|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hilary Benn: The market test for the management of Brixton did not attract bids from the private sector, partly because of its poor physical condition and location. The in house bid, while being impressive, was not affordable. Therefore, instead of operating under a Service Level Agreement, the prison will continue to be run under existing management arrangements. However, a performance baseline will be set with challenging improvement targets, and progress will be closely monitored.
Beverley Hughes: Under existing procedures, an applicant who is not issued with a Statement of Evidence Form (SEF) to complete prior to their asylum interview is allowed five days after their substantive asylum interview to make further representations before a decision is taken on their asylum claim.
Those asylum applicants issued with an SEF prior to any substantive interview do not benefit from this arrangement. This is because applicants issued with an SEF form are given 10 working days to submit the completed form to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. We think this gives applicants a reasonable period to set out their claim and time to seek legal representation if they wish for the submission of further supporting evidence.
We have decided that asylum applicants who go through the induction centre process will no longer benefit from the five day period to make further representations. The induction centre process is designed to familiarise an asylum applicant with the asylum procedures, providing the asylum seeker with detailed briefings on different aspects of the asylum process and to explain to applicants what their obligations are. All asylum applicants who go through the induction centre process are told that all information relevant to their claim must be available by the time they are substantively interviewed because decisions on claims will be made shortly after the interview. The interview itself will be scheduled to take place two weeks after the applicant has gone through the induction process. We consider that this two week period offers the applicant sufficient time to prepare for the interview and gather any supporting information he considers necessary.
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1448W
Beverley Hughes: On 7 February, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, announced that he had decided that the Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre would close by spring 2003. However, following the incident at The Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre in February and the consequent temporary reduction in Removal Centre capacity, I have decided to postpone the closure of Campsfield House until September 2004. This is in order to maintain Removal Centre capacity and thus support our commitment to increase the rate of removal of failed asylum seekers.
Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on changes in the membership of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's independent Complaints Audit Committee. 
Beverley Hughes: Ms Catherine Tuitt has been appointed as a new Member of the Complaints Audit Committee to replace Mercy Jeyasingham, whose three-year term of tenure ends in July 2002. Ms Tuitt has worked in a variety of positions, both in the private and public sector, ranging from legal consultancy and public affairs, to chairing council committees. A local elected councillor until recently, Ms Tuitt has considerable experience in facilitating service provision. She is presently an advocate for a voluntary community organisation providing support and advice to refugees and children of refugees.
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers convicted of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs caused crashes which resulted in multiple deaths in each of the past 10 years. 
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1449W
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of the breath tests carried out by police officers proved (a) over the legal drink-drive limit and (b) positive, but not over the legal drink-drive limit, broken down by police force, in each of the last 10 years; 
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average penalty given to (a) drivers convicted of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs and (b) drivers convicted of multiple counts of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs in each of the past 10 years. 
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers charged with causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs were involved in crashes that resulted in multiple deaths in each of the past 10 years. 
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers were convicted of multiple counts of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs in each of the past 10 years. 
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1450W
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers were (a) charged with and (b) convicted of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs in each of the past 10 years. 
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers convicted of multiple counts of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs (a) served the whole of their sentences and (b) had their sentence reduced, in each of the past 10 years. 
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers convicted of multiple counts of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs (a) were given concurrent sentences and (b) were given consecutive sentences, in each of the past 10 years. 
Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of the breath tests carried out by police officers proved (a) over the legal drink-drive limit and (b) positive, but not over the legal drink-drive limit, broken down by police force, in each of the last 10 years. 
|England and Wales||Percentages|
|Police force area||1992||1993||1994||1995||1996||1997||1998(85)||1999(85)||2000(85)|
|London, City of||15||19||19||16||16||16||14||17||23|
(85) Since 1998 comparisons between the number of positive breath tests reported by each police force and the number of court proceedings for drink/driving related offences have indicated that there has been under-reporting in a number of forces. Appropriate adjustments have been made.
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1451W
|England and Wales||Percentages|
|Police force area||1992||1993||1994||1995||1996||1997||1998||1999||2000|
|London, City of||2,200||2,800||4,400||3,300||4,500||3,600||3,300||1,700||1,100|
Home Office (RDS/CCJU) 19 July 2002.
24 Jul 2002 : Column 1453W
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|