|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
24 Oct 2002 : Column 415Wcontinued
Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been issued in the UK since their introduction; how many have been revoked for non-compliance; and what these figures are for Kent. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Drug Treatment and Testing Order was introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and rolled out to courts in England and Wales on 1 October 2000, after successfully being piloted.
Between 1 October 200031 July 2000 (which is the latest month for which complete figures are available) 8,071 orders have been made nationally, of which 2,369 orders have been revoked for non-compliance. This represents 29 per cent. of the total number of orders made. In Kent 196 orders have been made over the same period, of which 64 have been revoked for failure to comply; this represents 32 per cent. of total orders made in the area.
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Mr. Ebrahim Solta of Leicester who was detained at Charles Street Police Station in October. 
Beverley Hughes: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 15 October setting out the circumstances that led to the detention of Mr. Ebrahim Sotta at Charles Street Police Station.
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 19 September 2002, Official Report, column 40W, on what date a copy of the reply of the Chief Charity Commissioner was placed in the Library. 
24 Oct 2002 : Column 416W
Beverley Hughes [holding answer 22 October 2002]: A copy of the letter from the Chief Charity Commissioner was placed in the Library on 14 October.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding has been given to agencies to provide support and assistance to victims of trafficking in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Beverley Hughes: The White Paper ''Secure Borders Safe Haven'', published earlier this year, set out a comprehensive approach for supporting the victims of trafficking. We will make arrangements for their protection and support by providing access to safe accommodation and services such as medical care, legal advice, and counselling. We are working with the voluntary sector to set up these arrangements and hope to set up a pilot scheme next year, which will initially run on a trial basis for a period of six months so that we can evaluate its impact.
The Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are running a number of prevention projects aimed primarily at raising awareness and educating potential victims (mostly women and children) of the dangers of being trafficked. We have given #3 million for the International Labour Organisation's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) programme in the Greater Mekong region (parts of Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam). This involves a number of inter-linked interventions to raise awareness, prevent trafficking and to support community reintegration for victims of trafficking. The United Kingdom is also contributing to the European Union STOP Programme, which provides support to Member State organisations responsible for action against the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children.
24 Oct 2002 : Column 417W
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to expand the UK and EU lists on proscribed terrorist organisations; what criteria must be met in order for someone to be added to the list; how often the list is reviewed; when the list was last updated; what discussions he has had with the (a) US Administration and (b) Governments in South East Asia and Australia regarding the proscription of terrorist groups. 
Mr. Blunkett [holding answer 22 October 2002]: I will be laying an Order next week for the proscription of the terrorist organisation Jeemah Islamiyah (JI).
Under Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000, I have the power to recommend to Parliament the proscription of any organisation which is ''concerned in terrorism'', as defined in the Act, if I am satisfied that the statutory criteria are fulfilled.
Under the Terrorism Act, an organisation is ''concerned in terrorism'' if it:
In considering which international terrorist organisations should be subject to proscription, I take the following factors into account:
The list of proscribed organisations is kept under constant review. There have been no changes to the list since the Order proscribing 21 international terrorist organisations which came into force on 29 March 2001. We remain in constant contact with the international community in the global fight against terrorism.
Mr. Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been detained without charge under the recent anti-terrorism legislation, and in each case (a) what access to legal advice has existed, (b) whether criminal charges are anticipated, (c) the length of time spent in custody and (d) whether bail applications have been made; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Blunkett: Twelve foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001. Eight were detained in December 2001, one in February 2002, two in April 2002, and a further one yesterday.
Of the total detained, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other 10 remain in detention.
All of those detained have had access to legal advice throughout the detention period. There is no limit to the number of legal visits the detainees may receive.
24 Oct 2002 : Column 418W
The persons detained have been detained under a primarily immigration power. They are not being held pending criminal charges.
My decision to detain these individuals was made on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence. That evidence will be examined by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when the individuals' appeals are heard, as provided for under the ATCS Act. The Commission is equivalent to the High Court. It has the power to overturn my decisions.
There have been five bail applications in total made by three individuals. The first bail application was made by one of the appellants in December 2001this was declined and the appellant subsequently voluntarily left the United Kingdom (UK). An application by a second detainee was withdrawn after the appellant voluntarily left the UK. A third detainee made three bail applicationstwo of these failed and a third, scheduled to be heard in August 2002, was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant's legal representatives and has not been resubmitted.
Where terrorism is concerned our paramount responsibility is to ensure public safety and national security. So long as the public emergency subsists, where a person is suspected of terrorism but cannot currently be removed and for whom a criminal prosecution is not an option, we believe that it is necessary and proportionate to provide for extended detention, pending removal.
Given the nature of these cases, I am unable to comment in any further detail on individual cases.
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on passport fees. 
Beverley Hughes: The Privy Council has made an Order in Council, the Consular Fees (No. 2) Order 2002, which gives authority for a revision in passport fees. The revision will take effect on 21 November 2002. The fee for a standard 32 page passport will increase from #30 to #33 while the fee for a 48 page passport will remain at #40. The fee for amending an existing passport will increase from #18 to #22.50. The cost of a passport for a child will increase from #16 to #19. The additional charges for those making use of the guaranteed fast track and premium services available from the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) counters remain unchanged at #30 and #45 respectively. The fee for a collective passport, for organised trips for schools and youth groups, will decrease from #42 to #39. The Order also increases fees for passport applications made overseas to British consular posts. These will be an increase from #49 to #54.40 for a standard 32 page passport, an increase from #60 to #65.20 for a 48 page passport, an increase from #29 to #34.70 for a child passport and an increase from #30 to #33.90 for an emergency passport.
24 Oct 2002 : Column 419W
Passport fees are set at the level needed to cover the costs of passport issuing, includingin this casethe recovery of certain deficits accrued before 1999, and the costs of providing overseas consular protection services which are not covered by other fees. The changes set out in the Order follow a careful review of costs to ensure that the fee for each type of passport service closely reflects the production costs and past deficits accrued by that service and bears its share of the cost of consular protection services. In relation to the cost of travel abroad, the new fees still represent very good value for money.
24 Oct 2002 : Column 420W
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|