|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): The joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office-Home Office Forced Marriage Unit helps British nationals in the UK and overseas facing the threat of and living with the consequences of forced marriage. The unit works closely with other agencies in the UK, such as the Ministry of Justice, the police, social services and specialist non-governmental organisations. Our embassies overseas provide direct support to victims and potential victims of forced marriage. This can include rescue and repatriation to the UK. The unit has published guidelines for agencies working with forced marriage victims. These will be placed on a statutory footing with the implementation of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act later this year. The unit carries out an extensive outreach programme to raise awareness of the issue and of the support services that they offer.
What guidance, proposals or instructions have been issued or what arrangements have been made to ensure that the staffing of Ministers' private offices reflects the proportion of ethnic minorities in the Civil Service or in the United Kingdom. [HL1380]
Lord Davies of Oldham: All departments and agencies are taking forward action through the 10-point plan on delivering a diverse Civil Service to ensure that the Civil Service is as representative as possible of the wider population.
Whether any projects in HM Treasury have been suspended or delayed due to concerns about identity security; if so, which projects have been delayed; and what the impact on the overall performance and work of the Treasury will be. [HL1567]
On what date the decision in the Immigration and Asylum Appeal Tribunal in the case of Anna Zurabishvili (No. VA/27417/2007) was communicated to the entry clearance officer at the British embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia. [HL1604]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): The entry clearance officer at our embassy in Tbilisi received the Asylum and Immigration Tribunals decision on Ms Zurabishvili's appeal on 28 January. The Home Office had sent it by diplomatic bag on 14 January.
What was the deemed date of receipt of the decision in the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Tribunal in the case of Anna Zurabishvili (No. VA/27417/2007) by the entry clearance officer at the British embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia. [HL1605]
Lord Malloch-Brown: The entry clearance officer at our embassy in Tbilisi received the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's (AIT) decision on Ms Zurabishvilis appeal on 28 January. The Home Office had sent it by diplomatic bag on 14 January. The decision, promulgated by the AIT on 19 December 2007, will have been deemed to have been received by the Home Office presenting officer (the respondents representative) five days after the date of promulgation (on 24 December 2007).
On what date the appeal submission in the name of Nino Trollope in the case of a visa application by Anna Zurabishvili of Georgia was first considered by the entry clearance officer at the British embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia. [HL1606]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We continue to monitor the situation with regard to all Palestinian prisoners. Most Palestinian prisoners have been tried by Israeli courts and have the right of appeal. However, we do have concerns about Palestinian prisoners that are being held in administrative detention. All Palestinian prisoners should have access to a fair trial and we call on Israel to ensure that any actions are in accordance with international law. We will continue to raise our concerns with the Israeli authorities.
We are in close contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which monitors conditions in Israeli prisons. Where appropriate we raise our concerns with the Israeli authorities. The Israeli Prison Service has stressed its commitment to honouring its international obligations with regard to the humane and dignified treatment of prisoners.
What are the estimated numbers of people and estimated costs for (1) 2010; (2) 2020; (3) 2030; (4) 2040; and (5) 2050 for United Kingdom residents and for non-United Kingdom residents respectively of purchasing an additional six years and nine years respectively of additional national insurance contributions assuming 6 per cent and 15 per cent take-up rates if purchasing those additional years were available (a) only to those who already had 10 years national insurance contributions; (b) only to those who already had 15 years national insurance contributions; and (c) only to those who already had 20 years national insurance contributions. [HL1123]
What was the median income distribution by deciles, and the number of men and women respectively, of both United Kingdom residents and non-United Kingdom residents respectively, buying additional class 3 voluntary national insurance contributions for the past three years for which figures are available; and [HL1362]
What is the median income distribution by deciles, and the number of men and women respectively, of both United Kingdom residents and non-United Kingdom residents respectively, assuming a six per cent and a 15 per cent take up, who might buy an additional nine years of class 3 voluntary national insurance contributions (above and beyond any existing entitlement) in 2009, 2010, 2015 and 2020. [HL1363]
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The information is not available. The payment of class 3 national insurance contributions is voluntary. The rates are set annually and are not based on a person's income. There is, therefore, no business requirement to collect or record such information.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The Government have not received any proposals on the use of non-UK police forces in support of security of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. We will consider any such proposals carefully. Policing in the UK is carried out
4 Feb 2008 : Column WA158
Whether there is any quantification of the estimated contribution which the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games will make to reducing poverty, deprivation and inequalities among families and households in London. [HL1189]
Lord Davies of Oldham: The 2012 Games will bring significant improvements in terms of skills training, new jobs and better quality of life, particularly in the host boroughs of Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest. Key stakeholders are working together to deliver programmes in these areas which will contribute to reducing poverty, deprivation and inequality. The impact of these programmes will be monitored and evaluated, and as data become available they will be put in the public domain.
How many sets of (a) fingerprints, and (b) biological samples have been taken by police from individuals who were arrested for a recordable offence and were (1) not charged, and (2) subsequently acquitted. [HL1311]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): No information is held centrally on the number of individuals who have had fingerprints and DNA samples taken without consent in connection with a non-imprisonable offence.
Data on arrest and criminal histories such as subsequent charges, convictions and acquittals are not held on the National Fingerprint Database (IDENTI) or the National DNA Database (NDNAD), but are held on the Police National Computer (PNC). Such data, including data on the number of persons arrested for a recordable offence, have their fingerprints and DNA taken and who were (1) not charged or (2) acquitted are not available routinely at present, but the National Policing Improvement Agency which has responsibility for the delivery of NDNAD services is working towards being able to provide such data regularly from the NDNAD and PNC. The information requested could be obtained currently only at disproportionate cost by cross-searching all the records retained for such person on the PNC.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the police have the power indefinitely to retain profiles on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) derived from samples taken from persons arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted. While the decision on whether to agree to a request from an individual to have their DNA profile removed from the NDNAD lies with the chief officer of the force which took the sample, profiles will normally be retained unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) issued guidance to chief officers on the consideration of applications for removal at the end of January 2006. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Andy Burnham, made a Written Ministerial Statement relating to the guidance on 16 February 2006, (Official Report, col.11 7WS) a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
ACPO has tasked a specialist unit within Hampshire constabulary (known as ACPO Criminal Record Office (ACPO CRO)) to assist chief officers in arriving at a decision, by providing examples of how requests have been dealt with in other forces and offering advice. However, the final decision remains with chief officers, who are not obliged to refer cases to ACPO CRO or to agree with its recommendations.
The procedure recommended by ACPO CRO is that, on receipt of a request for deletion, the force should ensure that sufficient detail is available to identify the applicant correctly. The applicant will be invited to state the grounds upon which they believe their case to be exceptional. The chief officer is asked to consider any response and either reply to the applicant rejecting the application for the removal of the record(s), or refer the case papers to ACPO CRO, who will provide advice based on any relevant precedents held.
The chief officer will then decide whether to retain or remove the record(s), and respond directly to the applicant with notification of this decision. If it is decided to remove the profile, the police force will inform the NDNAD, and the profile concerned will be removed.
Whether the European Court of Human Rights has heard any cases arising from the deportation from Russia since 2006 of Georgian citizens
4 Feb 2008 : Column WA160
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): The European Court of Human Rights is an independent judicial body. Allocation and processing of cases is a matter for the court. All publicly available information on execution of judgments can be found on the website of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/execution.
Whether the complainants in the cases of Bitiyera and X v Russia (No. 57953/00 and No. 37392/03) and Musayev and Others v Russia (No. 57941/00 and No. 58699/00 and No. 60403/00) have received the damages awarded to them by the European Court of Human Rights. [HL1541]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): In accordance with Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
Information on execution of judgments is publicly available on the Council of Europe website at: www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/execution.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): The European Court of Human Rights is an independent judicial body. Allocation and processing of cases is a matter for the court. The UK is a consistent supporter of the European Court of Human Rights and a strong advocate of reform measures to improve its effectiveness. An efficient court is essential for the promotion and protection of human rights.
Both the UK and Russia agree on the need for reform of the court to ensure that it functions more effectively. The UK believes that Protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights must be implemented to achieve this goal. We are disappointed that Russia is the only Council of Europe member state not to have ratified the protocol. We, in concert with the majority of Council of Europe member states, the EU presidency and other EU member states have called on Russia to ratify Protocol 14 swiftly.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|