|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Charles Clarke: No Government has ever been able to produce an accurate figure for the number of people who are in the country illegally. By its very nature it is impossible to quantify accurately, and that remains the case.
Although it is impossible to determine accurately how many people are in the UK illegally the Home Office published a report which included an estimate of the size of the illegal migrant population in the UK in 2001. It should be noted that the report included an estimate, not an accurate or definitive figure.
As mentioned in the report the only method to estimate the size of the unauthorised migrant population in the UK that currently can sensibly be applied is the residual method. As the method relies on data from the census of the population undertaken every 10 years, it is not possible to produce an estimate for a more recent year.
19 Jul 2005 : Column 1614W
A copy of the Research, Development and Statistics On-line report 29/05Sizing the unauthorised (illegal) migrant population in the United Kingdom in 2001" can be found at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/notes/june_summaries.html.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what (a) quality of service level and (b) other measures of availability he plans to set for the National Identity Register. 
Andy Burnham: We are currently in discussion with various organisations who would be potential users of the identity card scheme for identification and identity verification to determine their performance requirements, which will include service levels and levels of availability. However, no final decisions will be ready until the procurement process has commenced.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps will be taken to prevent confidential personal information from being (a) recorded under an individual's national identity registration number and (b) otherwise connected to that individual's record on the register, with particular reference to recording of attendance at particular hospitals and clinics. 
The information which can be recorded is that allowed for under Schedule one of the Identity Cards Bill and the definition of registrable facts". Attendance at particular hospitals or clinics does not fall within the information which could be held on the Register.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department what plans he has for limiting the use of the proposed National Identity Registration Number, or other identifying numbers established under the Identity Cards Bill, by (a) Government Departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) private sector organisations and (d) other bodies, including other Governments. 
Andy Burnham [holding answer 14 July 2005]: The Government has made clear that the National Identity Registration Number would be a general identifier under the terms of Schedule one Part two, paragraph four of the Data Protection Act 1998 which states that:
personal data which contain a general identifier falling within a description prescribed by the Secretary of State by order are not to be treated as processed fairly and lawfully unless they are processed in compliance with any conditions so prescribed in relation to general identifiers of that description".
There is no provision for providing information to other Governments, including the National Identity Registration Number, except in the limited circumstances provided for in clause 20 relating to existing provisions in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and
19 Jul 2005 : Column 1615W
Security Act 2001. Any such provision of information is subject to restrictions, which means that the Secretary of State may veto the provision.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what failure rate levels would be assessed as unacceptable for biometrics to be used in the national identity card in relation to (a) failure to enrol, (b) false negatives in identification and (c) false positives in identification. 
Andy Burnham [holding answer 14 July 2005]: The Home Office is currently in discussion with various organisations who would be potential users of the identity cards scheme for identification and identity verification. These discussions include what performance is acceptable from all forms of identification currently being consideredcard, PIN and biometric identification. However no final conclusions regarding acceptable success or failure rate levels in the categories described, have been reached in these discussions.
The performance of one particular identifier or technology is not the key determinant. During enrolment in the scheme we will make a biometric check against all previously enrolled biometrics. Any matches with one particular biometric which may be 'false' would be resolved by other biometric matches or by inconsistencies with the information held about the applicant and the record against which it had been matched.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the risks to the public including the risks of identity fraud, that might arise from widespread use of a single identifying number for each individual in the proposed national identity number system; and what safeguards he plans to introduce against possible risks. 
[holding answer 14 July 2005]: An extensive risk assessment of the use of a single identifying number has been conducted by experienced fraud and security experts. This has resulted in the
19 Jul 2005 : Column 1616W
selection of a new single identifying number that is unrelated to any number issued by the Government at the present time. However, due to the nature of the information involved in the assessment and in order to protect the integrity of the National Identity Register, no further details can be provided.Under the terms of Schedule one Part two, paragraph four of the Data Protection Act 1998 the use of the National Identity Registration Number by other organisations would have to be specified in regulations.
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parenting orders have been made in each year since the order became available; and how many have been breached, broken down by local authority area. 
Fiona Mactaggart: 284 parenting orders were made during the pilot phase between September 1998 and March 2000. 5,631 orders have been made since they became available throughout England and Wales on 1 June 2000. The Youth Justice Board collects details of parenting orders by youth offending team area and the latest available information is shown in table 1. This includes parenting orders of all kinds including those made in connection with attendance and behaviour at school. The latest available information about the number of parenting orders that have been breached, identified from data collected by courts and showing the issuing court rather than local authority area, is shown in table 2.
|Barking and Dagenham||11||9||11||10||13|
|Bath and NE Somerset||6||1||3||4||3|
|Blackburn with Darwen||0||0||4||0||0|
|Bournemouth and Poole||8||1||1||4||13|
|Bradford and District||1||9||19||16||22|
|Brighton and Hove||0||1||3||2||14|
|Caerphilly and Blaenau Gwent||0||4||10||6||7|
|City of Westminster||11||4||4||4||5|
|Conwy and Denbighshire||5||2||4||1||3|
|East Riding of Yorkshire||3||6||4||5||9|
|Flintshire and Wrexham(47)||3||4|||||||
|Gwynedd and Mon||2||11||0||0||0|
|Halton and Warrington||4||0||0||0||2|
|Hammersmith and Fulham||4||3||7||8||4|
|Kensington and Chelsea||8||0||6||5||6|
|Kingston upon Hull||0||1||1||0||1|
|Mid Wales (Powys and Ceredigion)||1||1||0||2||1|
|Neath Port Talbot||0||0||0||7||0|
|Newcastle upon Tyne||0||0||10||11||1|
|Reading and Wokingham||7||0||3||5||3|
|Rhondda Cynon Taff||0||0||1||0||0|
|Richmond upon Thames||0||9||4||3||7|
|Shropshire and Telford/Wrekin||11||15||3||7||5|
|Stoke on Trent||1||7||4||10||12|
|Torfaen and Monmouthshire||0||6||5||2||1|
|Tower Hamlets and City of London||11||0||14||45||8|
|Vale of Glamorgan||0||18||0||0||0|
|Windsor and Maidenhead||0||3||0||1||0|
|Worcestershire and Herefordshire||12||6||9||13||23|
|Court||Number of breaches|
|South East Hampshire||2|
|Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale||1|
|Luton and South Bedfordshire||2|
|Carlisle and District||1|
|Wrexham Maelor (youth)||1|
|Goole and Howdenshire||1|
|St. Helens Division||1|
|Luton and South Bedfordshire||1|
|South Tyneside District||1|
|South East Hampshire||2|
|Bath and Wansdyke||2|
|Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale||1|
|Blackpool and Fylde||2|
|Chester, Ellesmere Port and Neston||1|
|North East Essex||1|
|Wigan and Leigh||1|
|Blackpool and Fylde||3|
|West London mg court||1|
|North Tyneside (youth)||1|
|Hull and Holderness (youth)||1|
|South East Essex||1|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|