|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Kate Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will resolve the immigration status of a constituent of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, reference number: L0102000/1. 
I regret that from the information given it has not been possible for Immigration and Nationality Directorate officials to identify the case referred to. If my hon. Friend writes to me with full details I will ensure a full response is provided.
2 Feb 2005 : Column 968W
Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's IT projects in each year since 1997, broken down by (a) amount spent, (b) purpose, (c) cost of over-run and (d) time of over-run. 
Fiona Mactaggart: The Home Office does not hold central records detailing every IT project, amount spent, cost of over-run and time of over-run, since 1997. An exercise to obtain the aforementioned information will incur disproportionate costs.
Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a national programme for dealing with juvenile offenders in custody who have been (a) subjected to and (b) convicted of sexual offences. 
Paul Goggins: The Youth Justice Board, together with the Prison Service, are developing proposals to establish a treatment service for young people convicted of sexual offences. It is expected that the service will involve a screening and assessment process followed by intensive interventions, and will be provided at selected sites within the juvenile estate.
The Board and the Prison Service are also considering, in the context of a recent major review of safeguarding arrangements in the Prison Service juvenile estate, how the needs of young people who have been the victim of a sexual offence may best be met.
Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether a 16 to 18-year-old domiciled in the UK requires written or verbal permission from a parent or guardian to leave the UK (a) under any circumstances, (b) when purchasing a one-way ticket abroad, (c) when travelling to EU destinations and (d) when travelling to non-EU destinations; 
(2) if he will take steps to harmonise guidance protocols across the European Union regarding children aged 16 to 18-years-old attempting to leave the UK without the consent of their parents or legal guardians; 
(4) how many children aged (a) 15 or under and (b) 16 to 18 years of age (i) attempted to leave the country without the consent of their parents or legal guardians and (ii) were detained in the course of attempting to leave the country without the consent of their parents or legal guardians in each of the last 10years; 
2 Feb 2005 : Column 969W
(5) how many children who have been reported missing in each of the last 10 years are believed to have left the UK; 
(6) what training and written guidance is given to (a) staff at ports and airports, (b) police at ports and airports and (c) police, regarding children aged 16 to 18 years of age who attempt to leave the UK without the knowledge or consent of their parents or legal guardians; 
Mr. Browne: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate no longer routinely operates an embarkation control and immigration officers have no powers to prevent a person from leaving the United Kingdom, and therefore the information requested is not collected.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the results were of the investigations into how the written parliamentary questions tabled on 11 October by the hon. Member for Thurrock relating to the murder of Richard Watson were lost; and if he will make a statement; 
[holding answers 13 and 20 December 2004]: Ministers make every effort to answer questions substantively in accordance with performance guidelines and especially before Prorogation. However this is not always possible and sometimes, as in the case of the nine questions tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock referred to in the above question (204164), complex information has to be obtained from both
2 Feb 2005 : Column 970W
within and outside the Department before it can be answered substantively. In the case in question it was not possible to provide substantive answers to the questions before Prorogation.
For this reason I wrote to the hon. Member for Thurrock on 2 December 2004 providing him with the information he had requested and arranged for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library. The Official Report cannot publish the written correspondence between myself and the hon. Member, however, the main text of the letter is as follows:
(a) The purpose of the meeting of 24 January 2003 with Mrs. Henderson was to ensure that she and her daughter were updated with the progress of the re-investigation. Following that meeting, in March 2003, a suspect was arrested and interviewed, which subsequently led to papers being passed to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for advice in May 2003.
(b) The re-investigation, which was headed first by DCI Wood and then, from April 2002, by DCI Dennis has now been completed. On the 26 May 2003, a file of evidence was forwarded to the CPS concerning one specific suspect who found that there was no basis for a prosecution in relation to the case papers provided to them. The case is not, however, closed and any new lines of inquiry that emerge will be fully investigated.
(c) The Chief Constable did not record the complaint of Mrs. Henderson for two reasons. Firstly, Mrs. Henderson's complaint referred to complaints about the original investigation, which had already been dealt with. Secondly, the remaining points raised about the re-investigation did not amount to complaints about the conduct of individual police officers, but related to operational matters all of which were subsequently addressed by the restructuring of the force approach to critical incidents. The Secretary of State has no powers to review a Chief Constable's decision not to record a complaint under Section 69(1) of the Police Act 1996.
(d) A full and unqualified apology was provided to Mrs. Henderson in a letter dated 31 October 2003. Press releases were available from 9 December 2002 to 8 October 2004. All of these press releases contained repeated apologies, personally made, to Mrs. Henderson and her family.
Following the Inquest, on the 8 October 2004, a public apology was posted on the Sussex Police public website acknowledging its failings in the case and accepting that there were serious failings in the original investigation. The apology also included an acknowledgement that Mrs. Linda Watson and her daughter, Ms Amanda London-Williams, were innocent of all charges in relation to Richard Watson's murder.
(e) The report of the Police Complaints Authority's supervised investigation by the Metropolitan Police into Sussex Police's investigation of the murder of Richard Watson belongs to Sussex Police. It has not been published and is protected by public interest immunity and will continue to remain so unless directed otherwise by the Courts. The Secretary of State is therefore not in a position to place a copy in the Library.
(f) The original investigating officer overseeing the inquiry retired from Sussex Police on 30 May 1998 on completion of over 30 years' service. He would have faced disciplinary charges for his conduct of the investigation had he not already retired
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|