|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
27 Jan 2009 : Column 284Wcontinued
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residents of Peterborough constituency are appealing against decisions not to grant them indefinite leave to remain; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Woolas [holding answer 20 January 2009]: Information on the number of residents in the constituency of Peterborough who are appealing against decisions not to grant them indefinite leave to remain is not available.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 13 January 2009 to question 246149, in what format and at what location, information on individuals awaiting determination in respect of applications for indefinite leave to remain in Peterborough is held; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Woolas [holding answer 20 January 2009]: When an application for indefinite leave to remain is received into UK Border Agency, both a paper file and an electronic record are raised at the same time.
Our electronic database is called the case information database (CID) and management information is extracted using fixed datasets at any given point in time.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 13 January 2009 to question 246149, what her estimate is of the cost of ascertaining how many individuals in Peterborough have been awaiting determination of their applications for indefinite leave to remain since May 2005; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Woolas [holding answer 20 January 2009]: Producing retrospective management information reports on previous outstanding work in progress is not possible, as the data will have changed as cases are received and cleared. In order to provide this information each individual record would have to be manually identified and analysed before producing a summary report at a disproportionate cost.
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her policy is on the repatriation to their country of origin of non-UK nationals who fear persecution on religious grounds following their return. 
Mr. Woolas: The United Kingdom is a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ("Refugee Convention"). Each claim for asylum is considered on its individual merits by specially trained caseworkers to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country of nationality or habitual residence for one of the reasons set out in the Refugee Convention. These are reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
The UK is also a signatory to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly referred to as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This precludes the UK from removing certain people to another country, where for example, removing them would expose them to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Applicants who engage our protection obligations are granted leave to remain in the UK. Individuals whom the asylum decision-making process, and the independent appeal process where a suspensive appeal right exists, have found not to need international protection and who do not have the right to remain in the United Kingdom are expected to leave the UK voluntarily. If they fail to do so, the UK Border Agency will seek to enforce their return where it is satisfied that it is safe to do so.
The UK Border Agency may return an asylum seeker to a country other than their country of origin where the provisions of the Dublin Convention apply. In addition, the United Kingdom is signatory to a number of bilateral and European Community Readmission Agreements. In certain circumstances these agreements can be utilised to affect the removal of an illegal migrant to a signatory state that a person can be proven to have transited directly en route to the UK, rather than their country of origin. The United Kingdom would, however, be obliged to consider any claim for international protection under the Refugee Convention before that person could be removed to the transit country, except in cases where they qualified to be removed under the Dublin Convention.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reservations her Department is seeking in relation to the ratification of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Woolas: The Home Office will lodge a reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to protect the primacy of domestic immigration legislation and enable differential treatment on health grounds and related issues. The reservation is necessary primarily to protect public health. Immigration functions are and will remain subject to domestic legislation in regard to disability discrimination, and the reservation will have no effect on existing provisions.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of drivers who were breath-tested failed the test during January in each year since 2004. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: The information requested on breath tests and the number and percentage positive/refused covering 2004 to 2006 (latest available) is provided in the following table.
Data for 2007 are due to be published in April 2009.
|Screening breath tests and number and percentage positive or refused in January of each year, England and Wales 2004-06( 1)|
|Total tests||Positive/refused||Percentage positive/refused|
|(1) Following a comparison between the number of positive breath tests reported by each police force in 2006 and the number of court proceedings for drink/driving related offences, it became clear that there was under-reporting in a number of forces. As a result Essex, Humberside, Lancashire, Norfolk, Northumbria, Staffordshire, Dyfed-Powys, Gwent and South Wales court proceedings figures have been substituted for the positive breath test figures. Similar adjustments were also made to various forces data between 1998 and 2005.|
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for (a) possession of and (b) dealing in ecstasy in each of the last 10 years. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: Data provided by the Ministry of Justice, showing the number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts for the possession of and dealing in Ecstasy in England and Wales from 1998 to 2007 (latest available) are given in the following table.
The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence 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.
|Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for the possession of and dealing in Ecstasy( 1) , England and Wales, 1998 to 2007( 2,)( )( 3)|
|Offence||1998||1999||2000||2001||( 4) 2002||2003||2004||2005||2006||2007|
|(1) Methylenedioxymethamphetamine or MDMA is most commonly known as Ecstasy.|
(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) Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.
Evidence and Analysis Unit - Office for Criminal Justice Reform
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visa applicants from mainland China have had their applications refused in each of the last three years; of those how many have appealed; how many such appeals have succeeded; and how many decisions have been withdrawn prior to determination of the appeal. 
Mr. Woolas: The following provides requested statistics received in mainland China at our embassy in Beijing and the Consulate-Generals in Shanghai, Chongqing and Guangzhou. The number of appeals received in each year does not directly correspond to the number of determinations received as the appeal process takes time and results are received in subsequent years.
The number of determinations received and the results of those determinations are included to give a more accurate representation of decisions on appealed cases.
|UK Border AgencyDeterminations and appeals from Mainland China|
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she expects the UK to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: The Government are currently following the process for ratification of treaties and we believe that the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime will be completed by April 2009.
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been extradited to the United States since 2003; and for what alleged offences they have been extradited. 
Meg Hillier: 63 persons have been extradited from the United Kingdom to the United States since 2003.
The offences for which those persons were sought are as follows:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|