|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
10 Dec 2007 : Column 82Wcontinued
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice was (a) sought from and (b) given by her Department in the case of the Dyfed-Powys police authority and the resignation of the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys police, Mr. Terence Grange. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 3 December 2007]: No advice was sought or given by the Home Office, but the position of the chief constable of Dyfed Powys was discussed as part of regular contact between the police authority and Her Majestys Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of emergency calls to the police in 2006-07 were classified as prank calls. 
Mr. McNulty: Data on prank calls to emergency services is not collected centrally. This is a matter for the chief constable of each force.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the consequences of European Court of Justice case C-16/05, 2007/C 269/09 on the application of restrictions on entry to Great Britain to nationals of EU applicant states. 
Mr. Byrne: The Secretary of State for the Home Department continues to assess the implications of this judgment in consultation with the Commission and other EU member states.
Frank Dobson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many European extradition warrants have been served on British citizens in each of the 32 categories of crime covered by the warrants; how many British citizens have been extradited to each EU country under a European extradition warrant; how many British citizens extradited under a European extradition warrant have subsequently been found guilty; and how many extradition requests under the European extradition warrant have been refused by a British court; 
(2) what the (a) average, (b) longest and (c) shortest period is which has elapsed between the receipt in the UK of a European extradition warrant and it being served on the person covered by it. 
Meg Hillier [holding answer s 12 and 13 November 2007]: The information which is available without disproportionate cost is as follows.
Since 2004 there have been a total of 900 European arrest Warrant arrests. Of that number 151 were British nationals. There were 122 discharges at court. Of that number, 41 were for British nationals. There have been 533 surrenders. Of that number 64 were British nationals.
The shortest time from certification of an EAW to arrest can be and has been on occasion a matter of hours.
As far as the longest time from certification of an EAW to arrest is concerned, there are EAW warrants dating back to 2004 that are certified but where an arrest has not yet been made. This can be for a number of reasons including lack of intelligence on the location of the individual.
Colin Burgon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment her Department has made of the likely effects of the impending transition of Schengen area EU states including Poland, Slovakia and Hungary on the unskilled and semi-skilled sectors of the UK labour market. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 20 November 2007]: While expansion of the Schengen area may make migration within the Schengen area more attractive to migrants, diverting some who may have come to the UK, this is unlikely to have a big impact on the UK labour market. The Government will continue to monitor migration within Europe.
The UK does not participate in the immigration aspects of the Schengen Acquis. Those travelling from the enlarged Schengen area will be subject to border controls should they wish to enter the UK, just as those travelling from the existing Schengen area do currently.
Mr. Vara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have provided a sample for the DNA database (a) following arrest and (b) voluntarily to eliminate themselves from suspicion of involvement in an offence. 
Meg Hillier: There were an estimated 4,188,033 persons with a DNA profile retained on the national DNA database (NDNAD) on 31 October 2007. Of these, approximately 4,165,300 had provided a DNA sample following arrest and 22,700 had provided a sample voluntarily. These figures are for the whole NDNAD and cover persons sampled by police forces in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and by other UK forces such as the Channel Islands.
Comparable data for forces in England and Wales are as follows.
Approximately 3,916,500 persons with a DNA profile retained on the NDNAD had provided a sample following arrest by police forces in England and Wales; and 21,600 persons provided a sample voluntarily for forces in England and Wales. The number of persons on the database is approximately 13.7 per cent. fewer than the number of subject sample profiles. It is currently estimated that 13.7 per cent. of DNA profiles held on the NDNAD are replicates, i.e. that a profile for a person has been loaded on more than one occasion (one reason for this is that the person gave different names, or different versions of their name, on separate arrests). The presence of these replicate profiles on the NDNAD does not impact on the effectiveness and integrity of the database. Nonetheless, a long-term exercise is under way to identify issues associated with the removal of all such redundant replicate profiles.
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants were found at each of the main ports of entry to the United Kingdom in 2007. 
Mr. Byrne: Illegal entry action is initiated against those people who are detected having entered or attempted to enter the country clandestinely or by means of deception, either verbal or documentary. The following table represent those illegal entrants detected at ports of entry from 1 January 2007 to 30 November 2007.[Official Report, 21 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 13MC.]
The data provided is based on locally collated management information, which may be subject to change and does not represent published national statistics.
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what procedures her Department investigates whether an employer is aware that an employee does not have the right to work in Britain. 
Mr. Byrne: All Border and Immigration Agency investigations into potential offences under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 are undertaken in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the guidance in chapter 55 of the Border and Immigration Agencys Operational Enforcement Manual entitled Preventing illegal working, which is published on the Border and Immigration Agency website.
Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firms were (a) charged and (b) convicted for employing illegal workers in 2006 in (i) England and Wales and (ii) the West Midlands. 
Mr. Byrne: Information is not available on the number of employers charged for employing a person subject to immigration control; however, information on those proceeded against is available.
Eleven defendants were proceeded against under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 for employing a person aged 16 and above subject to immigration control in England and Wales in 2006; of these, seven were found guilty.
One defendant was proceeded against under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in the West Midlands police area in 2006; this person was found guilty.
We took steps in 2004 to make the section 8 offence easier to enforce and prosecution activity has increased subsequently. We are committed to bringing forward the implementation of measures contained in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to tackle illegal migrant working, which will provide the Border and Immigration Agency with a wider and more effective range of tools with which to tackle non-compliance. The 2006 Act introduces a system of civil penalties for employers who employ illegal migrants through less than diligent practices, alongside a tough new offence for those who knowingly employ illegal migrants, which will carry a maximum two-year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine. These new measures will come into force on 29 February 2008.
Published statistics on immigration and asylum are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics website at:
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her plans are for changing the resident labour market test under the points-based system; and what definition there will be of employment which will be removed from the requirements of the test. 
Mr. Byrne: We have not finalised details of how the resident labour market test will work under tier 2 of the points-based system. We are discussing the operation of the test with employer representatives and others, and will publish details of the test in a statement of intent next year.
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the London Borough of Bexley are awaiting a decision on applications for leave to remain in the UK. 
Mr. Byrne: The information requested could be obtained in the format required by the detailed examination of individual records only at disproportionate cost.
Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps her Department is taking to help children (a) who are HIV positive, (b) who have malaria and (c) who have tuberculosis and are living in immigration removal centres; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: Appropriate treatment is provided to all those who enter immigration removal centres with medical problems and they must have available to them the same range and quality of services as the general public receives from the national health service.
For example, the Healthcare Steering Group, which was set up by immigration removal centre doctors, has issued guidance on how HIV/AIDS patients should be managed and this makes clear that those concerned must be treated in the same way as any other member of the community. The same is true for those who may have malaria or tuberculosis.
We take seriously our responsibility for meeting the health needs of those held in detention. This can be further evidenced through our taking into account the need, in relevant cases, for detainees to be offered malaria prophylaxis before returning to a malaria area.
Individuals who are being removed from the United Kingdom are, where appropriate, provided with sufficient medication until such time as they are able to have access to their own countrys health care services. This position applies to adults and children.
Mr. Randall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions she has had with the London Borough of Hillingdon on removing asylum seekers who have exhausted all appeals. 
Mr. Byrne: Engagement with partners and stakeholders is key to delivering our business. Border and Immigration Agency staff at various levels are engaging with the London borough of Hillingdon on a regular basis.
Mr. Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she expects to reply to (a) the letter to her predecessor of 29 March 2007, from the hon. Member for Woking regarding Mr. Evans N7737/7 (148492) and (b) the question tabled by the hon. Member for Woking on 4 July 2007 on the same subject. 
Mr. Byrne: I wrote to the hon. Member on 6 December 2007.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used in directing complaints relating to the handling of cases by the Metropolitan police to (a) the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards and (b) the Independent Police Complaints Commission; what the outcome has been of the handling of the complaint of Bilan and Hussein Mohamud in relation to the conduct of Kentish Town police station officers; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. McNulty: The Metropolitan police direct all public complaints to their Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS). Under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002, the Metropolitan policeand all other police forces in England and Walesmust refer to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) specific complaints or incidents that could damage public confidence in the police. The police and the IPCC have a set of criteria for this process, and those criteria identify the following matters as Mandatory Referrals:
Where direct or indirect contact with the police may have caused or contributed to a persons death or serious injury;
Where a member of the police service is alleged to have committed a serious assault or serious sexual assault;
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|