|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the role and responsibilities are of the Home Office Diversity Champion; what the cost to public funds of his activities has been to date; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: The primary role of the Home Office Diversity Champion is to support the Group Executive Board (GEB) to take personal ownership of race and diversity and to demonstrate leadership within their areas of command.
The role of Home Office GEB Diversity Champion is carried out by Derrick Anderson who was appointed as a non-executive director of the Home Office as a local government advisor in 2001 and took on the role of Diversity Champion on a voluntary basis for which no additional remuneration is paid.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost to public funds is of his Department's five-year race and diversity programme; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: The Home Office promotes its equality and diversity agenda in developing policies on its range of public responsibilities and in its treatment of its staff through a five-year race and diversity programme. The annual cost of the team which has responsibility for delivering the programme is approximately £900,000. The programme covers the Home Office group and devolved areas including the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Her Majesty's Prison Service and UK Passport Service.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria were used in deciding to use low copy number DNA analysis in police investigations; and if he will make a statement. 
Joan Ryan: Police forces typically only consider using low copy number DNA in serious crime when other options have been exhausted. Low copy number (LCN) DNA analysis is a specialist DNA service and the decision to use it is purely a police operational matter. In view of the additional complexity of interpretation and cost implications of using LCN DNA analysis, each submission to a laboratory during an investigation will be considered on a case-by-case basis following discussion with the force Scientific Support Unit. Forces are now developing strict evaluation criteria for its use in serious crime.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards the Government have put in place to ensure that DNA mismatches of people on the National DNA Database who were not present at the crime scene do not occur; and if he will make a statement. 
Joan Ryan: The discriminating power of the 10 marker system for profiling DNA (SGM+) is very high and while the probabilities vary with the features of the particular profile, e.g. if the profile is degraded or only a partial profile, the probability of a chance or adventitious match with a full SGM+ to SGM+ is generally less than one in a billion. In any event, the Crown Prosecution Service makes it very clear that in every case involving a DNA profile there must also be appropriate supporting evidence before a case can
proceed. It follows that any prosecution should be based on a DNA profile and other admissible and credible evidence.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times crime scene DNA has been matched with the DNA of an innocent passer-by since the introduction of the National DNA Database; and if he will make a statement. 
Joan Ryan: There is no known case of an innocent passer-by being wrongly convicted solely on the basis of their DNA being found at a crime scene. A match between DNA taken from an individual and that from a crime scene is intelligence, indicating that the individual has been present at the scene. The police and Crown Prosecution Service take account of the fact that there may be an innocent explanation for this. Home Office Circular 58/2004 to chief officers states that there should be further supporting evidence, in addition to the match, before someone is charged. This is also reflected in guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and additionally the Crown Prosecution Service make it very clear that in every case involving a DNA profile, there must also be appropriate supporting evidence before a case can proceed.
Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from (a) the Austrian presidency, (b) the European Commission, (c) the European Parliament, (d) Europol and (e) other European partners on the future of Europol; and if he will make a statement. 
Ms Diana R. Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many penalty notices have been issued in relation to the illegal use of fireworks in (a) Kingston upon Hull, North, and (b) the Humberside police force area since the relevant legislation was introduced. 
Mr. Byrne: Data from the penalty notices for disorder (PND) database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform showing the number of males and females issued with penalty notices for fireworks in Humberside police force area 2004, as well as provisional data for 2005, are provided in the following table.
The provisions for the new offences in the Fireworks Regulations 2004 came into force on 7 August 2004. The offences were added to the PND scheme with effect from 11 October 2004. The offence of throwing fireworks has been included in the scheme from the start.
|Number of penalty notices for disorder issued for fireworks offences, Humberside Police force area, 2004 and 2005 provisional data|
|(1 )Provisional data Source: RDSOffice for Criminal Justice Reform|
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of the Forensic Science Service Annual Report and Accounts 2004-05 were distributed by his Department; if he will list those who were sent copies; at what cost; how many copies were printed; at what cost; who was awarded the contract to undertake the printing; how (a) hon. Members, (b) members of the House of Lords and (c) members of the public may obtain a copy; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. 
Joan Ryan: For the year 2004-05, Forensic Science Service Ltd. (FSS) printed 1,000 copies of the Forensic Science Service Annual Report and Accounts. Two hundred and fifty copies were issued to The Stationery Office. Of the remaining copies, an initial quantity of approximately 250 copies were distributed internally to eight laboratory facilities across the FSS. The UK Criminal Justice System Division has sent either hard or soft (cd rom) copies of the annual report to police forces upon request in response to police tenders or other enquiries. Forty copies have also been distributed to non-police customers of FSS Ltd. by the New Business Division.
Hon. Members, Members of the House of Lords and members of the public may either purchase a hard copy from the Stationery Office or Amazon for £13.50, or alternatively a copy may be downloaded from the website of FSS Ltd., www.forensic.gov.uk .
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders who have been released on Home Detention Curfew since April 2005 were not tagged on the day they were released. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The number of people released on Home Detention Curfew between 1 April 2005 and 30 April 2006 was 17,843. These statistics are based on information recorded on the central prison IT system on 30 April 2006. Further updates and amendments may be made to records in future resulting in revised figures.
The statistics on the number of cases where the tag was not fitted on the day of release have been provided by the electronic monitoring service providers. A total of 1,244 (7 per cent.) did not have their tag fitted on the day of release.
In the great majority of those cases (1,039, or 5.8 per cent. of the total) this was because the offender was not present at the curfew address or the monitoring company was refused access. A second failed attempt to fit the tag will result in the offender being recalled to prison.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list areas of policy responsibility which have been transferred (a) from the Home Office to other departments and (b) to the Home Office from other departments since 1997. 
(a) the Monarchy
(c) ceremonial matters
(d) the relationship between the administration of any of the Channel Islands or of the Isle of Man and the Crown or a Minister of the Crown
(e) human rights
(f) bodies or organisations established or incorporated by Royal Charter
(h) ecclesiastical matters
(j) access to information (including, in particular, the subject matter of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000), and
(k) buildings and structures in London
(c) liquor licensing,
(d) late night refreshment
(e) public entertainments
(f) video recording (including, in particular, the subject matter of the Video Recordings Act 1984), and
(g) films (including, in particular, the subject matter of the Cinemas Act 1985).
(a) street trading and pedlars, and
(a) fire services and fire precautions (including, in particular, the subject matter of the Fire Services Act 1947 and the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and any provision which relates, or in so far as it relates, to a fire authority)
(b) elections, and
(a) work permit functions.
(a) appointing a member of the Poisons Board under Schedule one to the Poisons Act 1972.
(a) appointing a Conservator under section 12 of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) males and (b) females were (i) prosecuted and (ii) convicted of an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 in each year since 1976. 
Mr. Byrne: Data from the Court Proceedings Database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform for the number of males and females (i) prosecuted and (ii) convicted of an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 in England and Wales for the years 1984 to 2004 can be found in the following table.
|Number of males and females prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts, under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 in England and Wales, 1984 to 2004( 1)|
|(1)These data are provided on the principal offence basis. (2) Nil|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|