|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons removed under immigration legislation to other countries have been returned to the UK by those countries in the last 12 months for which figures are available; what action was then taken in respect of each case; what safeguards are in place (a) to monitor the actions of escorting officers and (b) to prevent abuse by them of those they are escorting; how many reports have been received about incidences of abuse; and if he will make a statement. 
Responsibility for each case is taken by the port of arrival in the UK in conjunction with the removing office. Cases are examined on an individual basis and the course of action is subsequently determined.
The Contractors responsible for escorting of detainees are subject to oversight by Contract Monitors. The Monitors oversee the work on routine visits to ports and removal centres, and also attend contractors training courses to ensure appropriate training is provided. All incidents involving use of force are recorded and examined by the Contract Monitor. Any allegations of improper treatment is subject to investigation, and where this involves any alleged assault this will be referred to the police for a separate investigation.
Kate Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will reply to letters from the hon. Member for Vauxhall dated 9 March and 18 October, about a constituent, reference number: N1006256. 
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what budget has been allocated to the Home Office Accounting and Finance Unit in each of the last two years; and how many staff have been employed by the Unit in each year. 
Fiona Mactaggart: In the financial year 200304, the Home Office Accounting and Finance Unit spent £3.5 million and employed 106 staff. The budget for 200405 is £2.569 million and 73 staff are employed.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what budget has been allocated to the National Criminal Justice Board in each of the last two years; and how many staff have been employed by the Board. 
Fiona Mactaggart: The National Criminal Justice Board is not an organisation with a budget employing staff. It is an advisory body formed of the Criminal Justice System Ministers, permanent secretaries and agency heads.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what budget has been allocated to the National Asylum Support Service in each of the last two years; and how many staff have been employed by the Service in each year. 
|Financial year||£ million||Head count|
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent meetings he has had with (a) the police, (b) internet service providers, (c) overseas crime enforcement agencies and (d) others on violent internet pornography; and if he will make a statement. 
Paul Goggins: In considering what action can be taken in respect of extreme pornographic material accessed on the internet, Home Office officials have had discussions with the police, prosecutors and others over the last six months. The matter has also been considered by sub-groups of the Home Secretary's Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet.
Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time was between the date of invoices issued to his Department from a supplier and payment by the Department of the invoice in the last 12 months for which figures are available; what percentage of these invoices were paid within 30 days of the date of issue of the invoice; what percentage of these invoices remained unpaid after 90 days; and if he will make a statement on the Department's policy on the payment of invoices issued to it. 
|Total invoices||On time||31 to 60 days||61 to 89 days||90+ days|
The Home Office payment policy is to pay invoices within 30 days of receipt and agreement of a valid invoice properly supported with proof of delivery of the goods, services and works requested. The Home Office is a signatory to the Better Payment Practice Code. The Department's payment performance is reported in its annual report.
Mr. Browne [holding answer 9 December 2004]: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is currently considering Mrs. Chikuku's case as a priority. Mrs. Chikuku will be notified of the outcome on her case in writing once a decision has been made.
Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff in his Department have (a) received official warnings and (b) faced disciplinary procedures following breaches of IT policy in each year since 1997. 
| 1997|| 1998|| 1999||2000|
| 2001|| 2002|| 2003||2004|
Paul Goggins: Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 provided that various classes of person either must not or need not serve on a jury. Those who were "ineligible"that is, not qualified to serveincluded the judiciary, others (including prison officers) concerned with the administration of justice, the clergy and the mentally ill. Certain other groups of people were "excusable as of right"that is, they had the right to refuse to do jury service if they so wished; these included persons aged between 65 and 69, members and peers of Parliament, the armed forces, members of the medical and similar professions, and people with religious objections.
and he recommended that the categories of ineligibility and excusal as of right set out in the Juries Act should be abolished, with the exception of those with mental disorders, who should continue to be ineligible for jury
10 Jan 2005 : Column 315W
service. These changes were brought into effect on 5 April 2004 when section 321 of and Schedule 33 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were implemented.
Paul Goggins: A general consultation exercise on the recommendations of the "Review of the Criminal Courts", including those about jury service, took place in the Autumn of 2001 and the prison service unions had the opportunity to respond.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what protection he plans to provide to prison officers who serve in the same prison as a person convicted by a jury on which they served. 
Paul Goggins: Prison officers who are summoned to carry out jury service at a court that normally sends convicted persons to the establishment where they work may ask to serve at a different court. Officers who nevertheless find that someone in whose case they have served on the jury is then sent to the prison where they work should raise the matter with management should any difficulties arise as a result.
Paul Goggins: Prison officers were formerly ineligible for jury service, but ceased to be so on 5 April 2004. It is open to them, as it is to anyone who feels they should not be expected to serve as a juror, to apply to the Jury Central Summoning Bureau, which administers a jury summoning service for the whole of England and Wales. They will need to show that they have good reason to defer their service or be excused from serving.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department received from the Law Society on whether or not to exempt prison officers from jury service; and if he will publish them. 
Paul Goggins: The Law Society was in favour of wider eligibility for jury service, but opposed making those who work in the criminal justice system eligible to serve, although the Society did not refer specifically to prison officers.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of costs incurred by the Prison Service in loss of time when prison officers (a) serve on a jury and (b) attend jury selection. 
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prison officers summoned to attend jury selection were rejected for jury service as a result of their occupation in the latest period for which figures are available. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|