|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to end the practice of locking solicitors in interview rooms at police stations when they visit violent suspects. 
The Home Office Police Buildings Design Guide recommends that interview and consultation rooms are fitted with suitable warning and alert mechanisms. Guidance issued by the National Centre for Policing Excellence on 8 February 2006 sets out the need to consider any additional risks associated from or to visitors, such as solicitors and healthcare professionals, coming into the custody suite. The guidance states that effective risk management procedures must be in place and compliant with Health and Safety legislation.
I have asked my officials to meet with interested parties to consider the potential to establish a protocol between the Law Society and the Criminal Law Solicitors Association and the police on arrangements for solicitors attending police stations.
Ms Diana R. Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding his Department has allocated to the special constables scheme in (a) the Kingston upon Hull division, (b) Humberside and (c) England and Wales in each year it has been running. 
Mr. Byrne: (a) Grants are paid to police authorities. Kingston upon Hull division is part of Humberside police and (b) Home Office specific grants to forces under the Special Constabulary Capacity Building Scheme began in January 2004.
Ms Diana R. Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average number of hours per week was worked by a special constable in (a) the Kingston upon Hull division, (b) Humberside and (c) England and Wales in each year since the beginning of the scheme. 
Mr. Byrne: Humberside police force are unable to provide data on hours worked by special constables. Available information on the average number of special constable hours per week across England and Wales are as follows:
|Average number of special constable hours per week across England and Wales (525 forces providing data( 1) )|
|(1) Forces not providing data are Avon and Somerset, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Derbyshire, Durham, Greater Manchester, Humberside, Merseyside, Metropolitan Police, North Wales, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley and West Midlands.|
Ms Diana R. Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables have been recruited in (a) the Kingston-upon-Hull division, (b) Humberside and (c) England and Wales since the beginning of the scheme. 
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total revenue raised from speed camera fines in England in the most recent year for which figures are available. 
|Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for speeding offences detected by cameras( 1 ) England, 2004|
|Number of offences|
|Fixed Penalties||Court Proceedings( 2)|
|Number of tickets( 3)||Estimated revenue(£)( 4)||Number of fines||Total amount of fine(£)||Average fine (£)|
|(1 )Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973 (2 )Includes cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court. (3 )Only covers tickets paid where there is no further action. (4 )Estimate based on £60 fixed penalty charge.|
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 12 September 2005, Official Report, column 2615W, on stop and search procedures, if he will ensure that a copy of the Stop and Search Manual published on 31 March 2005 be placed in the Library. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 12 May 2006]: I have arranged for copies of the Stop and Search Manual to be placed in the Commons Library. Copies are already available in the Lords Library. The guidance can also be accessed online at: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/stopandsearch-intermanual1.pdf
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what inquiries his Department has carried out into the leak in the press about the security services foiling a terrorist attack on Canary Wharf in November 2004; 
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the role of intelligence obtained by torture abroad in legal proceedings in England and Wales; 
Mr. Byrne: Evidence obtained as a result of any acts of torture by British officials, or with which British authorities were complicit, would not be admissible in criminal or civil proceedings in the UK. It does not matter whether the evidence was obtained here or abroad.
During the individual appeals against certification under powers provided under part four of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA), the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) emphatically rejected any suggestion that evidence relied upon by the Government was, or even may have
been, obtained by torture. The Court of Appeal later confirmed the view of SIAC.
On 8 December 2005 the House of Lords ruled unanimously that evidence obtained by torture was inadmissible in SIAC proceedings. The decision will not impact on the Governments ability to fight terrorism, or change current practices, as the Governments own stated policy was already not to rely on evidence which we knew or believed to have been obtained as a result of torture. It is not always possible to know where all intelligence information has come from or the precise circumstances under which it was obtained. The Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service receive material from a wide range of foreign intelligence services. The agencies evaluate the reliability of this intelligence against other information available to them. It is then passed, together with an assessment of reliability, to the Government. It may be necessary in some circumstances to rely operationally on material which may have been obtained through the use of torture where it is considered necessary to do so, in particular for preventing terrorist attack and protecting life. The House of Lords judgment confirmed that material which had or may have been obtained through torture could be used for operational purposes.
We do not condone torture in any way, nor would we carry out this completely unacceptable behaviour. However, we do have an obligation to protect national security and public safety. We would be deficient in this duty if we did not properly assess all the information available to us.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases will be affected by the Law Lords ruling that evidence extracted under torture is inadmissible in judicial proceedings. 
Mr. Byrne: We have no reason to believe that any convictions will be affected by this ruling. In criminal proceedings in England and Wales, the courts have a range of powers to prevent the admission of evidence
that may have been obtained improperly or illegally, including through means of torture. Courts have the discretion to exclude evidence if it is unduly prejudicial or unfair, and a judicial discretion to stay proceedings if they are considered to be an abuse of the court's process. Defendants also enjoy the protections afforded by Article 6 of the ECHR, the right to a fair trial. Article 3 of the ECHR also prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. In addition, a confession is not admissible unless it meets the requirements set out in sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). That is, the evidence will not be admissible if it is unreliable or has been obtained by oppression. Section 76(8) of PACE states that oppression includes torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and the use or threat of violence.
Mr. Byrne: The Home Offices policy in this area is directed towards reducing the sales of alcohol to under-18s. We are working very closely with both the on and off sectors of the licensed industry, and have secured commitments from both to seek to eliminate under-age sales.
The table shows the rate of test-purchase failures (i.e. where alcohol was sold to a minor) from the various Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaigns (AMECs) which have taken place, up to AMEC 3 which ran during November and December last year. This shows encouraging reductions in test-purchase failures for all sectors of the industry.
Data from the Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2005 survey shows that the number of children aged 11-15 who reported having drunk alcohol in the last week was 22 per cent. in 2005, down from 25 per cent. in 2003.
|AMEC1||AMEC2||TVCP AMEC||AMEC 3|
|(Summer 200492 BCUs( 1) involved)||(Winter 2004188 BCUs( 1) )||(Summer 200525 BCUs( 1) )||(November-December 2005234 BCUs( 1) )|
|(1) BCU: police Basic Command Unit|
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many defendants sentenced in the Crown Court of England and Wales were recommended to the Home Secretary for deportation on completion of their sentence in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available. 
|Number of defendants for which a recommendation for deportation was made in the Crown Court between April 2005 and March 2006|
|Number of Defendants|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|