Search Results

1-20 of 79 results for subject:Tribunals

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Dept of the Environment Transport and the Regions

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, what action he proposes to take in the light of the High Court decision on his planning powers and their relationship to the Human Rights Act 1998; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Nigel Waterson (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

14 December 2000

For answer on

19 December 2000

Answered on

19 December 2000

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take in the light of the High Court decision on his planning powers and their relationship to the Human Rights Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [143432] Mr. Raynsford: On Wednesday 13 December the Divisional Court gave judgment on four test cases brought in relation to the compatibility of certain aspects of domestic legislation with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. The Convention right was incorporated into UK legislation in the Human Rights Act 1998, which became operative in England and Wales on 2 October this year. The legal challenges related to cases involving the Secretary of State's ability under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to call in and determine applications for planning permission and to recover and determine appeals, the confirmation by him of Compulsory Purchase Orders and related Orders under the Highways Act 1980 made by one of his departmental agencies and the making of orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The Court concluded that the processes involved in each of the cases were not compatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR. In particular, the Court concluded that: The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not `an independent and impartial tribunal' for the purposes of Article 6(1), but is a judge in his own cause as both policy maker and decision taker; Judicial Review is not sufficient to remedy the defects in the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions' decision-making role--the scope of Judicial Review is not sufficiently wide and the Court is not prepared to enlarge its power of review. However, the Court held that the Secretary of State could not have acted in any other manner and will not act unlawfully in processing the cases that are the subject of the proceedings, because section 6(2) of the Human Rights Act applies. Application was made, and the Court granted, leave for appeal to the Court of Appeal. The question whether an application can be made for the cases to be referred direct to the House of Lords is still under consideration by the Court. If the cases can be referred direct to the Lords, an application will be made for expedition. The Court will make a "declaration of incompatibility" under section 4 of the Human Rights Act that the provisions of the relevant primary legislation are not compatible with a Convention right. However, such a declaration does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it was given (section 4 (6) HRA). If the decision of the High Court is upheld on appeal, the Government will have to decide how to deal with this incompatibility. In the meantime, the existing primary legislation continues to apply and the Secretary of State has a duty to continue determining cases which have been called-in and appeals that have been recovered, and to fulfil his statutory functions in relation to orders made, for example, under the Transport and Works and Highways Acts and under Compulsory Purchase legislation. He will continue to exercise his discretion--for example, as to whether to call in planning applications--as before. In all cases, he will proceed in accordance with his usual practice. Pending final decisions on the appeals, in deciding whether to call-in or recover cases for his own decision, he will take account of the fact that call-in and recovery, although lawful, have been declared incompatible with the Convention by the Divisional Court.

Legislation

Highways Act 1980; Human Rights Act 1998; Transport and Works Act 1992

Date

19 December 2000

Reference

360 c119W;360 c119-20W; 143432

House

House of Commons

Council on Tribunals annual report 1999/2000.

Type

House of Commons papers

Notes

Received 15.11.00

Date

19 December 2000

Reference

HC 23 2000/01;SE/2000/219

House

House of Commons

Lord Chancellors Dept

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what assessment he has made of the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the eligibility criteria for the determination of the public funding by the Legal Services Commission of cases before employment tribunals.

Asked by

Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West) (Labour)

Answering body

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

14 December 2000

Reference

359 c241-2W;359 c239-40W; 142382

House

House of Commons

Office of the Secretary of State for Wales

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list by local education authority the number of cases taken to the Tribunal for Special Education Needs each year from its inception until July 1999, indicating the number of cases in which the tribunal rule that additional support should...

Asked by

Win Griffiths (Labour)

Answering body

Office of the Secretary of State for Wales

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

30 November 2000

Reference

357 c868W; 140567

House

House of Commons

Deposited Paper Dep 00/1759

Table showing the number of appeals registered with the Special Educational Needs Tribunal by local education authority since 1994/95. DfEE. 2000.

Deposited by

Department for Education and Employment

Type

Deposited papers

Date

29 November 2000

Reference

Dep 00/1759

House

House of Commons

Dept for Education and Employment

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, if he will list by local education authority the number of cases taken to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal each year since its inception, indicating in how many cases the tribunal ruled that additional support should be provided for children...

Asked by

Win Griffiths (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Education and Employment

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

28 November 2000

Reference

357 c583W; 140526

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, how many decisions by tribunals there have been in respect of breaches of the working time regulations (a) on holiday entitlements and (b) on maximum working hours. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Huw Edwards (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

27 November 2000

Reference

140253; 357 c381-2W

House

House of Commons

Dept of Social Security;Social Security Benefits AGency

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what steps the Benefits Agency and the Appeals Service must take following a decision by an independent disability living allowance appeal tribunal to amend benefits before arrears of benefit can be paid. - Inc text of letter from Alexis Cleveland and...

