses to vacate the Olympic Park as part of the core costs of the Olympic Games; and for what purpose the businesses are being relocated. [HL1722]
Lord Davies of Oldham: Businesses in the Lower Lea Valley are currently being relocated to make way for the construction of the Olympic Park in preparation for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games in 2012.
The Games will act as a catalyst for, and bring forward, the large-scale regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley, which was identified in the Mayor's London Plan of February 2004 as an opportunity area requiring public sector intervention to ensure sustainable economic and social regeneration. More recently, the Mayor has set out his strategic planning vision for the area in the Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework, which was agreed in January 2007.
For these reasons, these costs are not included in the core costs of the Olympic Games.
Prisoners: Deportation
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1991 so as to permit prisoners liable for removal to have their cases reviewed by the Parole Board in the same way as other long-term prisoners, in accordance with the reasons given for granting a declaration of
20 Feb 2007 : Column WA233
Lord Bassam of Brighton: While the noble Lord has referred to the ruling of this House in respect of Regina (on the application of Clift) v Secretary of State, the ruling of this House regarding long-term prisoners liable to removal having their cases reviewed by the Parole Board in the same way as other long-term prisoners concerned Regina (on the application of Hindawi and Headley) v Secretary of State.
The Government are currently considering their options for introducing the necessary statutory amendments to ensure compliance with the terms of this judgment. Administrative arrangements will be made in the interim which will ensure that no long-term prisoner liable for removal from the UK is disadvantaged.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |