|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend UK law to enable the prosecution of individuals suspected of carrying out human rights abuses abroad; and what representations he has received on this issue. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Human Rights abuses committed abroad can be prosecuted in the UK under a variety of legislation. Breaches of the Geneva Conventions can
be prosecuted under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes can be prosecuted under the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Offences of torture can be prosecuted under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Criminals can also be extradited to stand trial abroad. We have received no recent representations on the issue.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been processed at and removed via the UK Immigration Service Centre at St. Ives in Cambridgeshire in each year since 2001; and if he will make a statement. 
|Number of individuals removed|
Some information is available from a survey of prisoners undertaken in 2003. In this survey prisoners nearing discharge were asked about factors associated with resettlement, including family ties. The surveys were representative of prisoners nearing release in England and Wales.
In the survey 18 per cent. of female prisoners said that they were single and living with dependent children (including step-children) aged 17 or under. The equivalent figure for male prisoners was 3.5 per cent.
Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Answer of10th May 2006 to Question 69808, on international arrest warrants, if he will set out the guidelines on publishing representations received from foreign governments which have been applied in this case; and to which other bodies such guidelines apply. 
Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 16 May 2006]: Disclosure would normally be subject to consideration of whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed that of respecting the confidence of the foreign
government, taking account of the prejudice which disclosure may cause to our relations with that government. This would apply equally to international organisations or international courts.
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to ensure appropriate use of internet facilities within the prison estate; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Prisoners do not have routine unfettered access to the internet. The only exceptionis in the area of education where prisoners gain National Vocational Qualifications to support their rehabilitation on release. Prisoner access to the internet is subject to detailed risk assessment by prison staff and is limited to pre-approved sites and prison staff closely monitor their use of these facilities. If abuse of internet access is identified prisoner access will be withdrawn.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed by juvenile offenders in (a) Peterborough constituency and (b) the Cambridgeshire area in each quarter in 2005; how many cautions were issued in relation to such cases; and how many children in the Peterborough city council area (i) were convicted,(ii) were in local authority care, (iii) received a reprimand, (iv) received a final warning and (v) were found guilty in each quarter. 
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement onthe operation of section (a) 1, (b) 2 and (c) 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; what recent representations he has received about the operation of this Act; what amendments have been made to the Act; and whether he has plans to amend this Act. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The Government are satisfied that these provisions operate effectively to protect people from harassment and fear of violence. Since its introduction, the Protection from Harassment Act has been amended and strengthened:
(with effect from 1 August 2001) by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to make clear that the legal sanctions that apply to a campaign of harassment by an individual against another also apply to a campaign of collective harassment by two or more people;
(with effect from a date to be appointed) by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to extend the use of restraining orders; and
(with effect from 1 July 2005) by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to protect people from harassment by animal rights (or other) extremists.
The more recent amendments were made in response to representations from victims of domestic violence and those working for or connected in some way to companies involved in the use of animals for scientific research. In addition to these specific representations, we receive regular requests for information about the Act from members of the public who are on the receiving end of behaviour that may constitute harassment or who have been accused of harassment. There are no current plans to amend the Act further.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of section 36 of the Data Protection Act 1998; what recent representations he has received about the operation of this Act; what amendments have been made to the Act; and whether he has plans to amend this Act. 
The responsibility for monitoring the working of the Data Protection Act 1998 lies with the Information Commissioner, who has a statutory duty to promote good practice and to give advice to any person (including the Government) as to the operation of the Act. Section 36 of the Data Protection Act (DPA) exempts personal data from many of the Acts requirements where personal data is processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individuals personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes). However the Information Commissioner retains his powers of investigation and enforcement where someone appears to have exceeded the scope of the exemption.
We have no immediate plans for amending the legislation, but my Department, together with the Home Office, is currently considering whether custodial sentences would be an appropriate sanction for unauthorised disclosure of personal information.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many migrant worker work permits were applied for by farmers in Bassetlaw in each of the last six years; and how many were granted. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 11 May 2006]: Approvals for individuals to work in the UK agricultural sector are granted under the Work Permit Scheme, the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS) and the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS). Please see following tables for the approval information on for each of the schemes.
|Work Permit Scheme|
|Worker Registration Scheme( 1)|
|(1) The Worker Registration Scheme has operated only from 1 May 2004.|
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme applicants are recruited by Home Office contracted operators and information is collated only for those workers registered on the scheme. Some of those who apply may not be successful and therefore will not be registered on the scheme. Previous to 2004, records were not collected as to which area of the country the workers were deployed to and therefore information is available only for the Bassetlaw area as from that date.
Total 2004: 24
Total 2005: 35
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was of overnight accommodation for Ministers of State in his Department on foreign visits in each of the last three years. 
Mr. Byrne: The information requested could not be provided within disproportionate cost. Under the terms of the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, when travelling on official business Ministers are expected to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements.
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Ministers of State in his Department stayed overnight in (a) five star, (b) four star and (c) three star hotels on foreign visits in each of the last three years. 
Mr. Byrne: The information could not be provided without disproportionate cost. Under the terms of the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, when travelling on official business Ministers are expected to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information will be held on the National Offender Management Information System; and what steps will be taken to ensure confidentiality of that data. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: C-NOMIS will contain data on offender demographics (including nationality, ethnicity, education, employment, disability, addresses, and other relevant personal data), their court proceedings, offences, sentences, licences, risks, interventions on which they are placed, their attendances, performance and progress on their sentences including enforcement and breach of community sentences and licences. Data will also be held on prisoner movements, incidents, adjudications, cell locations, activities and finances (including prisoner earnings). C-NOMIS will also contain data on visitors to prisoners to enable the management of visits and visiting orders.
C-NOMIS is classified as a restricted system under the Government Protective Marking Scheme, and the data held within it will not exceed this classification. Access is on a need to know basis, while also facilitating the effective sharing of information in support of end-to-end offender management.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the total Prison Service budget was allocated to the administrationof the National Offender Management Service in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. 
In 2005-06 the proportion of the NOMS resource budget allocated to the Prison Service is 44 per cent. This excludes certain former Prison Service HQ functions, notably Estates, Property, IT, and Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, which have transferred to NOMS HQ from the beginning of 2005-06.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Information on the ratio of all staff within the public sector Prison Service against public sector prisoners since 2004 is contained in the table. The information relates to average headcount over the year against average number of prisoners. The ratio includes all staff employed by the public sector Prison Service, including Headquarters and other non-operational staff.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) full-time, (b) full-time equivalent and (c) part-time staff are employed by the National Offender Management Service; and how many are employed at salaries in band (a) £10,000 to £20,000, (b) £20,001 to £30,000, (c) £30,001 to £40,000, (d) £40,001 to £50,000, (e) £50,001 to £60,000, (f) £60,001 to £70,000, (g) £70,001 to £80,000 and (h) £90,000 and above. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The National Offender Management Service consists of NOMS HQ, HM Prison Service and the National Probation Service. Each of these three organisations compiles their own data and statistics. In order to answer this question, the response is broken down into three component parts representing the three organisations in the following table.
|NOMS HQ held on, or in process of migration to, ADELPHI|
|Salary band||Full-time||Part-time||Total||Full-time equivalent|
|(1) Where possible payroll values have been used, and where this has proved impossible target rates for the grades at 1 July 2005 have been assigned. However in some case it has not been possible to provide salary banded information without excessive cost. Payroll salary is the basic salary excluding allowances.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|