|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Francois: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 30 April 2007, Official Report, column 1407W, on identity cards, what estimate he has made of the total savings from the cost of identity fraud which will be realised as a result of the introduction of identity cards in each of the first five years following their introduction. 
John Reid: The circumstances under which an ID card must be surrendered are set out in section 11, subsections (3) and (4), of the Identity Cards Act 2006. In particular, someone who is in possession of an ID card without lawful authority would be required to surrender the card as soon as is practicable to do so and a person who is in possession of an ID card that had expired, been cancelled or was invalid may be required to surrender it.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to how those with diseases such as Alzheimer's will be accommodated within the identity card application and issuing system, with particular reference to informed consent. 
John Reid: The Identity Cards Act 2006 has been designed to allow for flexibility in the identity card application process. For example, in the case of an applicant who was unable to give informed consent or to sign an application form, it would be possible to provide in regulations for an authorised third party to make an application on the person's behalf, as happens currently with passport applications.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make provision for those physically unable to travel to interview centres in the identity card issuing system. 
John Reid: The Identity Cards Act 2006 has been designed to provide flexibility in the identity card application process. Regulations will be able to allow the Identity and Passport Service to accommodate the special needs of applicants, such as those unable to travel, either by making special arrangements or excluding particular individuals from the normal requirements.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account has been taken of those individuals who work under a professional name in the development of the identity cards system. 
John Reid: Schedule 1 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 sets out the information that may be held on the national identity register (the register will include details of those persons issued with identity cards). This information includes a person's full name, together with names by which a person is or has been known. It will therefore be possible for an alternative name, such as a stage name or maiden name, to be registered.
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of whether illegal migrants are avoiding border checks at ports by entering Scotland via the Faroe Islands. 
Mr. Byrne: Following the IND review there is an ongoing programme of improvement activity across the whole of the Border and Immigration Agency including all migration casework areas. Resources have been diverted to some areas where backlogs exist in order to improve performance.
Mr. Mark Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department provides any support to unemployed (a) A2 and (b) A8 nationals who have come to the UK to work but who do not have access to benefits as they have not completed 12 months of work. 
Mr. Byrne: The Border and Immigration Agency does not provide support to unemployed A2 and A8 nationals who have come to the UK to work but who do not have access to benefits as they have not completed 12 months of continuous employment in the UK. In work and contributory benefits are available to some migrants who meet the relevant DWP tests.
Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staff/detainee ratio is at (a) Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre, (b) Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre, (c) Dover Immigration Removal Centre, (d) Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre, (e) Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre, (f) Haslar Immigration Removal Centre, (g) Lindholme, (h) Oakington, (i) Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre and (j) Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre. 
Any part of an operating contract can be changed through the Notice of Change process which can be initiated by either side. This allows changes in operating circumstances to be recognised and resources added or reduced according to need, usually following informal consultation. This process is regularly used and contractors are fully familiar with it.
|Ratio security staff to detaineesIRC estate|
|Centre||Ratiodetainees per officer|
|(1) Average across all shifts converts to 16.7 detainees per officer|
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued to immigration officers in light of the ruling by the House of Lords in (a) Huang and (b) Kashmiri v . Secretary of State for the Home Department. 
John Reid: The House of Lords ruling related specifically to the considerations given by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT). This advised that, when assessing proportionality, the AIT was required to weigh up all relevant competing considerations and was not required to establish that the circumstances of a case were truly exceptional in order to find that removal would give rise to an unlawful interference with article 8 rights. As no specific findings were made to considerations given by immigration officers, no general guidance has been issued. Where article 8 claims are made the Border and Immigration Agency do consider all factors raised.
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the National Policing Improvement Agency since becoming fully operational on 1 April. 
Mr. McNulty: The National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) began its work on 1 April this year and its published Business Plan for 2007-08 includes 15 delivery statements reflecting the strategic priorities of the Police Service and of the tripartite partners in policingthe Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Association of Police Authorities (APA) and the Home Office. Some good progress has already been made on a number of these, for example:
The national strategic assessment has been completed and will now be used as a key underpin for the NPIAs work.
The IMPACT programme has successfully progressed to the stage where it can now proceed with the procurement of the first stage of the police national database.
Leadership: a major review of the entirety of the NPIAs leadership approach and training has been completed. The next step is to bring the work on leadership and workforce strategy together.
Serious Crime Analysis Section (SCAS): There is now a nominated senior lead in each force for SCAS. ACPO and NPIA will bring them together to agree a renewed national approach to maximising the way the service is used.
Diversity impact assessment: an impact assessment of the DMA database is underway and NPIA is working closely with the Commission of Racial Equality (CRE) on this work.
There has also been progress in other areas of NPIAs work. Key performance indicators have been established for both the external and internal strategic priorities of the organisation. The Chief Executive will be providing regular reports of performance and issues facing the Agency.
Mr. McNulty: Information on time spent by police officers on front-line duties has only been collected since 2003-04. The available data for the North Wales Police for each year since March 2004 is set out in the following table. The North Wales Police has set a target for 66.6 per cent. of police officer time to be spent on front-line duties by March 2008.
|North Wales Policetime spent on front-line duties|
|Percentage of police officer time spent on front-line duties|
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign national prisoners were transferred to immigration removal centres (a) before the end of their sentence and (b) after the end of their sentence in each of the last five years, broken down by the number of weeks before or after their sentence that the transfer occurred. 
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people convicted of carrying a knife in each of the last three years were given (a) a non-custodial sentence and (b) a custodial sentence; 
|Persons( 1) sentenced for offences of carrying knives or offensive weapons, by outcome, England and Wales|
|Offence||Statute||Year||Total persons sentenced||Non-custodial sentence||Custodial sentence||Persons given maximum custodial sentence( 2)|
|(1) Principal offence basis.|
(2) Two years for blade or point offences and four years for offensive weapon offences.
(3) Will include knives but information collected centrally does not provide a distinction between them and other offensive weapons.
RDS-NOMS, Home Office
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|