Mr. Alan Campbell [holding answer 16 December 2008]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out her initial thoughts on the European Court ruling in her speech on 16 December 2008 to the Intellect Trade Association dealing with surveillance issues.
We are carefully considering the detail of the judgment in the S and Marper case and its implications. DNA is a prime example where benefits to the criminal justice system and the rights of the individual need to be carefully balanced. That is why our approach to the European Court's judgment will be subject to wide consultation this year in a White Paper on Forensics.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the implications of the recent judgement of the European Court of Human Rights on the legality of retaining the DNA records of people who have not been convicted of any crime. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out her initial thoughts on the European Court ruling in her speech on 16 December to the Intellect Trade Association dealing with surveillance issues.
We are carefully considering the detail of the Judgment in the S and Marper case and its implications. DNA is a prime example where benefits to the criminal justice system and the rights of the individual need to be carefully balanced. That is why our approach to the European Courts Judgment will be subject to wide consultation this year in a White Paper on Forensics.
Mr. Alan Campbell: At 16 December 2008, the number of profiles on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) relating to persons currently aged under 16 and added by Sussex Police was 3,115. The number relating to persons currently aged under 18 (including those under 16) added by that force was 8,358.
The NDNAD does not contain any information on the place of residence of a person sampled, so the figures include residents of areas other than Sussex sampled by Sussex Police, and exclude residents of Sussex sampled by other police forces.
The number of profiles held on the NDNAD is not the same as the number of individuals. As it is possible for a profile to be loaded onto the NDNAD on more than one occasion, some profiles held on the NDNAD are replicates. This can occur, for example, if the person provided different names, or different versions of their
name, on separate arrests, or because profiles are upgraded. At present, the average replication rate on the whole NDNAD is 13.3 per cent. However, this figure may vary between police forces.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make it her policy to allocate officials trained in the context of human rights work to the consideration of applications for visas from human rights defenders seeking entry to the UK on official business; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Woolas: Decisions on entry clearance applications made at UK Missions are determined by entry clearance officers who have undertaken a course of training which covers the Human Rights Act and its bearing on entry clearance decisions. All decisions are made in accordance with the Immigration Rules (HC395).
Mr. Alan Campbell: A recent Government estimate was published in the Impact Assessment for the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against trafficking in Human Beings, laid before Parliament on 7 October 2008. This estimates that 360 children are trafficked each year into and within the UK.
Mr. Alan Campbell: To inform the Governments Tackling the Demand for Prostitution: A Review, the Home Office commissioned research from the child and woman abuse studies unit at London Metropolitan university which compared prostitution regimes across nine countries. This considered the impact of trafficking on the development of these regimes and the effect of each regime on levels of trafficking. We also commissioned a Rapid Evidence Assessment to look at existing research on the demand for prostitution. This considered the extent to which trafficking contributed to the demand for prostitution and the effect of different approaches to tackling demand on levels of trafficking. These reports will be published this year.
Mr. Alan Campbell:
The reluctance of many victims to accept third sector support and co-operate with the authorities made accurate assessment of immigration
status difficult. But we know 60 were EU nationals and five others had indefinite leave to remain in the UK. 36 adult victims are recorded as having returned home voluntarily, including some EU nationals. A further 16 adults were removed using immigration powers. Of the remainder, a number ceased to cooperate at a very early stage while others lodged applications to remain in the UK.
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what protection is made available to trafficked persons following the conviction of those responsible for their trafficking. 
The Government's victim protection measures are not dependent on a conviction. We currently fund the Poppy project to provide specialist support to adult victims of these crimes. Victims are provided with unconditional intensive support for four weeks, with longer-term services provided in return for co-operation with a criminal investigation. The TARA project is funded to provide similar support services in Scotland. We also offer victims support with resettlement in their home country or within the United Kingdom where eligible. A victim whose safety is seriously at risk as a result of giving evidence may be placed in a police witness protection programme. Victims can also apply for asylum and humanitarian protection where appropriate.
We have ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against the Trafficking in Human Beings which will come into force in April 2009. This will see the introduction of a 45 day reflection period where victims can consider their future options and one-year temporary resident permits, both of which can be extended in certain circumstances. Each case will have to be considered on its individual merits. The new measures are intended to compliment the asylum and humanitarian procedures and for many victims that may remain the most appropriate avenue of protection.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) charges, (b) prosecutions, (c) convictions, (d) cautions and (e) fines there have been for breaches of the Hunting Act 2004 in each police force area since its enactment. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: Data provided by the Ministry of Justice showing the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts, found guilty and fined at all courts, for offences under the 2004 Hunting Act, in England and Wales, broken down by police force area from 2005 to 2007, are in table 1. Charging data are not collected centrally by the Ministry of Justice.
|Table 1: Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts, found guilty and fined at all courts, for offences under the 2004 Hunting Act, England and Wales, broken down by police force area, 2005( 1) to 2007( 2,3,4)
|(1) The 2004 Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005.
(2) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
(4) Only police force areas (PFAs) with data have been included in the tableif a PFA has not been included assume nil data.