| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Byrne: In all cases the Immigration Rules (paragraph 364) require that the Secretary of State will take into account all relevant factors, including those listed in paragraph 364, known to him before a decision to deport is taken.
Where a spouse, civil partner, or dependent child under the age of 18 of a person who is or has been deported are themselves liable to deportation, the case must, in addition, be considered in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 365-68 of the Immigration Rules.
On 19 July my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary laid a statement of change to the Immigration Rules. This amends paragraph 364 of the rules to set out that where an individual is liable to deportation the presumption will be that the public interest requires deportation. While the Secretary of State will consider all relevant factors in deciding whether this presumption is outweighed in any particular case it will only be in exceptional circumstances that the public interest will be outweighed in a case where it would not be contrary to our international obligations to deport.
Paragraphs 365
to 368 of the rules, which relate to spouses, civil partners and
children of persons against
whom a deportation order has been made, are not being substantively
amended at this time but paragraph 367 is being amended to reflect the
changes to paragraph
364.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also reported to the House on the progress of the eight priority areas for management action to improve the way the Department deals with the deportation of foreign national prisoners. We will keep the Immigration Rules relating to deportation under review in the light of that work.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Immigration Service staff were employed at UK (a) seaports and (b) airports in each of the last five years. [87297]
John Reid: Overall, numbers of Border Control staff have risen.
In 2001 the figure for full-time equivalent immigration control staff was 1,830.2, in 2002 the figure was 2,194, in 2003 the figure was 2,322.7, in 2004 the figure was 2,474.7, in 2005 the figure was 2,501.4 and in 2006 the figure is currently 3,594.6.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. [88653]
Mr. Sutcliffe: Information on prosecutions is taken from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform. The most recent year for which data is available is 2004. Data for 2005 will be available in the autumn of 2006, and data for 2006 will be available in the autumn of 2007.
Some sections of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 came into force in June this year and the other sections are being progressively commenced over time. Information on prosecutions under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is therefore not yet available.
Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the Ministers with responsibility for immigration and asylum have been since May 1997; and what responsibilities each Minister had. [73802]
Mr. McNulty: Information on the Ministers that had responsibility for Immigration and Asylum since May 1997 is provided in the attached table. A publication called the List of Ministerial Responsibilities which provides details of departmental and ministerial responsibilities and contact details for Minister's offices is available on line at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ministerial_responsibilities/index.asp
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the management structure in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [77402]
Mr. Byrne: As part of the fundamental review of the Immigration Nationality Directorate currently underway we are further considering the future management structure of the organisation. Ministers reported their findings on 25 July. The report can be found at www.homeoffice.gov.uk.
Automatic Gait Recognition Technology
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the (a) reliability and (b) effectiveness of automatic gait recognition technology in tackling crime; if he will make resources available to make this technology more widely available to the police; and if he will make a statement. [85960]
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 18 July 2006]: The Home Office continues to explore the application of new authentication and identification technologies through the Biometric Centre of Expertise at the Home Office Scientific Development Branch. The Centre has tracked research in this field and has been in discussion with the National Offender Management Service on potential applications for gait recognition.
Gait recognition is one of a group of biometric technologies which are predominantly behavioural in character, in contrast with the mainly physiologically determined technologies such as facial recognition, fingerprint identification and iris biometrics, where there is more performance data and a longer history of research, development and deployment. Work on development of robust solutions using gait recognition is relatively recent and the Home Office is aware that one of the premier centres of research in the field is in the UK at Southampton University. It is recognised that automatic gait recognition has potential to support systems that protect the public, but this technology needs further development and validation before it can be considered for deployment on a routine basis.
Bail Hostels
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostels there are in England and Wales; where they are located; and what his Department’s criteria are for admission as a resident by (a) offenders and (b) defendants on remand. [88812]
Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 25 July 2006]: There are 104 Approved Premises (formerly known as bail and probation hostels) located throughout England and Wales.
Under section 9 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, Approved Premises may admit defendants on bail in criminal proceedings, offenders serving community sentences and offenders on post-custodial licences. In addition, with the approval of the Secretary of State, some voluntary residents may be accommodated for public protection, supervision or treatment reasons.
Mr.
Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department how many residents there are at the Ryecroft Bail
Hostel, Gloucester; what offences have
been committed by each; how many are on (a) life sentence licence
and (b) other post-custody licences having committed offences of
(i) murder or manslaughter and (ii) rape or other sexual offences
against (A) adults and (B) children; how many are on the sex
offenders’ register; how many are on tags or curfews; how many
supervising staff are employed at the hostel; what their qualifications
are; and what discussions he and his officials have had and on which
dates with (1) their counterparts from the Department for Education and
Skills, (2) hon. Members and (3) members and officials of (x)
Gloucester city council and (y) Gloucestershire county council about
the residents of the hostel.
[88813]
Mr. McNulty: Ryecroft is approved by the Secretary of State to accommodate a maximum of 16 residents. Actual occupancy will vary on a day to day basis. Statistical information about the type of offences committed by offenders residing at an approved premises and the licence conditions to which they are subject at any one time is not collected centrally. Certain offenders are placed in approved premises, where they can be closely monitored by offender managers and by staff in approved premises. Since offenders are managed locally, it is appropriate that local offender managers should have comprehensive information on offenders, including the type of offence they have committed. Information about the numbers of staff at individual approved premises and their qualifications is not collected by the Home Office.
