|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
19 Mar 2007 : Column 664Wcontinued
20. Stephen Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the capacity of immigration centres. 
Mr. Byrne: The adequacy of the capacity of Immigration Removal Centres is assessed on an ongoing basis. We will open a new purpose built centre at Gatwick next year and we are currently considering a range of other options to further develop the estate.
21. John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he (a) is taking and (b) plans to take to tackle cannabis farms; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: The Home Office has supported the national police crackdown on cannabis factories. Operation Keymer, which ran from 25 September until 5 October 2006, was one part of ongoing work taking place across the country to identify and close down these factories, while improving police knowledge and understanding of the trade through activity-led intelligence gathering.
ACPO is co-ordinating the police response to the emerging issue of cannabis factories and police forces are continuing to close down cannabis factories where identified.
22. Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions there were for anti-Semitic crimes in England and Wales in 2006. 
Mr. McNulty: We are committed to tackling all hate crimes including those motivated by anti-Semitism. This information is not currently available, but we have made improvements to the way we collect data and expect to have it from April 2008.
Monitoring the figures will enable us to understand the extent and nature of all hate crimes and to be able to respond more effectively, for example by changing beat times or places.
23. Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures to deport failed asylum applicants. 
Mr. Byrne: The effectiveness of measures deployed to remove failed asylum seekers is assessed on an ongoing basis. These measures have ensured that the removal of failed asylum seekers has been steadily increasing over the past few years.
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 7 March 2007, Official Report, columns 2043-44W, on community service volunteers, what public protection measures have been agreed. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: All prisoners who undertake placements are subject to the conditions for release on temporary licence which pay full regard to issues of public protection. Prisons and placement organisations complete a full risk assessment including appropriate CRB checks. As an additional safeguard, the revised memorandum puts in place further public protection measures that ensure that the probation office in the placement area is notified and that the offender manager will highlight any risk issues that have been identified and will inform the police and/or the prison when appropriate.
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 19 February 2007, Official Report, column 94W, on community support officers protective clothing, what representations he has received from representatives of police community support officers on the issuing of protective equipment. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 27 February 2007]: We have received a number of representations about the issue of protective equipment to police community support officers(PCSOs), but none from representatives of PCSOs. The decision on the equipment of PCSOs in each force remains a matter for chief officers.
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often he holds meetings with the Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Directorate. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 8 March 2007]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary(Dr. John Reid) holds regular meetings with officials from the Home Office's Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Directorate.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) prosecutions were brought and (b) convictions obtained in the last five years for offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. 
Mr. Coaker: The information requested, taken from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, is provided in the following table.
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England and Wales 2001-2005( 1,2)|
|Offence description||Principal statute||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty|
Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences
|Offence description||Principal statute||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against|
Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences
|(1) These data are provided on the principal offence basis. (2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. 3 Data for Essex police force area for this offence in 2001 show 7 convictions for which there are no prosecutions. These data have been omitted from the table. Source: RDS - Office for Criminal Justice Reform|
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was allocated to each police force for combating e-crime in 2006-07; and what the proposed allocation for 2007-08 is. 
Mr. McNulty: Total Government funding for the police in England and Wales for 2006-07 was £9.3 billion. In addition, specific pump priming funding of £26,200 was provided to each police force in England and Wales to help expand their computer crime teams.
The Government have announced total Government grant allocations to police forces in England and Wales for 2007-08 of £9.6 billion. Police spending on computer crime teams is expected to be funded from overall resources available and is a matter for each chief constable.
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy of his Department is on providing substantive answers to named day questions on the appropriate named day. 
Mr. McNulty: The Department endeavours to answer all named day questions with a substantive reply on the named day. For certain questions this is not possible and hon. Members are provided with a holding reply until a substantive reply can be provided.
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making in tackling the availability of Class A drugs; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: The Government's strategy is to bear down on all points in the drug supply chain to disrupt criminal gangs, stifle drug supply and reduce the harm caused to communities in the UK.
Latest figures available show that in 2005-06 over 2,200 kg of heroin and 15,300 kg of cocaine were taken out of the supply chain, 193 trafficking groups were disrupted or dismantled and £30 million of drug-related criminal assets were seized, depriving dealers of their financial lifeblood.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of (a) crack cocaine and (b) opiate users with dependent children. 
Mr. Coaker: The Home Office-commissioned estimates of the number of problem opiate and crack users do not contain any information about individuals and their parental status. However, the Advisory Council of Misuse of Drugs in their report Hidden Harm estimated that in the UK there were between 250,000 and 350,000 children of problem drug users in 2003. Since the publication of that report changes have been made to several monitoring systems to improve the information available, which will allow us to produce an updated estimate in the future. In particular the core dataset for the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System for England was updated from April 2006 and all treatment service providers are now required to record information on whether users in treatment have dependent children and whether the child(ren) are living with the person in treatment or with others.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2007, Official Report, column 104W, on foreign national prisoners, what estimate he has made of the (a) cost to the public purse and (b) time which would be required to cross-reference the electronic records held by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the offences committed by the foreign nationals released from HMP Peterborough in the last 12 months to 31 March 2007 with the prisoner discharge records held manually at HMP Peterborough; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: As I previously outlined in my answers to the hon. Gentleman, the requested information on the offences committed by foreign nationals released from HMP Peterborough in the last 12 months to 31 March 2006 could be obtained only by exceeding the £600 cost limit for answering parliamentary questions.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role the United Kingdom plays in the European Union's border management agency Frontex; and what the Government's policy is on the future development of Frontex. 
Joan Ryan: The UK strongly supports the EU Border Agency (Frontex). The UK has provided funding, operational planning and training to Frontex, as well as joining a number of Frontex operations. We will continue to participate in Frontex operations where there is benefit for the UK and the rest of the EU. We are keen to strengthen Frontex and see it develop in future.
Mrs. James: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under which legislation prosecutions may be made of those found guilty of uploading video content onto the internet containing (a) criminal damage, (b) physical assaults and (c) vandalism. 
Mr. Coaker: Uploading videos of a criminal offence is not necessarily itself a criminal offence It will be a criminal offence if it amounts to inciting the offence involved, or if it involves the publication of obscene material. UK based Internet service providers take a responsible approach to the contents they host. Most have acceptable use policies which enable them to remove content from the site that is distasteful, even if it is not necessarily illegal.
Mrs. James: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Internet Watch Foundation on video clips on websites which show (a) violence and physical assaults and (b) criminal damage. 
Mr. Coaker: The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is the only authorised organisation in the UK operating an internet 'hotline' for the public to report their exposure to potentially illegal content online. Its aim is to minimise the availability of potentially illegal internet content, specifically child abuse images hosted anywhere in the world; criminally obscene content hosted in the UK; and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK. While we work closely with the IWF on these issues, we have not had any discussions with it about video clips on websites which show violence, physical assaults or criminal damage as these issues are outside of its remit.
In terms of industry regulation, the vast majority of the UK internet industry takes a responsible approach to what content it hosts, both of its own volition and in co-operation with law enforcement and Government agencies. Where the industry is advised that content it hosts contravenes UK legislation, it will remove it. In addition, internet service providers (ISPs) also have contracts with their customers concerning what may be hosted on their servers called acceptable use policies (AUPs), which allow them to remove offensive or objectionable material, even if it is not illegal. Anyone concerned about the contents of a website should approach the relevant ISP hosting the site and ask it to consider whether it breaches its AUP.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|