|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made an assessment of which policy areas will be considered in his report on progress towards disability equality within the Departments policy sector which is due to be published in December 2008. 
Protecting the Public
Crime Reduction and Policing
Victims of Crime
The Criminal Justice System
Passports and Immigration
Mr. Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information gathering and other actions his Department and other relevant bodies are taking to inform the public on the production of the report on progress towards disability equality within his Departments policy sector. 
All relevant areas of Home Office policy will be considered in the report on progress. We will also seek an assessment of progress from Home Office
Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. We are considering what specific information needs to be collected to be able to publish our report on 1 December 2008.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, of 18 April 2006, Official Report, columns 293-94W, on the DNA database, how many in each category were not convicted of an offence. 
John Reid: It is not currently possible to determine how many of the 124,347 CJ arrestees (persons with a DNA profile on the National DNA Database who have been arrested and subsequently not charged or cautioned with an offence) have never been convicted of an offence. However, some partial, new information is available on the number of these persons who have previously been charged, reported for summons or sanctioned(1) for another offence. This information was obtained by the ACPO Criminal Records Office Team who have been monitoring the DNA sampling of persons arrested for a recordable offence. The information available is shown in the following table.
The figures show that 23,519 of the 124,347 persons with a DNA profile on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) who had been arrested but not charged or cautioned with an offence" had a PNC record created prior to the arrest event when their DNA sample was taken. This indicates that these persons had previously been charged, reported for summons or sanctioned for at least one other offence.
The figures might suggest that the remaining 100,828 persons have never been charged, reported for summons or sanctioned for any offence. However, information is not currently available on the proportion of the 124,347 persons who may have been charged, reported for summons or sanctioned for an offence after the arrest event when their DNA sample was taken.
(1)Sanctions include convictions and cautions (including reprimands and final warnings.
|Breakdown of CJ arrestees on the National DNA Database showing persons where a PNC record had been created prior to the arrest and NFA( 1) event|
|Total number of records broken down by ethnicity||Number of records where a PNC record had been created prior to the arrest and NFA event( 2)||Number of records where a PNC record had not been created prior to the arrest and NFA event( 3)|
|(1)NFAno further action was taken, ie the person was arrested and subsequently not charged or cautioned with an offence. (2) Data indicate that the PNC record had been created up to 31 December 2003. Records where the individual was arrested after the arrest and NFA event are not included. (3) Data indicate that the record was created after 31 December 2003. In these cases, the arrest and NFA event is likely to be the first time an individual has come to police notice. Note: Of the 124,347 total records, it has not been possible to obtain the ethnic appearance information of 5,604.|
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the total cost of the business cases which have been rejected for the establishment of an accountability structure on the IMPACT police IT programme; and why the business cases were rejected; 
Mr. McNulty: Accountability for the IMPACT programme is vested in the senior responsible owner, a Home Office director who is also chief executive (designate) of the National Policing Improvement Agency. The SRO is accountable to the Secretary of State through the responsible director general and the permanent secretary. He is advised by a steering group on which the main stakeholder interests are represented at a senior level. The programme is governed by a Programme Board chaired by a representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The IMPACT programme has produced a number of business cases covering the development of the IMPACT nominal index, which has subsequently been delivered to forces and is proving to be a valuable tool in child protection work; the Cross-Regional Information Sharing Project (CRISP), which is currently in the early stages of a competitive procurement exercise; and the Police National Database (PND), which is due to be delivered in 2010. The Home Office has yet to give approval to the programme to contract for the CRISP service and to initiate procurement of the PND pending further work which is due to be concluded in March 2007.
The cost of producing the business cases cannot be disaggregated from other programme costs without disproportionate cost. The total cost of the IMPACT programme is £31 million in 2005-06, and £45 million (budget) in the current financial year.
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with Kent police regarding its decision to close the sexual assault referral centre based at Darent Valley hospital. 
Mr. Coaker: Home Office officials attended a meeting with the police, representatives from the hospital and forensic medical examiners from Kent in May this year, to discuss the future of the Darent Valley Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC). They advised those present that the SARC model provides the highest level of support for victims of sexual violence. It was on this basis that a start-up grant of £30,000 was provided by the Home Office to Kent police in 2003-04. The ongoing running costs of a SARC are the responsibility of local police forces and primary care trusts, and national service guidelines have been produced for these organisations on developing and sustaining SARCs.
Mr. McNulty: It is not possible to disaggregate offences using knives, other than the offence of possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place, and homicide using a sharp instrument, from offences of violence against the person, eg grievous bodily harm. It is also not possible to identify the nationality of defendants prosecuted for offences involving knives on the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, as the individual circumstances of defendants are not collected centrally.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals have paid the fee to obtain permission to marry from the Home Secretary in each month since February 2005. 
|Number of applications received|
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the number of registration districts able to grant permission to foreign nationals to marry; and whether there are plans to increase the number. 
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average waiting time is for couples seeking permission to marry from the Home Secretary due to one or both partners being a non-European economic area national. 
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department
has made of the impact of the use of pay as you go mobile phones on the level of UK crime. 
Mr. Coaker: In December 2001, the Home Office published a comprehensive assessment (Harrington and Mayhew) of the impact of the mobile phone on crime. This study helped to provide the basis for close working with the police and the mobile phone industry, to reduce mobile phone crime generally.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|