| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 Oct 2006 : Column 2606W—continued
The enforcement and removals directorate (ERD) is the business area within the IND which receives the most letters. In early December the ERD introduced
new ways of working which should result in significant improvements in its performance on handling Members’ correspondence. This approach, which was already in place across the rest of the IND, draws a distinction between Members’ letters which engage substantively with a case and those which are simply inquiring about case progress.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Torbay of 31 October 2005 regarding Dr. Winnie French. [64724]
Mr. McNulty: I wrote to the hon. Member for Torbay on 24 April 2006.
Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his target time is for responding to hon. Members’ letters; how long it took to respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central concerning Ruth Kelly (Home Office Reference Number W1000680) of (a) 21 July 2005 and (b) 16 September 2005; and if he will make a statement. [64803]
John Reid: The target for responding to hon. Members’ letters is to send a reply within 20 working days. I responded to my hon. Friend’s letters concerning Ruth Kelly of (a) 21 July 2005 on 12 September 2005 and (b) 16 September 2005 on 14 March 2006.
Volumes of Members’ letters on Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) matters have grown considerably in recent years. In 2003 there were 24,700 letters and in 2004 there were 35,800—a year on year increase of 45 per cent. In 2005 IND received 41,200 letters, an increase of a further 15 per cent.
The Enforcement and Removals Directorate (ERD) is the business area within the IND which receives the most letters. In December 2005 the ERD introduced new ways of working which should result in significant improvements in its performance on handling Members’ correspondence. This approach, which was already in place across the rest of the IND, draws a distinction between Members’ letters which engage substantively with a case and those which are simply inquiring about progress.
Court Production Orders
Mr. Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his policy is on police refusing to obtain a court production order on the grounds (a) of cost and (b) that the victim has suffered small financial loss; [66636]
(2) whether there are Government guidelines on thresholds for the level of financial loss that a victim of crime needs to suffer before the police may pursue a court production order as part of their investigations. [66900]
Ms Blears: It is an operational matter for the police to decide in each case whether to apply to a court for a production order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or earlier legislation.
The Home Office published a code of practice in 2003 which includes guidance to the police and other agencies on obtaining production orders. Under the legislation and the code, the police need to ensure that an application for an order is fully and clearly justified. There also must be reasonable grounds for believing that the material or information requested is likely to be of substantial value to a confiscation investigation or money laundering investigation. The level of financial loss to a victim is likely to be one of a number of factors that the police take into account when considering whether to apply for an order.
The courts have powers to make compensation orders against convicted persons in respect of financial loss to victims.
Crime Statistics
Mr. Wills: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents there have been of violent crime committed by people under 21 years in the Swindon area in each year since 1997. [50614]
Ms Blears: The information requested is not collected centrally. It is not possible to identify the age of victim or suspect from the recorded crime statistics.
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have been convicted of (a) (i) racist and (ii) homophobic crimes and (b) religiously aggravated crimes in each year since 1997 in (A) each region in England and (B) the Tees Valley; [67192]
(2) how many people have been convicted of crimes against (a) Jews, (b) Muslims, (c) Hindus, (d) Sikhs and (e) Christians in (i) each region in England and (ii) the Tees Valley in each year since 1997. [67193]
Mr. Sutcliffe: Data from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on the number of persons convicted at all courts for offences relating to race, or religion, by region in England, are contained in the following table. It is not possible to separately identify the Tees Valley, as the data are not collected at this level of detail, therefore data for Cleveland police force area have been provided in lieu of Tees Valley. It is not possible to separately identify the specific religion, race, or gender orientation of the victim from the data as information about the victim is not collected.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Sections 4A, 29, 31, 32, and 47, came into effect in late 1998. There were no convictions pre 1999. Offences involving religious aggravation were separately identified in the data collected from the start of 2002.
Statistics for 2005 court proceedings will be available in the autumn of 2006.
Number of people found guilty at all courts, for offences relating to racism, and religious intolerance, in the north east region of England, 1999 to 2004(1)
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |