|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will offer undertakings to (a) West Mercia police authority police and (b) Hereford and Worcester fire authority about their protection from legal liability for the consequences of disturbances at the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton. 
11 Jul 2002 : Column 1195W
Beverley Hughes [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Arrangements already exist to monitor the performance of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). Like any other directorate within Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND), NASS and its management is subject to investigation by the Home Office Internal Audit and the National Audit Office on financial issues. However I have asked the director of NASS to arrange for an inquiry into issues arising from NASS's dealings with the Landmark company to be carried out. The terms of reference for the inquiry are as follows:
To review the actions of Landmark, its directors and employees during the period up to and including the removal of asylum seekers from these two properties with particular reference to the terms of NASS's contract with Landmark and to make a report on any contract compliance issues that arise;
To review and report on NASS's dealings with Landmark and the asylum seekers resident in these two buildings throughout the transfer period;
To review and report on the extent to which the rights and reasonable expectations of the NASS supported asylum seekers were met during this transfer period;
To review more generally NASS's handling of its contracts with Landmark; and
To make recommendations for any immediate actions to be taken in relation to the transfer and to make recommendations in relation to NASS's management of such contracts and similar situations in the future.
Beverley Hughes: Our long standing approach to Afghan asylum applications has been that we would not, other than in exceptional circumstances, normally seek to return to Afghanistan asylum seekers whose applications have been found not to meet the criteria set down in the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. In those circumstances we would normally grant the unsuccessful asylum applicant four years exceptional leave to remain (ELR) in the United Kingdom. We modified that policy in April this year so as to grant only 12 months ELR to reflect the improving situation in Afghanistan.
Large numbers of Afghans have come to the United Kingdom to seek asylum in recent years. We have provided them with asylum when they have needed it or granted ELR. But the situation in Afghanistan has now changed.
We believe there has been a real and sustained improvement in the country situation. The recent establishment of the Transitional Government serves to underline the improvements which continue to be made. The improvement in the country situation no longer justifies a blanket policy of granting exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom to all asylum seekers from Afghanistan who do not meet the criteria in the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. We will of course
11 Jul 2002 : Column 1196W
continue to honour our international obligations under the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights.
Asylum caseworkers will continue to consider on a case by case basiswhether in the individual circumstances of a particular case it is appropriate to grant exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom to an unsuccessful asylum applicant and taking into full account the country situation. If the circumstances of an individual case justify it, exceptional leave to remain will be granted but, for the reasons stated above, I have decided that a blanket policy of granting exceptional leave to remain in all such cases is no longer justified. In cases where asylum has been refused, and exceptional leave has not been granted, we will take the appropriate enforcement action.
Further, in order to facilitate voluntary returns to Afghanistan I am considering whether for a limited period of time, incentive payments could be made to returnees. The payments would help returnees to re-establish themselves in Afghanistan. The payments would be closely administered and time limited: it is essential that they not act as a pull-factor to the United Kingdom, nor their provision abused. We will also be looking into what other support may be needed in order to ensure the sustainability of returns.
This would be the start of a number of packages we intend to develop to encourage return to help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Other packages will involve, for example, different forms of re-integration programmes and explore and prepare visits. This demonstrates our long-term commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Criminal Cases Review Commission are reviewing; how cases are classified; what percentage of all cases concern sexual abuse and of those, how many cases are (a) related to historic sexual abuse in care homes and (b) within a domestic context; and what period of time has elapsed between the sex crime being committed, the case being brought to court and the CCRC considering the case in each case. 
|Waiting for Stage 1 review||3|
|Under Stage 1 review||35|
|Waiting for Stage 2 Screen review||120|
|Under State 2 Screen review||171|
|Waiting for Stage 2 review||186|
|Under Stage 2 review||187|
|Under Stage 3 review||9|
11 Jul 2002 : Column 1197W
|Sexual offences||Number of offences||Percentage of all offences||Number of counts||Percentage of all counts|
The Commission has set up a working group to analyse and refine its approach to child sex abuse cases and this group will gather more detailed data on the type and circumstances of the offences and convictions. This will include information on the institutional/domestic environment of the offence and the elapsed time from the crime to the conviction.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I replied to question 25180 on 15 January 2002 and to question 25186 on 23 January 2002. Unfortunately, there was an error in the printing of the Official Report, and the answers appeared with the wrong questions. This error has been rectified for the Bound Volume of Hansard. In the meantime, I have resubmitted the correct versions of these questions and answers to my hon. Friend.
11 Jul 2002 : Column 1198W
Hilary Benn [holding answer 2 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on 3 July 2002, Official Report, column 439W.
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 200203 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 200102; and if he will make a statement. 
|Annual departmental expenditure limit (DEL) (£ million)||10,731||10,230|
|Spend to 31 May (£ million)||1,823||2,140|
|Spend to 31 May as proportion of annual DEL (per cent.)||17.0||20.9|
The 200102 DEL includes £826 million from the DEL Reserve, voted in the spring Supplementary Estimates, mainly to fund asylum expenditure. If this is discounted, the spend to 31 May 2001 constitutes 19.9 per cent. of that year's DEL.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|