| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Police Radio Communications Project
Mr. Hope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the Police Service Radio Communications Project; and if he will make a statement. [112636]
Mr. Straw: On 13 January, I laid before Parliament a Departmental minute notifying a non-statutory liability arising from the issue by the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) of a letter of instruction to proceed to British Telecom plc. This letter authorised them to invest in the project infrastructure, pending satisfactory conclusions of the final contract negotiations. I can now confirm that yesterday evening PITO signed a contract with British Telecom plc for the provision of the Public Safety Radio Communications Service (PSRCS) to all police forces in England, Wales and Scotland. I will be announcing shortly further details on the scope and timetable of the project.
Racing Greyhounds
Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards exist concerning the welfare of racing greyhounds (a) during their working lives at (i) registered tracks and (ii) independent tracks and (b) after they retire; and if he will make a statement. [112391]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
Provisions safeguarding the welfare of all domestic and captive animals in this country, including greyhounds whether on course or in retirement, are included in the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960.
1 Mar 2000 : Column: 288W
The British Greyhound Racing Board and the National Greyhound Racing Club, who are responsible for the sport, have regular meetings with the major animal welfare organisations. The industry also supports the work of the Retired Greyhound Trust, which is currently concentrating on expanding and properly financing local home finding schemes for retired greyhounds.
Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an independent public inquiry into the collapse of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress. [112464]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I have asked the incoming Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Gurbux Singh, to consider urgently the lessons to be learned from the collapse of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and to produce a report. I hope to indicate the time scale for the report shortly.
Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the report of the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality into the collapse of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress to be completed; and if he will place the report in the Library when it is available. [112463]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I have asked the incoming Chairman, Gurbux Singh, to undertake the review as a matter of urgency. The terms of reference and timetable for the review will be published shortly and the key findings of the review will be placed in the Library.
Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take in respect of the civil servants and members of the Commission for Racial Equality who are directors of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.; and what role his Department and the Commission for Racial Equality had in their appointment. [112462]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
My Department was not involved in the appointment of its Directors and no Home Office officials are Directors of the company.
The role of the Commission will be examined in the context of the review which I have asked the incoming Chairman, Gurbux Singh, to conduct.
Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 22 February 2000, Official Report, column 863W, to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), if he will place the accountants' report on Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. in the Library. [112465]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
There are no plans to do so.
Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Ministers and officials in his Department were responsible for supervising the organisation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress by Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.; what was the nature of that supervision; and if he will make a statement. [112461]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The Commission for Racial Equality decided to stage the Cultural Diversity Congress and took a collective decision to set up Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. to organise the event.
1 Mar 2000 : Column: 289W
Operational supervision of the arrangements was a matter for the Commission.
Miss Widdecombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the change in the total number of police officers in the Metropolitan Police Service over the next three financial years; and if he will make a statement. [112394]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the revenue budget for 2000-01 should be sufficient to enable him to maintain police officer strength at around 25,600. He also aims to maintain front-line policing strengths for the following two years, subject to sufficient funding.
From 3 July 2000 budgets for the Metropolitan Police Authority will be a matter for the Greater London Authority, subject to my reserve powers to set a minimum budget.
Miss Widdecombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that there should be more police officers in the Metropolitan Police Service at the end of this Parliament than at the start; and if he will make a statement. [112458]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
Under the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994, it is for the Commissioner to determine the actual number of police officers in the Metropolitan Police Service at any one time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out his policy as regards the number of police officers in all forces in England and Wales in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 172-74W.
Miss Widdecombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer of 14 February 2000, Official Report, columns 419-20W, and his letter to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald of 18 February 2000, what assessment he has made of the compatibility of his instruction to admit Mike Tyson under paragraph 1(3) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 with the Immigration Rules. [112401]
Mr. Straw:
My instruction under Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 to admit Mr. Tyson was entirely compatible with the Immigration Rules, including paragraph 320(18). Whereas under that paragraph refusal of entry should normally follow in the case of someone with a criminal conviction of the sort prescribed in the absence of strong compassionate reasons, the paragraph leaves a residual discretion, confirmed by the courts, to depart from that normal course.
Gillian Merron:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his considerations of the claims for political asylum made by some passengers on the aeroplane recently hijacked to Stansted airport. [112937]
1 Mar 2000 : Column: 290W
Mr. Straw:
Of the total 170 people on the aircraft, 73 returned voluntarily to Afghanistan on 14 February. Four members of the flight crew are due to return with the aircraft when necessary clearances have been given. Two passengers have also asked to return to Afghanistan. Arrangements are being made for them to do so. 14 individuals are the subject of criminal charges in relation to the hijacking. This leaves 44 passengers who have made a claim for asylum under the 1951 Geneva Convention together with some 33 dependants.
I have postponed a decision in six claims made by the relatives of those charged because I have been advised that the effect of considering their claims could prejudice the trials of the hijackers. I have postponed a decision in two cases in which I am expecting further information from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and a further six cases in which further inquiries need to be made.
I have personally considered each of the remaining claims, including the representations made by the legal advisers representing each applicant. I have also taken into account advice I have received from Counsel and the Home Office Afghanistan country assessment. I have now reached my decisions. I have decided to grant refugee status in two cases, because I am satisfied that their applications disclose a well-grounded fear of persecution on a ground set out in the 1951 Convention. In both cases, as it happens, the applicant's case for asylum arose before they had boarded the flight, and it was a matter of chance for them that it was hijacked. Indefinite leave to enter will be granted to the wife of one of these applicants as his dependant, although she had claimed asylum in her own right. The claimants in these cases have five children who will also be given indefinite leave to enter. I have rejected the claims in the remaining 27 cases on the grounds that I am not satisfied that they have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of their race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
In considering each of these claims, I have taken proper account of the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 Convention. I have taken account of all necessary legal requirements. These requirements are such that it would have been improper in the cases I have considered for me to take into account at that stage other factors, such as the need to deter future hijackers, and I have not done so. However, in determining the future status of those whose claims I have rejected, I have a different duty, to take into account all relevant information including public interest points in deterring future hijackings.
In these cases, I have decided that the public interest in deterring future hijacks for the purposes of claiming asylum is a very strong one and, therefore, I have decided that they should not be given permission to stay in this country. Accordingly, I have given instructions that they should not be granted Exceptional Leave to Enter, which would give them this permission. We are ready to make arrangements for them to return to Afghanistan voluntarily. Given the current situation in Afghanistan, it is not proposed immediately to set directions for their enforced removal to Afghanistan. Instead, we are continuing to explore the possibility of removing these individuals to other countries. In the meantime they will be offered bail conditions to be set by a Chief Immigration Officer involving a recognisance, restrictions on their
1 Mar 2000 : Column: 291W
address, and conditions for regular reporting to the Immigration Service. Arrangements for accommodation will be made centrally and the cost will not be borne by local authorities. For the time being we will continue to detain those on whom no decision has been made.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |