| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Jan 2004 : Column 320W—continued
Driving Disqualifications
Mr. Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were disqualified from driving in the last five years; [145332]
- (2) how many people were disqualified from driving since 2000 as a result of (a) drink-driving, (b) speeding and (c) dangerous or reckless driving. [145333]
Ms Blears: Available information up to 2001, which has been taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is given in the tables. Information for 2002 will be available early in 2004.
6 Jan 2004 : Column 321W
| Persons disqualified | |
|---|---|
| 1997 | 171,100 |
| 1998 | 159,500 |
| 1999 | 170,500 |
| 2000 | 168,900 |
| 2001 | 177,200 |
(10) Includes persons disqualified under s 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (penalty points system).
| Offence group | 2000 | 2001 |
|---|---|---|
| Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs(11) | 75,200 | 74,500 |
| Speed limit offences(12) | 11,000 | 10,800 |
| Dangerous driving(13) | 3,700 | 3,700 |
(11) Offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 sec 4(1), 4(2), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 6(4) and 777(6).
(12) Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regs 1973 and Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926-Byelaws made thereunder.
(13) An offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 sec 2 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 sec 2. There is no specific offence of 'reckless driving'.
Immigration Offences (Employers)
Mr. Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employers have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted in relation to an offence under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in each of the last six years for which figures are available; and what penalties were imposed. [142158]
Beverley Hughes: The latest available information on the number of persons proceeded against and those found guilty under section 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996, together with the penalties imposed, is shown in the table.
| Offencedescription/Statute | Persons(14)proceeded against | Number of offences involved | Persons(14) found guilty | Persons(14) fined | Persons(14) not separately dealt with(15) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employing a person subject to immigration control who has attained the age of 16/Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 section 8 | ||||||
| 1997(16) | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 1998(16) | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | |
| 1999(16) | 4 | 23 | 1 | 1 | — | |
| 2000(16) | 10 | 32 | 4 | 4 | — | |
| 2001(16) | 5 | 65 | 1 | 1 | — | |
| 2002 | 2 | 22 | 1 | 1 | — | |
(14) Principal immigration offence basis.
(15) Indicates that a substantive penalty has been imposed on a non-immigration offence dealt with at the same time.
(16) Data have been revised since they were published in the command paper "Control of Immigration Statistics United Kingdom 2001".
The Government have consulted publicly on proposals to strengthen the checks employers are required to carry out under section 8, with a view to improving compliance with and the enforcement of the
6 Jan 2004 : Column 322W
legislation. The Government are currently considering possible measures in this area as part of their wider strategy on managed migration.
In the long term, a national identity cards scheme will reduce the burden on legitimate employers who already check the immigration status of their employees by giving them an easily understood card to check. It will also assist in prosecuting unscrupulous employers who employ illegal workers for less than the minimum wage and undercut legitimate companies
Information on those people proceeded against under the Immigration Acts was published on 27 November in the command paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002" (Cm 6053), a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House.
Imutran Xenotransplantation Research
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters the Home Office has received regarding Imutran xenotransplantation research. [143690]
Caroline Flint: The Home Office computerised correspondence tracking system introduced in two stages during 2003 shows that as of 11 November 2003 we have received 228 letters from Members of Parliament about the Imutran xenotransplantation research since 30 January 2003 and 289 letters from members of the public since 25 May 2003. We have no reliable record of the number of letters received on this subject before the introduction of the computerised correspondence tracking system.
I wrote to all Members of Parliament on 15 December 2003 answering the points raised in the latest letter sent by Uncaged Campaigns about the Imutran xenotransplantation research.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest findings of investigations into Imutran xenotransplantation research. [143700]
Caroline Flint: In November 2000, after carefully considering the arguments for an independent judicial inquiry into the matters raised in "Diaries of Despair", the Uncaged Campaigns report on the Imutran xenotransplantation research carried out at Huntingdon Life Sciences, the then Home Secretary (Jack Straw) asked the Chief Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to examine the available evidence relating to compliance with the authorities granted to Imutran Limited under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This compliance review was undertaken as part of the Inspectorate's routine statutory inspection and reporting function. The Chief Inspector's report was published on 13 July 2001 and is available on the Home Office website. Copies were also placed in the House Library.The Chief Inspector's review covered five years of work, involving many thousands of scientific procedures. The review took around 300 man-hours to complete and included scrutiny of all study documents, including material not available during the normal inspection process. The Chief Inspector's findings confirmed that the general level of compliance was good. He also identified five instances of non-compliance by the surgical team. Three
6 Jan 2004 : Column 323W
of these were already known to the Home Office and were dealt with in 1997. Neither of the two new infringements merited prosecution and both were dealt with by issuing letters of admonition to those responsible.
The Chief Inspector's review identified no new issues requiring further action or investigations and none have been carried out. However, all subsequent representations and evidence received by the Home Office regarding the Imutran research have been thoroughly and carefully considered and full answers have been provided to them. This includes additional papers published in 2003 by Uncaged Campaigns on its website. All of these papers, and more, were available when the chief inspector carried out his compliance review. They provide no new insights into these matters, nor do we accept that they call into question Home Office conduct or regulation of the Imutran research in any way. In addition, in October 2003, we provided the Home Affairs Committee with a detailed response to a number questions about the Imutran research. This response is available on the Home Office website.
The Imutran licences were revoked in July 2000, following a decision by Imutran and its parent company, Novartis, to transfer its research programme to North America. No xenotransplantation work is now undertaken at Huntingdon Life Sciences.
I wrote to all Members of Parliament on 15 December 2003 answering the points raised in the latest letter sent by Uncaged Campaigns about the Imutran xenotransplantation research.
O2/Police Information and Technology Organisation
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the role of individual police authorities is in the public private partnership between O2 and the Police Information and Technology Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [145192]
Ms Blears: The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) is a non-departmental public body of the Home Office. The PITO Board includes Association of Police Authorities (APA) members who represent individual police authorities.
The Airwave contract for the new police radio system was awarded by PITO to BT under the Private Finance Initiative, and novated to Airwave mmO2 in November 2001 following the demerger of BT and mmO2.
The Airwave contract was approved by the PITO Board and agreed by all police authorities. It is monitored by the Airwave Programme Board, where APA members represent the interests of individual police authorities.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |