| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Immigration Staff
Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What proportion of customer-facing Immigration Service officials at:
(a) Heathrow Airport;
(b) Gatwick Airport; and
(c) Waterloo International Station are of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin.[HL2806]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): Central personnel records do not distinguish between "customer-facing" Immigration Service officials and Immigration Service staff in general.
The percentages given are of those staff whose ethnic origin is centrally recorded. However, ethnicity is recorded on a voluntary basis and so these statistics refer only to those staff who answered the question on ethnicity in a staff survey conducted in 2000 and do not cover all Immigration Service personnel.
The proportion of Immigration Service staff of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin is as follows:
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Rooker: In internal law and practice the definitions of this state generally refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In domestic law, the Interpretation Act 1978 (Schedule 1) sets out that references in any Act to "British Islands" means the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The United Kingdom means Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Rooker: The title and subtitle to the White Paper do not have legal effect, although the reference to "Britain" in the subtitle was intended to cover the widest possible definition of the British islands.
The Government have no plans to change the law in order to devolve responsibility for immigration to Northern Ireland.
Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Rooker: A voluntary departure is where an asylum seeker withdraws their asylum claim before all appeal rights have been exhausted and wishes to leave the United Kingdom. In all cases they are asked to sign a disclaimer confirming that they wish to leave prior to the conclusion of their application.
Some individuals make themselves known to the Immigration Service at the point of embarkation, for example, in order to collect ticketing and other documentation. The Immigration Service will confirm with the carrier that individuals have departed from the United Kingdom.
If an individual does not inform the Immigration Service of his intentions and obtains his/her own documents, we may not be aware that he/she has departed from the United Kingdom.
Where a person is voluntarily leaving the United Kingdom under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme (VARP), operated on behalf of the Home Office by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), she/he will be assisted at the airport by the IOM. Before the flight leaves, the individual is required to sign a disclaimer confirming that the departure is voluntary. The IOM's London office advises IOM offices in the destination country and any transit country of the departure and notifies the Home Office.
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Rooker: The existing arrangements to seek bail from a chief immigration officer or an adjudicator will be available to persons held in immigration removal centres.
Lord Eames asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have plans to provide an alternative to prison detention in Northern Ireland for those persons seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. [HL2883]
Lord Rooker: We are satisfied with the arrangements made at Her Majesty's (HM) Prison Maghaberry for the detention of asylum seekers and others but would accept that it is not an ideal situation. As a result, and following our review of immigration detention in Northern Ireland, we have instituted a policy of transferring persons detained in Northern Ireland to immigration removal centres on the mainland unless a specific request is made to stay in Northern Ireland, in which case the detainee in question will continue to be held at HM Prison Maghaberry. There remain no plans to establish a dedicated immigration detention facility in Northern Ireland.
Lord Bragg asked Her Majesty's Government:
Afro-Caribbean Asian
Heathrow Airport 1.90% 21.87%
Gatwick Airport 2.68% 7.14%
Waterloo International 1.85% 12.04%
Given that the subtitle of the White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven refers to "Britain", what is the name of this state in (a) international law and practice; and (b) in domestic law.[HL2838]
Given that immigration is an excepted matter under paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, why the White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven refers in the subtitle only to "Britain"; and whether it is proposed to change the law in order to devolve responsibility for immigration to Northern Ireland.[HL2839]
What measures are taken to ensure that those who are refused asylum and who agree to depart voluntarily actually do.[HL2847]
What bail arrangements will be available at immigration removal detention centres.[HL2872]
Whether they are satisfied with the current arrangements at HM Prison Maghaberry in Northern Ireland for the detention of those seeking asylum in the United Kingdom; and [HL2881]
What plans they have for the use of the private sector in the Prison Service. [HL2960]
26 Feb 2002 : Column WA225
Lord Rooker: We have today placed a report of a review which my right honourable friend the former Home Secretary (Jack Straw) asked Patrick Carter, a non-executive member of the Strategy Board for Correctional Services, to carry out on the future role of the private sector in the prison system.
We believe that a mixed economy of provision is essential in achieving a modern, dynamic Prison Service.
We are grateful to Patrick Carter for his report, which shows how much the private sector has achieved to date in providing high quality prison services at lower cost. The report also shows how well the public sector prison service has responded to the challenge of private sector competition.
Both the public and the private sectors are important to the future of the Prision Service. Both can show big successes that benefit prisoners and the public. We want to create conditions in which both can flourish but in which both have to continually prove themselves. We believe the overall thrust of the recommendations of the report will achieve this. Some can be implemented straightaway but others need further work or will have to be subject to discussions in the current spending review and our wider vision for modernising the Prison Service.
The proposal that under-performing prisons should be required to show how they will meet tough benchmarked standards or face contracting out or closure offers the potential for big improvements in performance and value for money.
The report also provides a welcome contribution to finding ways of bringing the ageing prison estate into the 21st century. We will consider this as part of our current assessment of the options for providing a range of carefully targeted new approaches to dealing with offenders and the spending review.
We note the recommendation for a limited programme of market testing. For the moment, we believe the performance testing process we have announced offers a better, faster and cheaper means of improvement. But we do not rule out using market testing again in the future.
The private sector has demonstrated that it can make a valuable contribution to the delivery of a high quality service by prisons. This report outlines a way ahead for their continued involvement.
Attorney-General's Department DEL
Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether there are any plans to change the Attorney-General's Department's departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit for 2001–02. [HL2900]
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Attorney-General's Department's DEL will be increased by £8,681,000, from £451,563,000 to £460,244,000, and the administration costs limits will be increased by £7,731,000, from £322,103,000 to £329,834,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is set out in the following table:
| Resources | Capital
| Change | New DEL | Of Which voted | Non-voted | Change | New DEL | Of Which voted | Non-voted
| |
| 6,362 | 436,276 | 426,276 | 10,000 | 2,319 | 23,968 | 23,968 | – |
The Crown Prosecution Service's DEL will be increased by £8,286,000, from £414,893,000 to £423,179,000, and the administration costs limit will be increased by £7,267,000, from £296,974,000 to £304,241,000. The increase in the resource element of the DEL arises from speeding up the reform of the CPS to allow it to contribute fully to criminal justice targets, implementation of extended court sitting hours and the provision of resources for the CPS prosecutor recovered assets training project. The decrease in DEL arises from the transfer of £120,000 to the Home Office in respect of the CPS's contribution to CJIU. The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the take up of £2,000,000 of end year flexibility entitlement and a transfer of resources from the Home Office to support the video recording of police interviews. The decrease in capital arises from the return to the Home Office of £150,000 of Capital Modernisation Fund resources.
HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor's Department DEL will be decreased by £105,000, from
The Serious Fraud Office's DEL will be increased by £500,000, from £20,925,000 to £21,425,000, and the administration costs limit will be increased by £500,000, from £14,415,000 to £14,915,000. The increase in the resource element of the DEL arises from development of the Docman information support system and funding of early retirements in support of restructuring of the Serious Fraud Office to enable it to contribute fully to criminal justice targets.
The increases will be entirely met by a transfer from the Criminal Justice System reserve, transfers from the
The additional expenditure will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page