Asked by

Brian H Donohoe (Labour)

Answering body

Social Security Benefits Agency

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

13 November 2000

For answer on

22 November 2000

Answered on

22 November 2000

Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Benefits Agency and the Appeals Service must take following a decision by an independent Disability Living Allowance appeal tribunal to amend benefits before arrears of benefit can be paid. [138518] Mr. Bayley: Appeals Service procedures are matters for the Chief Executive of The Appeals Service. The administration of Disability Living Allowance is the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Alexis Cleveland. Following consultation with the Appeals Service, Alexis Cleveland will write to my hon. Friend. Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 21 November 2000: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what steps the Benefits Agency (BA) and The Appeals Service (TAS) must take following a decision by an independent disability living allowance appeal tribunal to amend benefits before arrears of benefit can be paid. TAS issues a copy of the appeal tribunal's decision to all parties to the proceedings, including the appellant and the BA, within 2 days of the appeal hearing. Tribunal decision notices (DNs) on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) cases are received from each of TAS operational centres at a central distribution point in Disability Carer Benefits Directorate (DCBD). This was set up in February 2000 to register receipt of DNs and speed up the implementation process. Currently approximately 600 DNs are received each day. DNs are then sent immediately to the DCBD operational section with responsibility for handling particular DLA cases. The DN is linked with the DLA case papers and a decision-maker (DM) then looks at the DN to ensure that it is legally correct before it is implemented. Where there are no problems DNs are implemented promptly. Before any payment is made, further checks may be made on correct payment and address details, and any periods spent in hospital or residential accommodation that could affect payability of an award. Such DNs can normally be input on to the DLA computer system and payment made within 2 days. If payment of DLA is to be combined with payment of another benefit, the computer system triggers a notification to the relevant local office for their further action. There are occasions when a DM identifies a problem with a DN and cases may be referred back to TAS for specific reasons. These include accidental errors; incomplete decisions where the tribunal has omitted to consider all the relevant issues; and decisions which appear to be wrong in law. In all such cases, the DM requests a copy of the appeal chairman's statement of reasons and record of proceedings. TAS has set a standard of 15 working days for these to be produced and issued. Based on that information, implementation of those DNs may be suspended pending further appropriate action either by TAS or, in cases of error of law, consideration of an appeal against the tribunal decision to a Social Security Commissioner. Consideration must be given to all cases where an error has been identified and regrettably this will delay implementation of those decisions. Cases identified for a possible appeal to the Commissioner are first examined by a specialist team within DCBD and then by the Benefits Agency Decision-Making and Appeals team before they can be submitted for appeal. Customers are notified that this action is being taken and that payment of arrears has been suspended. If an appeal is not found to be appropriate, the suspension is lifted, payment is made, and the customer is again notified. I hope this information is helpful.

Date

22 November 2000

Reference

357 c230-1W; 138518

House

House of Commons

Deposited Paper HINF 2000/1891

Review of Tribunals summary of consultation responses. LCD. 2000.

Deposited by

Lord Chancellor's Department; Tribunals Review

Type

Deposited papers

Date

20 November 2000

Reference

HINF 2000/1891

Dept of Social Security

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what proportion of those claimants who are successful at disability living allowance appeal tribunals have had to wait in excess of (a) one month, (b) two months and (c) three months for arrears to be paid in the last 12 months....

Asked by

Brian H Donohoe (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Social Security

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 November 2000

Reference

357 c66W; 138055

House

House of Commons

Dept of Social Security

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what maximum time is permitted for the chairman of a disability living allowance appeal tribunal to produce a full written decision of the tribunal chairman's findings.

Asked by

Brian H Donohoe (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Social Security

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 November 2000

Reference

356 c712W; 138035

House

House of Commons

Dept of Social Security

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, What measures he has taken to ensure that tribunals which lie within his Department's responsibility meet the requirements of the Human Rights Act 2000 for independence. (Failed OPQ)

Asked by

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Department of Social Security

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 November 2000

Reference

356 c518-9W;356 c518W; 136121

House

House of Commons

Scotland of Asthal, Baroness

Whether the terms of reference for the United Nations Special Tribunal on war crimes in Sierra Leone have yet been determined. [HL 4510].

Asked by

Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

9 November 2000

Reference

HL 4510; 618 c167WA

House

House of Lords

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the progress of the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. - Inc figures.

Asked by

John Bercow (Conservative)

Answering body

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

1 November 2000

Reference

355 c533W; 134695

House

House of Commons

Bassam of Brighton, Lord

What arrangements have been made for the appointment of members of the tribunal to be set up under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [HL 4469].

Asked by

Lord Desai (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

1 November 2000

Reference

HL 4469; 618 c107WA

House

House of Lords

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Notification of Authorisations etc) Order 2000;Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000

SI 2000/2563 and SI 2000/2665. Considered by Standing Committee. Agreed to on question.

Lead member

Charles Clarke

Department

Home Office

Type

Debates on delegated legislation; Delegated Legislation Committee proceedings

Date

30 October 2000

Reference

1st SC on DL

House

House of Commons

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Notification of Authorisations Etc) Order 2000;Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000

Draft SI on regulation of investigatory powers (notification of authorisation etc). Lords debate on motion to approve. Agreed to on question.

Lead member

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Answering member

Earl of Northesk

Department

Home Office

Type

Debates on delegated legislation

Date

27 October 2000

Reference

618 c645-8

House

House of Lords

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

How many appeals have been decided by the English and Scottish Employment Appeal Tribunals for each year during the past five years. [HL 3989]. - Table given.

Asked by

Lord Christopher (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 October 2000

Reference

HL 3989; 617 c66WA

House

House of Lords

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

What period of time they consider to be reasonable within which the Employment Appeal Tribunals should determine appeals. [HL 3991].

Asked by

Lord Christopher (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 October 2000

Reference

617 c67WA; HL 3991

House

House of Lords

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

What has been the average annual period of time within which appeals have been determined by the English and Scottish Employment Appeal Tribunals during each of the last five years. [HL 3990]. - Inc table.

Asked by

Lord Christopher (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 October 2000

Reference

617 c66WA; HL 3990

House

House of Lords

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Month

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher