| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Jul 2003 : Column 716W—continued
Capita
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that information Capita gain from accessing the Police National Computer is confined within the Capita organisation itself and is not related to persons or bodies other than those who have made an authorised application to Capita. [123658]
Ms Blears [holding answer 4 July 2003]: The power in Schedule 29 to the Criminal Justice Bill that would enable the Secretary of State to delegate to another person his functions under Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 is discretionary. No decision has been taken to delegate the Criminal Records Bureau's functions which would allow a private sector provider access to the Police National Computer.
In the event that the Government decided to delegate any functions of the Criminal Records Bureau which would allow a private sector provider access to sensitive personal information, the delegation would be subject to sufficient safeguards to protect such information from improper disclosure. Furthermore, under new section 124A of the 1997 Act, inserted by paragraph 11 of Schedule 29, it would be an offence for any person to whom the Secretary of State had delegated functions to disclose any personal information obtained in connection with those functions. There are certain exceptions, including where the disclosure is made in the course of the person's duties.
Commission for Racial Equality
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charges of (a) racial, (b) sexual and (c) disability discrimination have been made by staff of the Commission for Racial Equality against the Commission in each of the last 10 years. [123344]
Fiona Mactaggart: I am advised by the Commission that records are held from 1998. Since that period 23 cases have been brought against the Commission for Race Equality (CRE) involving allegations of either sex,
8 Jul 2003 : Column 717W
race or disability discrimination or a combination of these types of claims. 15 of these claims were withdrawn. Please see breakdown as follows:
- (a) Race: 18
(b) Gender and race: 4
(c) Disability: 1
Convicted Mothers
Mr. Stinchcombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken to implement the recommendation in the Halliday Report 'Making Punishments Work' which states that dependent children should be taken into consideration when sentencing mothers. [122955]
Paul Goggins: The Halliday report 'Making Punishments Work' advocated maintaining the principle of equal treatment and that there should be no preferential treatment between men and women offenders in sentencing. However, this does not mean the same sentences are necessarily right for different groups who may be differently affected. It is legitimate for a court to take into account the impact of a sentence on other people—including dependent children—as one part of the overall picture. The report recommended the establishment of a body with the power to issue guidelines on sentencing issues. The Government accepted this recommendation by proposing the setting up of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which forms part of the Criminal Justice Bill at present before Parliament. The sentencing of mothers with dependent children is likely to be an issue which the Council will consider as part of its overall work.
Correspondence
Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will direct the Immigration and Nationality Department to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Wrexham of 17 January in respect of Mr. Sarkwat Jalal Salih. [123289]
Beverley Hughes: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to my hon. Friend's letter on 12 February 2003. A further copy of the reply was sent to him on 3 July.
Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will direct the Immigration Service Border Control and Enforcement Department in Liverpool to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Wrexham of 2 June 2003 in respect of Mr. Marawen Salladen Abdulstar. [123290]
Beverley Hughes: The Immigration Service Border Control and Enforcement Department in Liverpool wrote to my hon. Friend on 2 July 2003.
Council of Ministers
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal (a) was and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority; [117206]
8 Jul 2003 : Column 718W
- (2) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting; [117222]
(3) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year; [117238]
(4) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117254]
Caroline Flint: There are limited areas in the Justice and Home Affairs Council which are subject to qualified majority voting (QMV). Since 1999 and for those measures in Title IV of the Treaty on the European Community subject to QMV where the UK has opted into their adoption, no measures have been adopted with the UK abstaining, outvoted or part of a blocking minority. All measures in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union are adopted by unanimity. Information for the years 1997–99 is available only at disproportionate cost.
Criminal Records Bureau
Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on (a) local authorities and (b) voluntary organisations of the Criminal Records Bureau's decision to increase the cost of standard and enhanced checks. [121724]
Paul Goggins: Responsibility for paying the fee for a criminal record disclosure rests with the individual applicant, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the cost. Checks will remain free in the case of volunteers (saving the voluntary sector an estimated £10 million in 2003–04). I have placed in the Library a Regulatory Impact Assessment which assesses the impact of the fee increase across all sectors.
Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal record checks were carried out by employers in (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham, (b) Shropshire and (c) England in each year since 1997; how much the checks cost them; and how many volunteers were checked for criminal records by organisations in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham, (ii) Shropshire and (iii) England in each year since 1997. [121727]
Paul Goggins: Information is not available in the form requested.
Table 1 shows total numbers of police checks undertaken by forces in England in those financial years for which information is available, under arrangements agreed at national level by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), in relation to
- persons working with children;
- proprietors and managers of residential care homes and nursing homes;
- civilian fine enforcement officers; and
8 Jul 2003 : Column 719W
| Total number of checks | |
|---|---|
| 1997–98 | 746,986 |
| 1998–99 | 748,856 |
| 1999–2000 | 835,563 |
| 2000–01 | 849,053 |
Table 2 shows total numbers of police checks on volunteers undertaken by forces in England (some are national organisations and may include checks conducted in Wales) on behalf of voluntary organisations and channelled through the Voluntary Organisations Consultancy Service (VOCS), taken from the annual report of VOCS in relation to the calendar year indicated:
| Total number of checks | |
|---|---|
| 1997 | 9,796 |
| 1998 | 10,558 |
| 1999 | 10,533 |
| 2000 | 11,476 |
| 2001 | 12,448 |
| 2002 | 12,661 |
Under ACPO policy, forces undertook checks under arrangements agreed nationally free of charge.
In the 2002–03 financial year, its first year of operation, the Criminal Records Bureau issued 6,463 Disclosures in response to applications countersigned by registered bodies in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and in the 2003–04 financial year, up to 27 June, has issued 1,557. The corresponding figures for England and Wales as a whole were 1,442,000 and 473,745. Not all of these Disclosures were issued at the behest of employers. Figures are not available in respect of Shropshire. The fee for a Disclosure was £12 until 1 July 2003, when the fee for a Standard Disclosure became £24, and for an Enhanced Disclosure, £29. Disclosures for volunteers are issued free of charge.
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many (a) local authorities, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) children's charities were consulted about the proposed increases to disclosure fees for standard and enhanced disclosures by the Criminal Records Bureau; and how many organisations consulted supported an increase in fees; [122767]
- (2) what estimate he has made of the impact on the children's charity sector of proposed increases to disclosure fees for standard and enhanced disclosures by the Criminal Records Bureau. [122769]
Paul Goggins: In order to maintain an even demand for the Disclosure service, it was not possible to consult in advance of the fee increase being announced.
Responsibility for paying the fee for a criminal record Disclosure rests with the individual applicant, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the cost. Checks will remain free in the case of volunteers (saving the voluntary sector an estimated £10 million in 2003–04). I have placed a copy in the Library.
8 Jul 2003 : Column 720W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |