|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects a conclusion from the discussions between the Criminal Records Bureau and the Association of Chief Police Officers on seeking access to (a) European Union and (b) other foreign criminal conviction data; and if he will make a statement. 
Joan Ryan [holding answer 23 October 2006]: I refer the hon. Member to my written answer of 9 October 2007, Official Report, column 487W. Discussions between the Criminal Records Bureau and the Association of Chief Police Officers are at a preliminary stage and I am presently unable to give a clear indication on when talks may conclude.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is given to police forces in England and Wales on combating crime using global positioning systems on stolen goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. McNulty: The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has produced a policy on Police Response to Security Systems, which includes vehicle tracking devices which may be fitted to any vehicles, including goods vehicles.
Companies operating tracking systems compliant with this ACPO policy have direct lines into police control rooms and are issued with a unique reference number. Such compliant systems give reliable real time information on the movement and location of stolen vehicles and this gives the police confidence to allocate a priority response subject to other operational demands at the time.
When a stolen vehicle does not have a tracking device or has one that does not comply with the requirements of the ACPO policy, the owner will have to report the crime to the police and the level of police response will depend not only on other operational priorities at the time but also on the quality of information received.
Mr. Coaker: On 3 October 2006 we opened the UK Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield. This dedicated centre will bring together intelligence gathering, training, research and law enforcement under one roof.
The centre will be staffed by police as well as officers from the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the Crown Prosecution Service. It will co-ordinate the work of police forces around the country trying to prevent sex and other forms of forced labourers, including children, from working in the UK.
We are also currently developing proposals for a UK Action Plan on Human Trafficking. The Action Plan will concentrate in three key areas: prevention; investigation, law enforcement and prosecutions; and protection and assistance to victims. We aim to publish the Action Plan early next year.
The police recently led other agencies in Operation Pentameter. It aimed to tackle trafficking for sexual exploitation by raising awareness of the issue followed by a series of enforcement campaigns across the country. The operation managed to rescue 84 women many of them in London.
Operation MAXIM is the Metropolitan Police Service led initiative working in partnership with the United Kingdom Immigration Service (UKIS) and UK Passport Service (UKPS) to target organised immigration crime in London with the shared objective to significantly disrupt, prevent and reduce serious criminality connected to illegal immigration.
Mr. Coaker: The majority of our knowledge regarding the extent of human trafficking in the UK relates to trafficking for sexual exploitation. It remains difficult to make an accurate assessment of the extent of the problem although intelligence suggests there has been an increase in the trafficking problem over the last two or three years. The emerging findings from a Home Office research paper due to be published later this year suggests that at any one time in 2003 there were in the region of 4,000 victims of trafficking for prostitution in the UK. An analysis of the information obtained from Operation Pentameter will assist in further developing our understanding of the scale of the problem in this area.
We do not have sufficient evidence regarding trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation (e.g. forced labour or child trafficking) to enable us to make a full assessment of whether these pose a significant problem for the UK. We are actively looking at ways in which our knowledge of these areas can be improved and the Home Office is currently working in partnership with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) on a specific intelligence gathering project to improve our knowledge of the scope of child trafficking into and within the UK. CEOP is expected to report its findings later in the year.
Mr. Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a revised estimate of the fiscal impact of immigration to include the cost of all children of immigrant parentage. 
Mr. Byrne: The Department's study of the net fiscal contribution of migrants in the UK in 1999-2000 was published in 2002. This was entitled: The Migrant Population in the UK: Fiscal Effects (Gott and Johnston), RDS Occasional Paper 77. This is available online at:
This study was updated in 2005 by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) which published a paper updating the Home Office estimates and found that migrants made a fiscal contribution in each year of the study. This was entitled Paying their Way: the fiscal contribution of immigrants in the UK (Sriskandarajah) and is available at:
Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice and guidance his Department has sent to youth offending teams on the use of individual support orders since 28 June 2006. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The Youth Justice Board has continued to work closely with the Home Office to boost the take up of individual support orders since June. The YJB placed an article on ISO funding in their practitioners publication YJB News on 22 August 2006. They also wrote to all YOT Prevention Managers on 5 September reminding them of the importance of ISOs in tackling antisocial behaviour. In addition to this, the YJB Regional Prevention Fora which have been taking place over the last four weeks have conveyed the information contained in the memo to the attendees who are YOT Prevention Managers.
