---

Tobacco Smuggling

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the (a) longest prison sentence and (b) largest fine imposed on a person convicted of tobacco smuggling into the UK in the last 12 months. [123046]

Mr. Charles Clarke: I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 23 May 2000, Official Report, column 403W.

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) public and (b) private sector accommodation providers have been contracted to provide accommodation for asylum seekers in (i) the North West region, (ii) Pendle, (iii) Burnley, (iv) Rossendale, (v) Blackburn with Darwen and (vi) Hyndburn; and how many units are to be provided in each location. [123032]

Mrs. Roche: The accommodation contracts which have been awarded do not require that property be provided in a specific geographical location. To date, a total of 1,189 bedspaces have been provided in the North West Region by four private sector providers. The bedspaces include 80 in Nelson (Pendle) and a further 88 in Burnley. There are no bedspaces in Blackburn and Darwin. Nor are there any recorded in Rossendale or Hyndburn.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years, how many people were recorded as being detained who had sought asylum at some stage, broken down by stage of application and immigration status; at which institutions these individuals were detained; what was the age range

24 May 2000 : Column: 493W

and nationality of those detained; and if he will make a statement. [123163]

Mrs. Roche: The information requested, on numbers of asylum applicants detained in each of the last five years, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

24 May 2000 : Column: 494W

The available information, relating to a snapshot of asylum applicants detained solely under Immigration Act powers as at 30 December 1998 for port applicants and 4 January 1999 for in-country applicants, by stage of application and immigration status, and by nationality, is given in the tables.

24 May 2000 : Column: 493W

Number of people recorded as being detained (1) (2) on 30 December 1998 (3) and 4 January 1999 (3) who had sought asylum at some stage, by stage of application and immigration status

Stage of application	Port	Illegal entrants	Subject to deportation action	Total
Awaiting initial decision	125	295	4	424
Awaiting result of appeal	127	42	11	180
Awaiting result of further challenge or documentation for removal(4)	45	77	15	137
Total	297	414	30	741

(1) Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

(2) These figures are approximate because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period.

(3) After entry figures obtained at 4 January 1999. Port figures obtained at 30 December 1998.

(4) Includes those persons awaiting the result of a further appeal/other challenge or awaiting removal pending documentation.

24 May 2000 : Column: 493W

Number of people recorded as being detained (5)(6) on 30 December 1998 (7) and 4 January 1999 (7) who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality

Nationality	Total
Nigeria	82
India	79
Albania	54
Pakistan	50
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia	38
Sri Lanka	38
Romania	35
Algeria	32
China	29
Poland	29
Lithuania	26
Turkey	20
Ghana	18
Ukraine	12
Bangladesh	11
Sierra Leone	10
Kenya	9
Iraq	8
Bulgaria	7
Gambia	7
Somalia	7
Egypt	6
Iran	6
Uganda	6
Afghanistan	5
Ivory Coast	5
Jamaica	4
Palestine	4
Russia	4
Columbia	3
Congo	3
Croatia	3
Czech Republic	3
Latvia	3
Liberia	3
Morocco	3
Angola	2
Cyprus	2
Democratic Republic of Congo	2
Libya	2
South Africa	2
Tanzania	2
Thailand	2
Togo	2
Nationality doubtful	41
Others	22
Total	741

(5) Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

(6) These figures are approximate because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period.

(7) Port figures obtained at 30 December 1998. After entry figures obtained at 4 January 1999.

24 May 2000 : Column: 494W

British Board of Film Classification

Mrs. Gilroy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the British Board of Film Classification's Annual report for 1999 will be published; and if he will make a statement. [124077]

Mr. Straw: I have today placed in the Library copies of the Annual Report of the British Board of Film Classification for 1999, which gives details of the Board's financial accounts and activities for the year ended 31 December 1999.

On 16 May, the High Court dismissed the Board's application for Judicial Review in respect of appeals against their decision not to classify seven sexually explicit videos in the restricted (R)18 category--which are available only in licensed sex shops to those aged 18 and above. The Board had focused their application for Judicial Review on the consideration which they should give, when classifying videos in the R18 category, to the potential harm to children which may result from their exposure to this material. I am very disappointed with the outcome of this case and have instructed my officials to consider whether any additional steps can be taken to protect children from exposure to these sexually explicit videos. I intend to issue a consultation paper on the matter shortly.

Immigration Legislation

Mrs. Gilroy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to strengthen immigration legislation to tackle abuse of the United Kingdom's immigration control. [124078]

Mrs. Roche: The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that those who seek to migrate to the United Kingdom but have no grounds for doing so under the Immigration Rules, are prevented from coming here.

24 May 2000 : Column: 495W

From 00:01 hours on Thursday 25 May, we will require nationals of Colombia and Ecuador to obtain a Direct Airside Transit Visa even when they intend to remain airside while in transit through the United Kingdom. We have taken this action following evidence of abuse of the Transit Without Visa concession by such nationals.

Criminal Proceedings (Prosecution Appeals)

Mrs. Gilroy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms of reference are for the Law Commission's review of the law governing prosecution appeals in criminal proceedings. [124079]

Mr. Straw: The Law Commission published a consultation document on the law of double jeopardy on 12 October 1999 following my request to them of 2 July 1999 as part of the Government's response to the Stephen Lawrence report. The consultation period ended on 31 January 2000 and the Commission is considering the responses received before making its final recommendations to the Government. As the terms of reference intended, the consultation document did refer to prosecution rights of appeal but not in any detail as to how these might be achieved.

I have, therefore, today formally asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of the law governing prosecution appeals against judge directed acquittals in criminal proceedings and other adverse rulings by a judge which may lead to the premature ending of the trial. The terms of reference for this review are:

"To consider

(a) whether any, and if so, what additional rights of appeal or other remedies should be available to the prosecution from adverse rulings of a judge in a trial on indictment which the prosecution may wish to overturn and which may have resulted, whether directly or indirectly, in premature termination of the trial;
(b) to what, if any, procedural restrictions such appeals would be subject and to make recommendations".

24 May 2000 : Column: 496W

I should emphasise that the issue here is the question of a prosecution right of appeal against adverse rulings made by the judge, which leads to the ending of the trial before the jury has considered the evidence. The question whether, and in what circumstances, a jury's decision on the evidence to acquit can be challenged is the subject of the double jeopardy consideration by the Commission. Both these issues are entirely separate from the prosecution's right of appeal against an unduly lenient sentence after a jury has convicted a defendant.

---