Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been convicted of the offence of illegal working since the introduction of that offence.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Centrally held court proceedings data indicates that no offenders were found guilty of illegal working up to the end of 2016. Court proceedings data for 2017 will be available in May 2018.
It is not possible to identify how much has been collected in fines from persons convicted of this, or any other, offence as our systems enable us to capture the total amount of financial imposition but do not allow that to be broken down by offence type. To extract information on financial imposition by offence type we would need to conduct a manual search of all current financial penalty accounts within our fine database.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justcie, how much money has been obtained in fines from people found guilty of an offence of illegal working since the introduction of that offence.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Centrally held court proceedings data indicates that no offenders were found guilty of illegal working up to the end of 2016. Court proceedings data for 2017 will be available in May 2018.
It is not possible to identify how much has been collected in fines from persons convicted of this, or any other, offence as our systems enable us to capture the total amount of financial imposition but do not allow that to be broken down by offence type. To extract information on financial imposition by offence type we would need to conduct a manual search of all current financial penalty accounts within our fine database.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 11 July 2017 to Question 3597, whether people enforcing their rights (a) through the UK judicial system and (b) contained within the Withdrawal Agreement will be eligible for legal aid.
Answered by Phillip Lee
The scope of civil legal aid is set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), which came into force on 1 April 2013.
In order for a person to be granted civil legal aid, both their income and capital must be within specified limits as set out in the means test. In addition, their case needs to have a reasonable chance of winning (the merits test).
The Government does not currently put any nationality or residence restrictions on accessing civil legal aid. However, under LASPO civil legal aid is generally limited to proceedings taking place in England and Wales.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions she has had with the Department for Exiting the European Union on the contents of the White Paper entitled The United Kingdom's exit from and new partnership with the European Union, Cm 9417, published in February 2017.
Answered by Oliver Heald
We, and other Departments, are working closely with the Department for Exiting the European Union on all aspects of exiting the European Union.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many legal aid applications for exceptional funding in relation to immigration matters were refused on means grounds in each of the last four years; and of those decisions how many were subsequently overturned.
Answered by Oliver Heald
We believe that the exceptional case funding (ECF) scheme is functioning as intended. Its purpose is to provide funding where it is legally needed. Every ECF application is carefully considered by the Legal Aid Agency on an individual basis.
The volume of ECF applications refused on means grounds since April 2013, by financial year, is provided in the table below.
Financial year | Quarter (if Applicable) | Volume |
2013-14 |
| 2 |
2014-15 |
| 6 |
2015-16 |
| 12 |
2016-17 | Q1 only | 4 |
Of these 24 applications, none of the refusal decisions were subsequently overturned. We have here used the definition of an “overturned decision” to be where a solicitor has set out that the original ECF means assessment was incorrect, as opposed to where further means information later in time led to a subsequent application being granted for the same individual for immigration proceedings.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many appeals to Tier 4 visa decisions were (a) received and (b) upheld by the appellant's country of origin in each of the last 12 months.
Answered by Oliver Heald
HM Courts & Tribunal Service (HMCTS) does not hold this information centrally and it can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 14 November 2016 to Question 51925, what the average time taken for processing appeals to tier 4 visa decisions was in the last 12 months; what time targets or limits she has set in relation to processing such appeals; on how many occasions the length of time taken to process such an appeal has prevented a successful applicant from taking up a place at a UK higher education institution in the last 12 months; and what the country of origin of each such applicant was.
Answered by Oliver Heald
Information on the average time taken for processing appeals to Tier 4 visa decisions in the last 12 months is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Targets or time limits are not set for processing appeals from Tier 4 decisions.
HM Courts & Tribunal Service (HMCTS) does not hold information on how many occasions the length of time taken in such cases prevented a successful applicant from taking up a place at a UK higher education institution.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many appeals or applications were brought (a) in each of the two years before the increase and (b) in each of the two years after the increase for each court or tribunal that has experienced a fee rise of more than 100 per cent in a single increase in the last five years.
Answered by Oliver Heald
Our courts and tribunals play a critical role in our society and it is vital we preserve the principle of access to justice by providing a properly funded service.
It is right that those who use the court and tribunal system should pay more to relieve the burden on the taxpayer. At every stage we have sought to protect the most vulnerable by ensuring that a system of fee remissions and exemptions is in place for those who cannot afford to pay a fee.
The only fees which have seen single increases of more than 100 per cent in the last five years are those payable for money claims of more than £10,000 brought in the civil courts. Those fees were increased in March 2015. The information relating to application volumes is below:
Year | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | 2015/16 |
County Court Money Claims | 74,497 | 75,788 | 65,648 |
The figures in the table include specified money claims worth more than £10,000 and unspecified money claims worth more than £15,000. Unspecified money claims are categorised in three ways: under £15,000, between £15,000 and £50,000 and over £50,000, therefore it is not possible to generate a precise breakdown of unspecified money claims worth more than £10,000.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many applications were made to her Department to remit or reduce fees in exceptional circumstances under Article 7 of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees Order 2011 in each year from 2011 to 2016; and how many of those applications were granted in each such year.
Answered by Oliver Heald
The cost of running our courts and tribunals is unsustainably high. It is absolutely right that those using the system, who can afford it, should pay more to relieve this burden. We make no exception for immigration and asylum cases and these appellants will continue to pay a fee. However, we have suspended the higher fees introduced in October this year. The Lord Chancellor’s exceptional power to reduce or remit fees will remain in place, along with exemption and waiver arrangements in particular for those who cannot afford to pay. Our management information system does not collate data on unsuccessful applications for exceptional fee remissions. The number of applications granted since fees were introduced for proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in December 2011 are set out below:
|
|
This information covers up to the last full year for which information is available.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information her Department holds on the racial and ethnic composition of tribunal users in each of the chambers of the First-tier Tribunal in each of the last three years.
Answered by Oliver Heald
This information is available on gov.uk.