|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
1 Sep 2008 : Column 1550Wcontinued
Dan Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of (a) salaries for permanent Civil Service posts, (b) salaries for permanent non-Civil Service posts and (c) payments to temporary or agency workers in her Department was in each month since May 2005. 
Mr. Byrne: The Home Office is unable to provide the information requested from current available sources and commissioning reports would incur disproportionate cost.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of staff of her Department and its agencies did not receive the maximum bonus possible under a bonus scheme applying to them in the last two years. 
Mr. Byrne: 95 per cent. of senior civil service employees in the Home Office and her agencies did not receive the maximum bonus payable for the 2006-07 annual appraisal cycle.
Within Home Office headquarters and the UK Border Agency, 67 per cent. of employees below the SCS did not receive an end of year performance bonus, and 33 per cent. received a flat rate bonus of 2 per cent. in 2006-07.
IPS employees are eligible for end of year corporate bonuses, and grades 6 and 7 are eligible for change agent bonuses. It is not possible to provide information on the proportion of employees who received the maximum bonuses permissible without incurring disproportionate costs.
Information is not yet available for the appraisal year 2007-08.
Special bonuses are awarded for exceptional outstanding achievements by staff in particular demanding tasks or situations. It is not possible to provide information on the proportion of employees who received the maximum special bonus permissible without incurring disproportionate costs.
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her Departments policy is on requesting discounts from its suppliers in return for swift payment of invoices. 
Mr. Byrne: The Home Department in line with other Government Departments requires payment to be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract usually within 30 days of the receipt of the goods or services or of a valid undisputed invoice whichever is the later.
Agreement to requests for prompt payment terms of less than 30 days offer little to the Department unless tangible benefits in terms of discounted prices, better delivery times or service improvements are secured in return.
Where there is a tangible benefit to both the Home Department (e.g. discounted price) and the supplier (e.g. optimising their cashflow) a payment period of less than 30 days may be negotiated between the parties and incorporated into the terms and conditions of contract.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what (a) listening exercises and (b) public forums her Department has held in each of the last two years; and what the (i) purpose, (ii) cost, (iii) private contractor and (iv) amount paid to the private contractor was in each case. 
Mr. Byrne: Listening exercises and public forums were held on Citizenship, Immigration and Integration; "Tackling DrugsChanging Lives"; Crime and Drugs Strategy; Counter Terrorism community visits; Drugs Consultation; Young People Consultation; and Schools Pack Conferences.
The purpose of these events was to gain public feedback to inform the Green Paper on "The Path to Citizenship"; to gain feedback for the next drug strategy; for Ministers to hear and learn from the concerns of community members they meet; to inform, support and mobilise stakeholders to deliver on new crime and drugs strategies; to listen to the views of young people on drug issues; and to disseminate Understanding Drugs pack and pupil booklet to educational practitioners responsible for delivery of school-based drug education lessons.
To gain the information on the costs, contractors, and amounts paid to private contractors for each event could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, as these data are not recorded separately on the Department's accounting systems.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will list (a) the reviews and (b) public consultations initiated by her Department since 27 June 2007. 
Mr. Byrne: The Home Office undertakes a wide variety of reviews on various issues. Where necessary these would be available from the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk) under the specific review subject area. As noted in response to the hon. Member's earlier question on 21 November 2007, Official Report, column 948W, all public consultations that we have initiated can be found at the following Home Office websites:
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days sick leave were taken on average (a) by staff in her Department and (b) in the Criminal Records Bureau in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Byrne: The following table shows the number of days sick leave taken on average by staff in Home Office headquarters and each of its agencies, including the Criminal Records Bureau, for the last five financial years.
|Number of sick days taken by staff in the Home Office and CRB in the last five years|
|Average number of working days lost|
1. Data for 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 have been referenced from a previous PQ response on 11 June 2008, Official Report, columns 339-40W. UKBA have provided updated figures due to an error in the previous figures. Figures for 2003-04 and 2004-05for UKBA are not available as this information is not recorded centrally.
