|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of cases resulting in conviction secured to date in which evidence based on DNA profiles from the national DNA database was used (a) of those without a previous conviction and (b) not found at the scene of a crime. 
Jacqui Smith: In relation to part (a), information on the number of crimes resulting in convictions in which DNA subject sample profiles on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) taken from persons with no previous convictions were a contributory factor is not collected centrally.
In relation to part (b), all detected crimes, in which a DNA match played a part in solving the crime, would involve a match between a subject sample profile (taken from an arrested person) and a crime scene sample profile believed to have been left by the offender at the scene of a crime.
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 16 June 2008, Official Report, column 676W, on Heathrow Airport: security, what further checks UK Border Agency staff undertook to ascertain whether those individuals who left the domestic arrivals area prior to the error being identified presented a security risk. 
Mr. Byrne [holding answer 23 June 2008]: On each of the five occasions where international passengers were misdirected, the UK Border Agency was immediately notified and took appropriate remedial action. All of the incidents were a result of errors made by either British Airways or the British Airports Authority staff. UKBA staff worked closely with the airport operator to redirect passengers to the appropriate area in order to complete all of the necessary immigration checks. This was successful on two occasions, although on the other three, a number of passengers had already left the domestic area.
In these instances, further checks were made which satisfied UKBA staff that the individuals who had entered did not present a known risk to UK security. These checks included cross checking the details of all those who had been on board the aircraft against Home Office databases. In addition, passengers details were also passed on to the Metropolitan Police Service who carried out additional security checks.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employers found to have employed illegal workers have been (a) cautioned, (b) charged and (c) prosecuted in (i) 2007 and (ii) 2008 to date; and, of those in each category, how many were proceeded against for (A) employing illegal workers and (B) facilitating illegal immigrants to remain in the UK by providing employment, food or accommodation. 
|Action||January to December 2007||January to 6 June 2008|
New measures were introduced by the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and came into effect for those employed on, or after 29 February 2008. There is now a system of civil penalties for employers who employ illegal migrant workers. This is combined with the introduction of a new criminal offence of knowingly employing an illegal migrant worker.
All cases are considered on the individual evidence available. A decision to proceed with prosecution is predicated on evidence that indicates that an employer knowingly employed a migrant worker who had no permission to work or to do the work in question.
Mr. Byrne: Quarterly data are published showing the number of people detained solely under Immigration Act powers on the last Saturday of each quarter. The accompanying table shows the number of Latin American nationals detained solely under Immigration Act powers as at the last Saturday of each quarter since April 2007 up to March 2008, the latest published information.
|Latin American nationals( 1) detained solely under Immigration Act powers as at the specified dates( 2,3,4,5)|
|Detained as at:||Number of detainees|
|(1) Includes nationals of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.|
(2) Excluding persons detained in police cells and those detained under both criminal and immigration powers.
(3) Due to changes in working practices, these statistics now exclude all persons detained in Prison Service establishments. Figures are not directly comparable with those prior to June 2006.
(4) Figures include dependants.
(5) Figures rounded to the nearest five.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were removed under immigration laws to (a) Colombia, (b) Ecuador, (c) Bolivia and (d) Peru in (i) each month
since April 2007 and (ii) (A) 2006-07, (B) 2005-06 and (C) 2004-05. 
Mr. Byrne: The accompanying tables show the number of persons removed or departing voluntarily to Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru during the periods specified and up to March 2008, the latest published information.
|Persons removed or departing voluntarily( 1,2) from the UK, to Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru during 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07( 3)|
|Number of removals|
|Destination( 4)||2004-05||2005-06( 5)||2006-07( 5)|
|(1) Includes persons departing voluntarily following enforcement action initiated against them and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organization for Migration.|
(2) Since January 2005, includes persons who it is established have left the UK without informing the immigration authorities.
(3) Figures rounded to the nearest five.
(4) Destination as recorded on source database.
(5) Provisional figures.
|Persons removed or departing voluntarily( 1) from the UK, to Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru by month during 2007-08( 2)|
|Number of removals|
|(1) Includes persons departing voluntarily following enforcement action initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organization for Migration and those who it is established have left the UK without informing the immigration authorities.|
(2) Figures rounded to the nearest five ( = 0, * = 1 or 2) and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding.
(3) Destination as recorded on source database.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisation is responsible for regulating (a) Bebo, (b) YouTube and (c) other internet sites; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 7 July 2008]: While the internet is a worldwide medium, it is subject to UK law and the UK Government policy is that what is illegal offline is illegal online. As such the internet is subject to the same laws as other media.
The Governments policy in relation to the development of the internet is not to place general monitoring obligations or regulation on those who provide internet services, host websites etc., but rather to allow self-regulation.
In practice, there are excellent working relationships with the internet industry, and they have developed strong working practices and guidelines relating to services they offer and content they host. Where a UK ISP is advisedusually by law enforcementthat they are hosting material which is illegal, they have an excellent record in removing it.
Most recently the Home Secretarys Taskforce on Online Child Protection published the Good Practice Guidance for the Providers of Social Networking and Other Interactive Services 2008. This was produced by
members of the Taskforce including representatives from social networking sites. This Guidance asks companies to consider a risk assessment approach to their services and considering putting in place a range of potential safeguards where risks to children do occur. It also identifies to both the providers of interactive services and parents, teachers and carers how these sites can be used to exploit children and gives advice on how to keep children safe while using social networking tools.
In September 2007, the Prime Minister announced a review into the risk to children of exposure to harmful or inappropriate content in video games and online. The review also assessed the effectiveness and adequacy of existing measures to help prevent children from being exposed to such material and help parents understand and manage the risks of access to inappropriate content.
Dr. Tanya Byron conducted this review and reported to Ministers in March 2008. The Government have accepted all of the recommendations arising from the review and are currently planning for their implementation. The Government are actively involved in developing the UK Council on Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS), which will replace the Home Secretarys Taskforce.
Sir Michael Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire dated 16th May 2008, about the UK residency requirement on foreign domiciliary aid workers (Reference: M8887/8). 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|