|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals who do not work for his Department, its executive agencies, or sponsored non-departmental public bodies, had applied for a voluntary national identity card on the latest date for which figures are available. 
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to detain asylum seekers and immigrants whose deportation is not imminent and who are not considered to be a serious threat to society; and if he will make a statement. 
Detention is an essential component in maintaining an effective immigration control. It is usually appropriate in the following circumstances: initially,
while a person's identity or basis of claim is being established; where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person will fail to comply with the conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or release; as part of a fast-track asylum process; or to effect removal.
The decision to detain is made on case by case basis taking account of the individual circumstances in each case. Imminence of removal and risk of harm to the public are factors, among others, considered in reaching a decision.
Detention is kept to the minimum period necessary for the purpose for which it was authorised and is not unduly prolonged. Individuals may prolong their own detention by, for example, refusing to cooperate with the redocumentation process or by frustrating lawful attempts at removal. Detention in each individual case is subject to review at increasingly senior levels within the UK Border Agency to ensure that it only lasts as long as it continues to be justified and necessary.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he expects the target of deciding all applications for a residence card as the spouse of an EEA national within six months to be met. 
Mr. Woolas: UKBA has made significant progress to bring European applications within service standards. All new complete applications for residence cards submitted from 29 July 2009 onwards are being dealt with within six months
Of the remaining cases, a significant proportion are complex or were not submitted with adequate supporting information. To address this issue the agency has written to affected applicants and-once the required documentation is provided-the cases will be concluded. All such cases should be resolved by early 2010.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that the target of deciding all applications for a residence card as the spouse of an EEA national within six months is met. 
Mr. Woolas: UKBA has made significant progress to bring all European applications within service standards. All new complete European applications submitted from 29 July 2009 onwards are being dealt with within service standards with complete EEA1 applications currently decided and dispatched within a matter of working days.
UK Border Agency has reduced the number of outstanding cases from approximately 77,000 in April to 38,000 in November. This has been done through a combination of interventions; increased resources, process improvement and performance management focus.
Of the remaining cases, a significant proportion are complex or were not submitted with adequate supporting information. To address this issue the Agency has written to affected applicants and-once the required documentation is provided-the cases will be concluded. All such cases should be resolved by early 2010.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on (a) individual support orders and (b) intervention orders in each of the last three years. 
Mr. Alan Campbell: The Home Office grant to the Youth Justice Board for prevention work has been £15 million for 2009-10, £18 million for 2008-09 and £21 million for 2007-08. This forms part of the overall Youth Justice Board budget of £32 million for evidence-based targeted prevention programmes such Youth Inclusion Support Panels. ISOs are one of the interventions funded from this budget.
The Home Office does not directly fund intervention orders. However, funding to tackle drugs related crime and antisocial behaviour is provided to local areas to deliver drug intervention programmes. These programmes are delivered through Drug Action Teams (DATs), using Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs) who adopt a case management approach to working with drug-misusing offenders, some of whom will be subject to intervention orders.
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has entered into any contracts with Kellogg, Brown and Root or its subsidiaries since January 2009. 
Data showing the breakdown of parenting orders issued for the period 30 September 1998 and 31 March 2000 are not available. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) has since April 2000 collected the number of parenting orders issued by youth offending team (YOT) area, as reported to it by youth offending teams including education-related orders where the YOT has been involved. Since September 2004, the Department for Children, Schools and Families has collected data on the number of parenting orders issued in England related to non-attendance of children at school and exclusion from school at local authority level.
Breach of a parenting order is a criminal offence. Information showing the number of persons proven at court to have breached a parenting order from 2003 to 2007 (latest available) is shown in table B. Data for 2008 are planned for publication on 28 January 2010.
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.
|Table A: Parenting orders by legal basis England and Wales YOTs|
|England and Wales||2000-01||2001-02||2002-03||2003-04||2004-05||2005-06||2006-07||2007-08||Total|
Data for Education and Free Standing-LEA categories may not be complete, as YOTs are not always informed of these parenting orders
|Table B: Number of defendants proven at court to have breached a parenting order, under section 9(7) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, from 2003 to 2007( 1)|
|(1) 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.|
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people received (a) four, (b) five, (c) six, (d) seven, (e) eight, (f) nine and (g) 10 or more police cautions in each year since 1997; 
|Numbers of offenders receiving different numbers of cautions( 1) in each year: England and Wales|
|Number of offenders receiving:|
|1 caution||2 cautions||3 cautions||4 cautions||5 cautions||6 cautions||7 cautions||8 cautions||9 cautions||10 or more cautions|
|(1) Figures include reprimands and final warnings|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|