---

8 Feb 2006 : Column 1266W—continued

British Citizenship Test

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which (a) Ministers and (b) section of his Department are responsible for making the arrangements for the provision of British citizenship tests. [49678]

Mr. McNulty: As Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality this falls within my remit. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Social Policy Unit oversees arrangements for citizenship testing in conjunction with the Nationality Group.

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average waiting time was for a British citizenship test in the most recent period for which figures are available. [49679]

Mr. McNulty: The average waiting time for a citizenship test is currently less than two weeks. Under the terms of their service level agreement with Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Ufi are required to offer 80 percent. of candidates an appointment to take the life in the UK test within four weeks of their initial request and 98 percent. within eight weeks.

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which the capacity for British citizenship tests is sufficient to meet the demand. [49680]

Mr. McNulty: An initial assessment of the necessary testing capacity, based on the published statistics for persons seeking British citizenship, was made prior to the introduction of tests on 1 November 2005. An appropriate number and geographical spread of test centres was identified and their ability to meet demand is constantly monitored. So far, there have been no reports of test centres failing to meet their target of offering 80 percent. of candidates an initial test date within four weeks and 98 percent. within eight weeks of their request.

Charles Munyaneza

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons Charles Munyaneza was granted refugee status and unlimited leave to remain in the UK; [48208]

(2) if he will reconsider the granting of unlimited leave for Charles Munyaneza to remain in the UK. [48207]

Mr. McNulty: It is not our policy to comment on individual cases and I cannot therefore provide information on the specific details of this case.

Child Protection

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many (a) children and (b) adults have been charged with the offence of making and possessing indecent images of a child under the age of 18 years under section 1(1) (1A) of the Protection of Children Act 1999 in each year since 2000; [48189]

(2) how many adults have been charged with the offence of making and possessing indecent images of a child under the age of 18 years under section 1(1) (1A)
 
8 Feb 2006 : Column 1267W
 
of the Protection of Children Act 1999, in households where children have been charged for the same offence, in each year since 2000. [48190]

Paul Goggins: Data on the number of adults and juveniles proceeded against at magistrates courts for offences related to the making and possession of indecent images of a child under the age of 18 years in England and Wales for the years 2000 to 2004, are provided in the following table. It is not possible to identify whether defendants live in households where children have been charged with the same offence as the circumstances of the defendants are not centrally collected.

Data for 2005 will be available in the autumn of 2006.
Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for offences related to the possessing or making indecent images of children, by age group, England and Wales, 2000–04

Offence: Take, permit to be taken or to make distribute or publish indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children
Statute: Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1 as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.84
	Age group
	Aged 10–17	Aged 18 and over
2000	3	281
2001	4	394
2002	11	571
2003	18	1,446
2004	19	1,078

Offence: Possession of an indecent photograph of a child

Statute: Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 160 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Services Act 2000, section 41(3). (previously 181/06)
	Age group
	Aged 10–17	Aged 18 and over
2000	1	128
2001	2	124
2002	1	155
2003	9	317
2004	3	197

Note:
These data are provided on the principal offence basis.
Source:
RDS—Office for Criminal Justice Reform

Correspondence

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 5 September 2005, from the hon. Member for Aylesbury to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality about the case of Mr. S. S. of Aylesbury (reference S1081532; MI4464/5). [49197]

Mr. McNulty: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 7 February.

Criminal Records Bureau

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors determine the amount of time taken by the Criminal Records Bureau to process (a) an enhanced and (b) a standard check. [48693]

Andy Burnham: The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) aims to complete all disclosure applications within the shortest time possible, but recognise that there may be
 
8 Feb 2006 : Column 1268W
 
some applications which take longer than others to complete. Factors that may influence the time taken to process applications include, but are not restricted to, incomplete or inaccurate application forms that require further information from the applicant or counter-signatory; the existence of criminal record information or other relevant non-conviction information and, for enhanced disclosures, the performance of disclosure units within police forces.

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how long on average it took to complete an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check in the last period for which figures are available; [48694]

(2) what proportion of standard Criminal Record Bureau checks were processed within two weeks in 2005; [48695]

(3) what proportion of enhanced Criminal Record Bureau checks were processed within four weeks in 2005. [48696]

Andy Burnham: Data concerning the average time taken to complete a disclosure are not a performance target and are not routinely collated by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). However, the bureau has calculated that during 2005 it took on average 31.5 days to complete all enhanced disclosures; although this figure does include time out with the customer, where applications were returned for correction or clarification. In such circumstances the CRB cannot control when an application will be returned in a fit condition to be completed.

The CRB operates to a set of published service standards (PSS), which are to process 93 per cent. of standard disclosure applications within two weeks and 90 per cent. of enhanced disclosure applications within four weeks. The proportion of standard checks completed within PSS was 99.4 per cent. and the proportion of enhanced checks completed within PSS was 85.5 per cent.

For enhanced disclosures, CRB are expected to complete their part of the checking process in 90 per cent. of cases in 12 days before referring these applications to local police forces for them to complete their part of the checking process against local intelligence databases. The CRB has consistently exceeded its targets in processing disclosures up to the point at which they are referred to police forces. In December 2005, the latest period for which information is available, CRB processed 95.8 per cent. of valid enhanced applications to the police within six days of receipt. This has provided forces with considerably more time to complete their checks within the PSS.

In 2005, the bureau received 293,615 standard disclosures and 2,443,207 enhanced disclosures.

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of (a) standard and (b) enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks were failed during 2005. [48698]

Andy Burnham: The information requested by my hon. Friend is not available from the Criminal Records Bureau. It is solely a matter for a recruiting organisation to determine whether information revealed on a standard or enhanced disclosure indicates that an individual is unsuitable for a position.
 
8 Feb 2006 : Column 1269W
 

However, a CRB-commissioned MORI customer research programme showed that in 2004, over 20,000 unsuitable people were prevented from gaining access to children or vulnerable adults, as a direct result of CRB checks. Many more unsuitable people were deterred from applying to work with children and the vulnerable as a direct result of a requirement for a CRB check.

---