|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) arrests, (b) charges and (c) convictions have been made for terrorist-related offences after a warrant had been executed under (i) the Terrorism Act 2000 and (ii) the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 2 July 2007]: The Home Office does not collate information in this way. Statistics on the number of charges, arrests and charges under the Terrorism Act 2000 and under other legislation are available on the Home Office website:
Mr. Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been (a) detained, (b) released and (c) charged within the first 28 days of arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000 in each year, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnicity and (iii) religion. 
Mr. McNulty: In the period from 11 September 2001 to 31 December 2006 1,166 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 or under other legislation where the investigation had been conducted as a terrorist investigation.
Of these 1,166 arrests, 652 were released without charge and 407 were charged with criminal offences including offences under terrorism legislation. A full breakdown of the terrorism legislation statistics can be found on the Home Office website at:
Mr. Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases a suspect has been released before the end of the maximum 28 days pre-charge detention period under the Terrorism Act 2000 and then re-arrested following decryption of computer data or completion of other investigative work. 
Mr. Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases suspects detained under the Terrorism Act 2000 have been released because of insufficient time to decrypt heavily-encrypted computer data. 
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions her Department has had with the Russian Government on security strategies to deal with terrorist threats. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 2 July 2007]: Russia is a key ally in global efforts to overcome terrorism. To that end, we frequently discuss our perception of the current threats and our activity to counteract those threats with our Russian colleagues in international fora such as the United Nations and the G8, among others. The terrorist threat and strategies to counter the threat were key issues of discussion at the G8 JHA ministerial meeting in Munich in May, when the then Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith and I represented the UK. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) also attended the G8 Heiligendamm Summit in early July together with Russia's President Putin and other leaders. G8 leaders agreed two counter terrorism statements at the Heiligendamm summit to increase cooperation in meeting the shared challenges of global terrorism.
Mr. Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of stop and search there have been under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in each year, broken down by (a) city or other location, (b) gender, (c) ethnicity and (d) religion. 
Mr. McNulty: Statistics on the use of Section 44 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 are detailed within two annual Home Office publications titled: Home Office Statistical Bulletin on Arrests for Recorded Crime (Notifiable Offences) and the Operation of Certain Police Powers Under PACE, and Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice SystemA Home Office publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
These publications are annual and are available for each year since 2001. Information is available by ethnicity and at police force area level only. Data are not collected centrally by gender or religion. The publications detail Section 44 statistics by police force area and the Section 95 report details these statistics by ethnicity.
Lorely Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons were for removing the UK's immigration reservation on the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in 2004. 
Mr. Byrne: The United Kingdom entered an immigration reservation when it ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1986, in order to ensure that the Convention would not impede immigration policies and procedures in operation at the time. However, preparatory work for the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 subsequently ensured that all policies and practices operated by the then immigration and nationality directorate were non-discriminatory on the grounds of sex. An Interdepartmental Review of International Human Rights Instruments was carried out in 2004 and concluded that the reservation for immigration purposes was no longer appropriate and, therefore, the United Kingdom should withdraw its immigration reservation on this Convention.
Mr. Byrne: The UK supports the work that the United Nations is doing in improving standards of care for children in countries where care arrangements are non-existent or poor. In the UK our domestic laws honour the spirit of the Convention in relation to the standards of care and treatment available to children, including asylum-seeking children. The Government believe the reservation remains justified in order to maintain an effective immigration control. The Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges its signatories to put the 'best interests' of the child first in making decisions and there are a number of instances where this may prevent lawful immigration functions being carried out. The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women obliges signatories to treat men and women equally which creates less of a concern for carrying out immigration functions.
We provide protection to children subject to immigration control via the Children Act and other domestic legislation that requires the authorities to fulfil duties in relation to children; and also through the Human Rights Act.
In addition we are proposing to introduce a code of practice to ensure that in carrying out its functions in the UK the Border and Immigration Agency takes appropriate steps to keep children safe from harm while they are in the UK.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 26 June 2007, to question 145164, on Yarl's Wood Detention Centre, when the last occasion was that the (a) Border and Immigration Agency and (b) Independent Monitoring Board (i) scrutinised and (ii) monitored the length of time taken for staff Yarl's Wood Detention Centre to answer outside calls; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: Neither the Border and Immigration Agency nor the Independent Monitoring Board scrutinise or monitor the length of time taken for staff at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre to answer outside telephone calls. The operating contract for Yarl's Wood requires the contractor to install sufficient pay telephones to meet the reasonable demands of detainees and/or dependants. It also includes the minimum number of staff required to operate the switchboard at any given time. Private sector contractors that operate removal centres on behalf of the Border and Immigration Agency are paid in accordance with the contract in that they deliver the service specified for the agreed amount. Any failure to provide the specified service results in a reduction in operating fee.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 6 June 2007, Official Report, columns 624-5W to the hon. Member for Hendon on Yarls Wood Detention Centre, if she will place in the Library a copy of the Border and Immigration Agencys requirements in regard to the services to the detainees as outlined in the contract between her Department and Serco. 
Jacqui Smith: It is the policy of the Border and Immigration Agency to deposit copies of the operating contracts, redacted in accordance with Freedom of Information Act, for Immigration Removal Centres in the House of Commons Library. The redacted contracts do not detail the services provided to detainees as they are exempt under Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Yarls Wood contract, having recently been re-tendered, will be deposited in the House of Commons Library later this year.
The number of children detained with their families solely under Immigration Act powers will change from day to day. However local management
information indicates that as at 2 July 2007 there were 24 children detained at Yarls Wood Removal Centre of which 13 have been detained for less than one month, nine for between one and two months and two in excess of two months.
The figures provided do not constitute part of National Statistics as they are based on management information. This information has not been quality assured under National Statistics protocols and should be treated as provisional.
Quarterly snapshots are published in the quarterly asylum bulletin, showing the number of people detained under Immigration Act powers on the last Saturday of each quarter. Statistics on the total number of persons leaving detention each quarter are also published in the quarterly asylum bulletin.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children aged (a) under five years, (b) five to 12 years and (c) 13 to 16 years passed through Yarls Wood Detention Centre in each of the last 12 months. 
Jacqui Smith: Information on the number of people who pass through Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre could be obtained only by the detailed examination of individual case records, at disproportionate cost.
Children are detained only in two limited circumstances: first, as part of a family group whose detention is considered appropriate; second, when unaccompanied, while alternative care arrangements are made, and normally just overnight. While the detention of families with children is very regrettable, it nevertheless remains necessary in appropriate cases in order to maintain an effective immigration control and to tackle abuses of the asylum system.
Period statistics covering those leaving detention during each quarter have been published in the Quarterly Asylum bulletin for the periods January-March 2005 to July September 2006, inclusive. These include the last recorded place of detention but not details of each Immigration Removal Centre passed through by the detainee. The Quarterly Asylum bulletins can be found on the Home Offices Research, Development and Statistics website at:
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official complaints were received by the operator of Yarls Wood Detention Centre in each month of the financial year 2006-07. 
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the telephone at Yarl's Wood Detention Centre was not staffed and outside calls were left unanswered between 10.30am and 12.00pm on 28 June 2007. 
One member of staff gave out incorrect information to a caller stating that the time taken to answer the call was due to staff shortage. The staff operating the switchboard during this period have been reminded of the importance of communication between detainees, their families and legal advisors.
The switchboard at Yarl's Wood is somewhat dated and Serco, the contractor responsible for operating the centre, is looking at various options to help speed up the time taken to answer incoming calls.