The new Home Office guidance on antisocial behaviour orders, prepared in collaboration with the YJB and others, was issued in August 2006 and copies sent to all YOT Managers. It contains detailed advice on ISOs and an account of how they have been used successfully to help young people address the underlying causes of their antisocial behaviour.
Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual support orders have been issued in conjunction with an antisocial behaviour order in each local authority area since September 2005. 
Mr. McNulty: The statistics for the number of individual support orders issued since September 2005 are to be released shortly together with the statistics for the number of antisocial behaviour orders issued.
Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps are taken to examine why serious miscarriage of justice cases which occurred were not rectified earlier in cases where his Department and the police had the opportunity to do so; 
(2) what steps are taken to learn any necessary lessons from miscarriage of justice cases, with particular reference to cases in which the miscarriage of justice has arisen from impropriety and criminal conduct of the police; 
(3) what steps are taken to ensure that communications relating to miscarriage of justice cases that involve the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Attorney-Generals office are passed onto them for their observations and proposals. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: We recognise that on occasions miscarriages of justice do occur and that is, of course, a matter for regret. Miscarriages of justice arise for reasons other than errors, omissions or misconduct. For example, developments in science such as DNA, may provide evidence which was not available at the trial, or a new witness may come forward.
Where a miscarriage of justice arises as a result of misconduct by the police, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) can investigate and make recommendations. The IPCC sets standards for the way the police handle complaints and, when something has gone wrong, they help them learn lessons and improve the way they work. Where criminal activity is involved, police officers are subject to the law in the same way as everyone else.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and the accompanying codes of practice are vital parts of the framework of legislation, setting out the statutory approach and procedures required in the exercise of enforcement powers and the investigation of crime, while providing safeguards and protections for the individual. The recommendations of the Runciman Royal Commission Report in 1993 relating to police investigations and safeguards for suspects were incorporated into the PACE framework with a major revision of the PACE codes in 1995. The codes remain subject to review and update in the light of experience, improved knowledge and evidence-based approaches to effective good practice.
In the event that there was a miscarriage case where the conviction was quashed because of something a prosecuting authority had or had not done, then the Attorney-General and the relevant head of the prosecuting authority ensure there is an investigation and that any lessons are learnt.
Judges are accountable for their judicial decisions via the appeal system. Where the Court of Appeal
criticises the conduct of the trial judge, it is always a matter of public record. In any event, the judgment is always sent to the judge concerned so he is fully aware of it. Where the criticism is of a serious nature, the papers, including the judgment, are sent by the judge presiding in the Court of Appeal to a Lord Justice of Appeal, designated by the Lord Chief Justice, for a full investigation. Thereafter, if the case is one for disciplinary proceedings these would be undertaken in accordance with the regulatory framework introduced by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Where the problem is less serious, the judge may be given advice and guidance by the senior presiding judge or presiding judges of his or her circuit.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 introduced a regulatory framework for handling complaints about the personal conduct of judicial office holders. A new body, the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC), was established in April 2006 to support the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in their responsibilities for judicial conduct and discipline. The new process followed by the OJC is outlined in full on their website http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/. The OJC do not look into judicial decisionsthe appeals system performs that role. If a complaint is upheld, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor may decide to take disciplinary action; for example, a reprimand or a requirement to undertake additional training. The ultimate sanction would be removal from judicial office.
|Table A: Disqualifications( 1) from driving imposed at all courts, by Government Office Regions, England and Wales, 1995 to 2004|
|Government Office Regions||1995||1996||1997||1998||1999||2000||2001||2002||2003||2004|
|(1 )Excludes persons disqualified under s 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (penalty points system).|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|