A meeting to discuss proposals to vary the admissions criteria at Ryecroft approved premises was held in August 2005. This was attended by the local MP, a Home Office official and representatives of the Gloucestershire probation area. The latter have had ongoing discussions about the proposals with representatives of the city and county councils.
Biometric Cards
Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many immigrants had been issued with a biometric card under the REPARC system on 30 April; [75777]
(2) by what date he expects all immigrants reporting to centres using the REPARC system to be issued with a biometric card; [75781]
(3) what the average time taken was to process biometric cards given to immigrants using the REPARC system; and if he will make a statement. [75778]
Joan
Ryan: I hope that, as the subject matter of the above
questions are closely linked, it will be helpful if I deal with them in
one reply. The Reporting Application Registration Card (RepARC) Project
was introduced in 2004 to create an automated link between compliance
with reporting restrictions attached to temporary admission and access
to asylum support payments. All asylum applicants are issued with an
Application Registration Card (ARC), which is a biometric card
containing fingerprint data and is also used as the method of
collection for asylum support payments. In the RepARC system, ARC'S are
electronically revalidated at reporting events. Such events
take
3-4 minutes including the process of checking identity and revalidation.
Failure to report on two consecutive occasions leads to expiry of the
card, and presentation of an expired card at a post office leads to
denial of asylum support payments. This supports our policy of having
in place a link between compliance with all aspects of the asylum
process and access to support. If payment is suspended as described
above, the remedy for the applicant is to resume reporting. If this
does not happen, the case is referred to enforcement officers to locate
the applicant; formal discontinuation of support may follow after eight
weeks. Rollout of the RepARC process to all 11 IND reporting centres
commenced in October 2005, in conjunction with the implementation of
section 69 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the
payment of travel expenses for reporting). Key external stakeholders
have been kept fully informed of the rollout timetable, which has so
far delivered the system to the reporting centres in Manchester,
Liverpool, Leeds, Croydon, Glasgow, Solihull and two London centres.
Rollout to the remaining reporting centres (north London, North Shields
and Folkestone) will be complete by 31 July 2006, by which date it is
expected that all NASS-s up ported applicants reporting to these sites
will be reporting with an ARC. Non NASS-supported applicants are not
covered by the RepARC scheme, although all asylum applicants are issued
with ARC's. As of 30 April, 4250 asylum seekers with biometric ARC'S,
the total of all NASS supported asylum seekers who report to
RepARC-enabled centres, were reporting within the RepARC system.. Non
NASS-supported applicants do not fall within the RepARC system but are
still issued with ARC's, which are frequently used at reporting events
to verify identity.
British Crime Survey
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people participated in the 2005-06 British Crime Survey. [88539]
Mr. McNulty: The British Crime Survey comprises a core sample of the general population of adults resident in private households in England and Wales and separate boost samples of young people (aged 16 to 24 years) and adults from black and minority ethnic groups.
Between April 2005 and March 2006, 47,796 adults were interviewed as part of the core sample, 2,259 as part of the youth boost sample and 3,176 as part of the BME boost sample; giving a total of 53,231 adults interviewed.
British Sign Language
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are laid down by his Department to govern the procedures for accessing British Sign Language interpreters and lipspeakers on a 24 hour basis for deaf people requiring assistance at police stations. [86913]
Mr.
McNulty: Code C issued under the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 states (at paragraph 13.1) that chief officers of
police are responsible for ensuring appropriate arrangements are in
place for people who
are deaf. The Code provides that, sign language interpreters should be
drawn from the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf
People Directory of British Sign Language/English Interpreters. The
Code also makes it clear that if a person appears to be deaf or there
is doubt about their hearing or speaking ability, they must not be
interviewed in the absence of an interpreter unless they agree in
writing to being interviewed without one. There exists more detailed
national guidance regarding interpreters in the criminal justice system
and that is currently under review by the Office for Criminal Justice
Reform, with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other
interested parties.
Burglars (Custodial Sentences)
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of burglars convicted for a third offence received a custodial sentence in the most recent year for which information is available; and what the average length of sentence was for those sentenced to custody. [89150]
John Reid: This is a complex piece of analysis last undertaken in 2005 for Parliamentary Question 216331 the results of which are repeated as follows. Since then, the main data source for criminal information has changed from the Offenders Index to the Police National Computer. No similar sample or programs are currently available for us to conduct more up to date analysis. The table gives the numbers sentenced for their third burglary offence. The numbers are for a four week period in 2001, derived from the Offenders Index. The figures include attempted burglaries, as it is not possible to distinguish between an actual and attempted burglary on the Offenders Index.
| Burglars convicted for their third offence (by type of burglary) | ||
| ( 1) Burglary in a dwelling | ( 2) Burglary not in a dwelling | |
| (1)
Includes only previous convictions for burglary in a dwelling. Please
note that definition and coverage is different from s111 of the Powers
of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act
2000. (2) Includes only previous convictions for burglary not in a dwelling | ||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |