| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Data Protection Requests
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many applications have been received by the Home Office from individuals requesting personal data held on them, under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, in each of the calendar years since the Act came into effect; and what was the cost of providing the information in each of these years.[HL4964]
Lord Filkin: The Home Office possesses records of data protection requests submitted in each of the two transitional periods that have followed the Act's initial implementation rather than by calendar year. The first transitional period lasted from March 2000 until October 2001 and the second from October 2001 until the present date. The numbers of data protection requests received by the central Home Office and its agencies are set out in the table below.
| 1st Transitional period | 2nd Transitional period | |
| Central Home Office (includes IND) | 24 | 253 |
| Prison Service | 35 | 627 |
| UKPS* | 3,024* | 3,024 |
| * | ||
| FSS | 7 | 20 |
| CRB | Not applicable | 8 |
*Figures are averages for the calendar years 2000 and 2001.
The central Home Office has not kept records of the cost of processing these requests, but some indication of the costs involved can be gained from figures provided by the Prison Service and UKPS. Of the
627 requests received by the Prison Service since October 2001, costs are estimated at £185,000, excluding stationery and postage costs, which were not recorded. The UK Passport Service estimates that it cost £86,000 in 2000 and £91,000 in 2001 to process the requests that it received.
Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultation they undertook with the Freight Transport Association regarding Schedule 8 (carriers' liability) to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill between the Bill's Second Reading in the House of Commons and tabling of amendments inserting Schedule 8 into the Bill.[HL5158]
Lord Filkin: Time pressures prevented us consulting with industry representatives befoe tabling our proposed amendments. To coincide with the tabling of the amendments, on 7 June we wrote to the Freight Transport Association and over 40 other interested parties to inform them of our proposals and to give them the opportunity to comment on the draft code of practice for determining the level of penalty. We have also made information about the proposed changes available on the Home Office's website where the draft code of practice may also be found.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure British Asian passport holders and their families who had previously been eligible under the special voucher scheme will not suffer any adverse consequences as a result of the scheme's abolition on 5 March during the transitional period prior to the enactment of the Nationality, Immigration and Asyum Bill.[HL5176]
Lord Filkin: Holders of British Overseas Citizen passports have not been able to apply for settlement under the special voucher scheme since its abolition on 5 March. If they currently wish to apply for settlement here, they have to qualify under the general provisions of the Immigration Rules. However, an announcement was made on 4 July that an amendment will be introduced to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill giving British Overseas Citizens the right to register as British citizens if they hold no other nationality and have not renounced any other nationality. Until this comes into effect, sympathetic consideration will be given to applications made outside the rules in cases of hardship where the applicant is solely British and has never renounced another nationality.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Filkin: Seven states have ratified the convention. Of these, Moldova has adopted Article 7,1d—the provision relating to seriously prejudicial conduct.
Sixteen states have signed but not yet ratified. We do not know what provision these states have made, except that Denmark, Germany, Italy and Russia have not taken advantage of Article 7,1d. France, on the other hand, already has these powers.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the practical consequences for British Asian passport holders and their families of the abolition of the special voucher system; and[HL5175]
Whether they are aware of any states party or states signatory to the European Convention on Nationality that takes advantage or intends to take advantage of the option in Article 7 of the convention to provide in its internal law for the deprivation of nationality by reason of conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state concerned; and, if so, whether they will publish details. [HL5212]
What are the reasons for the continuing failure since 6 November 1997 to sign the European Convention on Nationality on behalf of the United Kingdom. [HL5213]
18 Jul 2002 : Column WA173
Lord Filkin: Close examination of the convention led the Government to conclude that, because of the discrepancies between current British nationality law and the convention, it would not be possible to sign and ratify the convention without amending the law. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill provided the first legislative opportunity to bring forward the necessary amendments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they consider that Article 5 of the European Convention on Nationality which guarantees non-discrimination between the nationals of a state party, whether they are nationals by birth or have acquired its nationality subsequently, would permit a state party to equalise upwards as well as downwards.[HL5214]
Lord Filkin: Yes. We think it would so permit.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they intend to sign and ratify the European Convention on Nationality; and, if so, (a) whether they will consult Parliament before doing so; and (b) whether they will publish an explanatory memorandum describing in their reasons for wishing to ratify the convention and the consequences of ratification for United Kingdom law and practice. [HL5215]
Lord Filkin: If the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is enacted in its present form, we shall, once its provisions are brought into force, be in a position to sign and ratify the convention and would hope to do so. We would expect to sign the convention and lay it before Parliament with an explanatory memorandum.
Traffic Congestion: Greater London
Lord Hayhoe asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What reserve powers are available to Ministers to deal with severe instances of traffic congestion in Greater London. [HL5236]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): The Government have direct responsibility for the sections of the national motorway network within the Greater London area. They also have responsibility for the roads in the Royal Parks, but these roads are not public highways as such. All other roads are the responsibility of Transport for London or the relevant London local authority and Ministers have no powers to intervene to deal with traffic congestion.
Construction Industry: Safety
Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
- On how many occasions in 2000–01 and 2001–02 action was taken by the Health and Safety Executive in regard to dangerous or negligent practices on building sites and where inadequate arrangements threatened public safety. [HL5239]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) undertook over 40,000 contacts in the construction industry in 2000–01 and 2001–02. Public safety is one of the most important aspects that inspectors consider, especially where children might be at risk.
Inspectors have a range of powers available to them when they identify significant risks. These include informal verbal advice, a written report, service of an improvement notice or prohibition notice (stopping a particular activity) and/or prosecution.
The number of notices and prosecutions taken by HSE's Field Operations Directorate in connection with construction activities are set out in the table below.
Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on employers and self-employed persons to ensure the health and safety of persons who are not their employees. The number of notices and prosecutions under this section where reference was made specifically to "public" or "child" in 2000–01 and 2001–02 is also set out below.
| 2000–01 | 2001–02 | |
| Improvement and Prohibition Notices issued | 2,576 | 2,732 |
| Improvement and Prohibition Notices under S3 HSW referring to "children" or "the public" | 110 | 106 |
| Legal proceedings instituted | 637 | 556 |
| Legal proceedings under S3 HSW referring to "children" or "the public" | 36 | 15 |
Notes:
1. Figures for 2001–02 are provisional
2. Construction industry indentified by SIC 45.
In addition HSE's Field Operations Directorate investigated over 8,000 construction complaints in each of the past two years. A significant number of these complaints concerned the safety of members of the public in relation to construction work, although it is not possible to break this number down further.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page