2. In 2006-07 the Home Office HQ included the following departments; Communities Group, National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR). NOMS and OCJR left in May 2007 to join the new Ministry of Justice, and Communities Group transferred to Department for Communities and Local Government in May 2006.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was paid in sick pay to staff in (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) the non-departmental bodies for which it has responsibility in each of the last five years; what proportion of the annual staffing expenditure of each body this represented in each year; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: We are unable to provide the information requested from current available sources and commissioning reports would incur disproportionate cost.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of successful applicants for posts in her Department were subjected to a criminal records check in the latest period for which figures are available; how many (a) successful applicants and (b) criminal records checks there were in each of the last 10 years; how many successful applicants were found to have a criminal record after a criminal records check took place in each of the last 10
years; on what criteria an applicant for a post is required to undergo a criminal records check; and if she will make a statement. 
Meg Hillier: The current position is that all staff recruited to posts within the Home Office and its agencies (the UK Border Agency, Identity and Passport Service and Criminal Records Bureau) are subject to criminal records checks as part of the National Security Vetting (NSV). Checks are not random. Vetting is reviewed at various times during service.
The following table shows the number of individuals subject to NSV. Machinery of government changes will have affected those to whom NSV applied over the last 10 years.
The figures also include renewal of security clearance; not all refusals of NSV will have been for reasons of criminality.
All figures include those HM Prison Service posts where the Home Office departmental security unit was required to complete the security clearance. HM Prison Service became an agency of the Ministry of Justice in May 2007.
|1 April to 31 March each||Granted NSV( 1)||Refused NSV( 2)||Total|
|(1) Numbers include cases where a criminal record did not preclude granting of NSV.|
(2) Numbers include applicants who withdrew or where a criminal record may have resulted in refusal.
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to the Prime Ministers Statement of 14 November 2007 on national security, how many of the 24 foreign nationals then subject to deportation proceedings on national security grounds (a) have been deported, (b) have not been deported following a decision by a court, (c) have been given the right to remain in the UK and (d) have cases which are outstanding. 
Mr. Byrne: Since the Prime Ministers statement of 14 November 2007, of the 24 foreign nationals then subject to deportation proceedings on national security grounds:
Twelve are no longer the subject of deportation proceedings following the Court of Appeals ruling on the test cases of two Libyan nationals. Of these 12, eight previously had the right to remain in the UK and continue to do so. All 12 of the cases are under review as to their future immigration status. Twelve others remain subject to ongoing deportation proceedings and are at various stages of the appeals process.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps the Government has taken to reduce domestic violence. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 22 July 2008]: We have a cross-Government national delivery plan which provides a strategic framework to address domestic violence.
The plan is a set of initiatives which includes the development of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs), establishing Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) and rolling-out Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs).
We have recently increased the number of SDVCs to 98, provided funding to support IDVAs and are rolling out MARACs to achieve national coverage by 2010-11.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) physical and (b) verbal assaults on refuse operatives were recorded in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Coaker: The information is not collected centrally in the recorded crime statistics. While the Home Office collects statistics on the number of offences of wounding and assault without injury, no information is available on the employment status of the victim.
Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on whether disqualification from driving ordered by a court in a member state should apply in other member states. 
Mr. Coaker: The United Kingdom is signatory to the 1998 convention on driving disqualifications, which was signed by the then 15 member states of the European Union. The provisions of the convention were brought into the law of Great Britain by the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003 and for Northern Ireland by a corresponding Order in Council. The convention is intended to ensure that a driver resident in one country and disqualified in another country for a motoring offence committed there, should not escape the consequences of that disqualification when he or she returns home. The convention will take effect when all 15 signatory states have ratified it. So far as we are aware, only Spain of the original signatories has done so. As yet, no member state of the European Union has put this convention into practical effect.
However, the convention provides that a member state may meanwhile declare formally to the European Union authorities that it will recognise the driving disqualifications of any other member state which has made the same declaration. On 26 June this year the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport agreed with his Irish and Northern Ireland colleagues that the United Kingdom and Ireland should aim to make parallel formal declarations to this effect as soon as practicable, with a view to instituting mutual recognition
of driving disqualifications between the United Kingdom and Ireland under the 1998 convention in the course of spring 2009.
I am not aware that any other Member State has plans to take a similar step in the near future.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|