| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Correspondence
Mr. Dixon: To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish in the Official Report his letter to the hon. Member for Jarrow of 10 May. [29729]
The Attorney-General: No. I have, however, placed in the Libraries of the House a copy of the letter to which the hon. Member refers.
HOME DEPARTMENT
Asylum and Immigration Bill
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 May, Official Report, column 45, how many respondents to the consultation on the Asylum and Immigration Bill (a) were in favour of the measures and how many against, (b) mentioned costs or burdens to business, (c) objected to the checking of documents other than national insurance and (d) suggested that compliance costs would be higher than those indicated in the compliance cost assessment. [29964]
Miss Widdecombe [holding answer 17 May 1996]: A summary of 67 responses to the consultation document on the prevention of illegal working was made available to the House before report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. It indicates that
Fifteen respondents indicated either support or opposition. Of these four respondents actively supported the particular proposals whereas 11 expressed clear opposition to the principle of employers making any checks on their new employees;
Twenty-seven respondents commented on costs or burdens to business in response to a specific question on compliance costs. Fifteen respondents suggested that compliance costs would be higher than those indicated in the compliance cost assessment. Ten said that they expected no, or very minimal, compliance costs and two indicated that in their view the assessment seemed reasonable.
Three respondents suggested that national insurance numbers should provide the sole defence for employers. Twenty-one respondents indicated that the checking of documents such as foreign passports would be more complicated or onerous, although five suggested that such checking should not be too difficult if written guidance and a telephone helpline were available.
Miss Widdecombe [holding answer 17 May 1996]: The compliance cost assessment prepared last November estimated that the non-current costs of clause 8 will be £13,524,800. For a firm with under 100 employees non-recurrent costs were estimated to be £10.70. It was estimated that the total recurrent costs for all employers might be up to £11,451,200 or less than 68p per employee per annum, but no assessment was made of the proportion of those costs which might fall to small firms.
21 May 1996 : Column: 98
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost to business of clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill; how much it will cost each year; and what estimate he has made of the cost to businesses with fewer than (a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29950]
Miss Widdecombe: The compliance cost assessment prepared last November estimated that the non-recurrent costs of clause 8 will be £13,524,800. For a firm with under 100 employees non-recurrent costs were estimated to be £10.70. It was estimated that the total recurrent costs for all employers might be up to £11,451,200 or less than 68p per employee per annum. No assessment was made of the proportion of the recurrent costs which might fall to firms of the sizes mentioned.
Illegal Working Helpline
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the cost of the proposed helpline on illegal working; how many people will staff the helpline; and when it will begin. [29952]
Miss Widdecombe: Details of how the helpline will operate are currently under consideration. Full information about the facility will be given to employers in the written guidance to be issued in due course.
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has carried out into the ease with which small employers can identify the documents required under clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [29948]
Miss Widdecombe: In our consultation document, we asked respondents, including representatives of small employers, to comment on this point.
Race Relations
Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the funding arrangements after March 1997 for projects funded by his Office under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966; for what reasons there has been a delay in the announcement; and when he expects to be able to notify local education authorities of the arrangements. [29853]
Mr. Kirkhope: The funding position from April 1997 remains under consideration. I expect to be able to let local authorities have more information shortly.
Crimes Against Children (National Registers)
Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will establish a national register of persons convicted of offences of a violent nature against children; [30423]
- (2) if he will establish a national register of persons convicted of offences of a sexual nature against children. [30422]
Mr. Maclean: The national criminal records contain details of all those convicted of offences of a violent or sexual nature against children. In order to strengthen these arrangements, the Government are considering suggestions that convicted sex offenders should be
21 May 1996 : Column: 99
required by law to notify the police of any changes of address. We plan very shortly to issue a consultation paper which will canvass these and other measures to improve public protection against sex offenders.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist under Home Office guidelines for unsolicited communication to local authority (a) social service, (b) education and (c) youth services departments of the termination of employment of those persons convicted of sexual and or violent offences against children. [30424]
Mr. Maclean: The arrangements under which the police report convictions of employees to local authorities are set out in Home Office circular HOG 45/86 a copy of which is in the Library. it is for the local authority concerned to decide on the action which it wishes to take.
Live Animal Experiments
Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to increase public scrutiny of project licence applications for experiments on live animals. [30374]
Mr. Sackville: None. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents disclosure of confidential information.
Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many small animals were bred in medical schools in the London area for research purposes over the past five years for which figures are available. [30373]
Mr. Sackville: This information is not collected centrally.
Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to increase the publicity given to procedures adopted by the Home Office inspectors overseeing experiments in live animals. [30375]
Mr. Sackville: Public information is already available in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the guidance to that Act, and the annual statistics published by the Home Office.
Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the eligibility criteria for appointment to the Animal Procedures Committee; and how many lay-persons are included in the current membership. [30376]
Mr. Sackville: The eligibility criteria for appointment to the Animal Procedures Committee are set out in section 19 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The current membership consists of nine scientists and veterinary surgeons, two academic lawyers, one academic philosopher and four animal welfarists.
Data Protection
Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has, in relation to the Europol convention, to appoint the data protection registrar to (a) the national supervisory body and (b) the joint supervisory body; and if he will list the countries which do not submit disputes concerning the convention to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. [29691]
21 May 1996 : Column: 100
Mr. Maclean: Officials are in discussion with the data protection registrar over a number of aspects of the Europol convention and its implementation. These include the designation of the national supervisory body, members or representatives of which will comprise the United Kingdom delegation on the joint supervisory body.
The Europol convention is not yet in force. On signing the convention, 14 member states made a declaration that they intended to refer to the Court of Justice disputes between them that were not resolved by the Council. The United Kingdom did not make such a declaration.
Mr. Cohen:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the implications of the Europol convention for the Data Protection Act 1984 in respect of powers of access of the Data Protection Registrar. [29693]
Mr. Maclean:
Ratification of the convention will not require any amendment to the Data Protection Act 1984. Officials are discussing with the data protection registrar practical aspects of its implementation.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |