|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the Border and Immigration Agencys expenditure on advertising related to the new points-based immigration system in financial years (a) 2007-08 and (b) 2008-09. 
Mr. Byrne: To support the introduction of the points-based system which is the biggest change to the UKs immigration system in over 40 years, an advertising budget of £1.5 million was spent in this financial year. This advertising activity targeted employers to make them aware of the new immigration controls and to give them sufficient notice in order to begin to prepare their business for these changes.
Further advertising activity to support the points-based system is planned in the next financial year. This activity will continue to be aimed at employers who will have new responsibilities under these new immigration controls. The budget for that activity has not yet been finalised.
Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees of the Border and Immigration Agencys predecessor agency, took the agency and her Department to an employment tribunal in each of the last five years; how many such cases were successful for the claimant; what the complaint was in each such case; and how much has been paid in compensation in such cases over those years. 
Mr. Byrne: The number(1) of employees of the Border and Immigration Agency who have lodged Employment Tribunal claims, and the respective category of these complaints, in each of the last two calendar years(2) are shown in the table as follows.
(1) Not all cases lodged have proceeded to a formal hearing. The figures reflect the number of staff who have lodged Tribunal claims in the two calendar years and not the number of times the cases have proceeded to a hearing.
(2) The year in which the Employment Tribunal claim was lodged.
While we have been able to identify certain costs associated with these consultation exercises, the majority of the costs are not readily identifiable, since e-Borders does not record these by activity.
Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who took citizenship tests at the Grahame Park One Stop Shop advice centre in Colindale, North London in 2006 (a) are awaiting the outcome of their citizenship application and (b) have had the processing of their tests placed on hold as a result of investigations into test fraud at the centre; and if she will make a statement. 
(a) The most recent data we have identifies that we currently have 500 cases on hold as a result of the allegations regarding an invigilator of knowledge of life in the UK tests taken at the Grahame Park One Stop Shop.
(b) No other citizenship applications supported by a test and supervised by other invigilators from the Grahame Park One Stop Shop are on hold.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints her Department has received about the Case Resolution Directorate in each month since its inception; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: The requested information has not been collated in a way that would readily identify complaints received about the Case Resolution Directorate. This could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost through the examination of individual records.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children in contravention of their curfew notices have been removed to their place of residence by (a) police community support officers and (b) police officers under paragraph 4B of Schedule 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002 in each of the last fours years, broken down by police authority area. 
Mr. Coaker: Information is not collected in the form requested. Section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 provides the police with two powers to disperse groups of two or more people and to return young people under 16 who are unsupervised in public places after 9 pm to their homes. 1,065 areas were designated for the exercise of these powers between 1 January 2004 and 31 March 2006. The following table shows a breakdown by police force area. Information on those removed to their place of residence for this period is not held. Information on numbers of designated areas and individuals removed to their place of residence for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 will be published in June 2008.
|Force||Number of areas designated (January2004 to March 2006)|
|(1) No areas designated|
(2) No data provided
Line managers have discretion for deciding whether their staff are allowed to work at home. Staff are allowed to work at home for many reasons which can last be both short-term/ad hoc and longer-term arrangements.
Family or domestic commitments which make it difficult for people to come to the office every day;
People with disabilities or health problems which prevent them travelling to work on a regular basis;
People whose work involves regular travel over a wide area where the home is more sensibly and conveniently located to meet business needs; and
Regular work which does not require regular interaction with colleagues and which, while still meeting business needs, can be completed more conveniently and sensibly from home. Examples would be some stages of research or project work e.g. writing initial scoping documents and final reports.
Mr. Byrne: The most recent cross-Government benchmarking data available (Civil Service Employment Survey 2006) for the number of staff under 18, as at the end of September 2006, shows that the Home Office compares favourably to other Government Departments.
The latest 2008 figures show a slight decrease in the number of staff under 18; this can be attributed in part to seasonal fluctuations and the Home Office drive to improve efficiency savings and reduce our administrative function under the Gershon review.
|30 September 2006||31 January 2008|
|Permanent and non-permanent staff||Headcount||FTE||Headcount||FTE|
|n/a = Not available.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|