|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 21 November 2007, Official Report, column 948W, on entry clearances, what methodology will be used to identify the location of applicants for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: As explained in my response to the previous question on this matter, the Border and Immigration Agency is currently assessing what changes may be required to its data collection in order to make more tailored information available to its partners, including local authorities.
Integral to this phase is defining what methodology the agency will use to collect the relevant data. Analysis on this matter has only just commenced and further work is required before a defined approach can be established.
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many grants of the right to remain in the UK were issued to applicants who entered the UK as work permit holders in each year since 2000. 
The available information on grants of leave and indefinite leave to remain can be found in the yearly Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom". This publication may be obtained from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics website:
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what legislation she may (a) deny entry to the UK to and (b) deport from the UK people whose presence is not conducive to the public good; on what occasions each power has been used in each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: The Secretary of State may exercise a non-statutory personal power to deny a foreign national entry to the UK if she considers from all the evidence available that an individuals presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good and that such a decision is justified in her opinion.
The principal power to deport a person on the ground that their deportation would be conducive to the public good is contained in section 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended). There is a corresponding power in regulation 19 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 in respect of EEA nationals and the family members of EEA nationals.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations she has received on amending the terms of the extradition treaty between the US and UK; what assessment she has made of those representations; and if she will make a statement. 
Jacqui Smith: Since 28 June the Home Office has handled 14 pieces of correspondence from hon. Members and members of the public on the subject of UK/US extradition arrangements. The hon. Gentleman himself also raised the issue with me in a recent meeting.
The representations supported inaccurate claims in the press that I was about to introduce an additional statutory bar to extradition called forum which could prevent extradition where a case could be tried in the UK.
The Government keep extradition legislation under review, but have no plans to introduce this additional bar, which would apply to all countries with which the UK has extradition relations, including the US. I am satisfied that the Extradition Act 2003 already contains full and effective safeguards for the rights of requested persons. Introducing a ground for refusal of extradition based on forum is not only unnecessary, but would make the Act operate in a manner that is inconsistent with all of the UKs bilateral extradition treatiesincluding the bilateral treaty between the UK and the US. It would also give rise to real practical difficulties for prosecutors and would risk allowing criminals to evade justice.
Home Office Ministers have consistently made it clear in Parliament and to the press that the new extradition treaty with the United States is not one-sided, and we are satisfied that the provisions ensure that extradition is dealt with under procedures that are as broadly comparable as it is possible to achieve between two different jurisdictions.
The UK/US extradition treaty means that both the UK and the US are under an international obligation to assist with extradition requests to the extent compatible with the law. The key issue is to ensure that offences are dealt with in the place where they can be most effectively prosecuted. Where the main witnesses and the main evidence are in another state, then it makes sense for the defendants to be extradited to face justice there.
Mr. Coaker: The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 made it an offence for a person under the age of 18 to buy an imitation firearm (including a BB gun), and to sell an imitation firearm to a person aged under 18. The Act also increased the minimum age at which a young person may purchase or hire an air weapon, or possess an air weapon without adult supervision, to 18; it made it an offence to sell, hire or make a gift of an air weapon to a person under 18; and it required that all commercial sales of air weapons must be through registered firearms dealers.
Mr. Coaker: The Government take all fraud seriously and believes that internet fraud is best prevented by raising the public's awareness of how they can be attacked online and advises them of how they can avoid their details and money being stolen.
To that end the Government support GetSafeOnline which is a joint Government and industry initiative which provides clear, accessible and up-to-date advice on the easy ways in which the public and small businesses can protect themselves and their PCs while using the internet.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the cost of (a) establishing and (b) running an e-borders system (i) excluding and (ii) including Northern Ireland. 
Mr. Byrne: The vision of e-Borders, in the context of developing a new concept of screening passengers before they travel to the UK, was first proposed in the White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven (CM 5387) published in February 2002.
Dr. Gibson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of replicated profiles on the National DNA Database; and how many of these are (a) multiple profiles of the same individual under (i) different and (ii) the same names, (b) identical twins or triplets and (c) adventitious matches between different individuals. 
Meg Hillier: It is estimated that at 31 October 2007 there were approximately 646,890 replicate profiles from individuals on the National DNA Database. If a crime scene profile matches replicate profiles from individuals, a match report showing all the apparent individuals matched will be sent to the force. Thus the presence of these replicate profiles does not impact on the effectiveness and integrity of the database. Nonetheless, a long term exercise is under way to identify issues associated with the removal of such redundant replicate profiles.
Of the 646,890 replicates, 107,966 are due to upgrading samples from the SGM to the SGM Plus method of analysing DNA. When the NDNAD was set up in 1995, the SM profiling system was used which looked at six areas of DNA plus the area sowing the persons sex. In 1999 SGM was replaced by SGM Plus which looks at 10 areas of DNA plus the sex area. SGM has a one in 50 million chance of being incorrect, and SGM Plus has a better than one in 1,000 million chance of being incorrect, when applied to the general population, though they are less discriminating between individuals who are related, or if matched against partial profiles from crime scenes i.e. where the DNA found at the crime scene is too degraded to look at all the relevant areas of DNA. It was decided when SGM Plus was introduced that it was too costly to reanalyse all the samples taken between 1995 and 1999 to upgrade them from SGM to SGM Plus. However, if a match occurs involving an SGM profile, or a partial
crime scene profile, the original samples are routinely reanalysed using SGM Plus to provide the best possible match. This may lead to the existence of both an SGM and an SGM Plus profile for the same person.
The information requested on the number of multiple profiles of the same individuals under different and the same names is not available. However, since July 2004 the NDNAD Custodians Data Quality and Integrity Team has been carrying out a programme to analyse replicate profiles of the SGM Plus type that are shown on two or more Police National Computer records. This work is in support of police operations and is not an exhaustive review of all replicates. It has revealed 3,752 pairs of false/dual identities on PNC where the owning force has now merged the PNC records, and 3,327 pairs of identical twins and five sets of identical triplets on the NDNAD. A marker is entered on the Police National Computer to alert officers to the existence of these twins or triplets.
Mr. Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the effect of the introduction of the EU anti-trafficking hotline on the level of human trafficking. 
Mr. Coaker: We foresee some difficulties with a proposed EU anti-trafficking hotline, including issues relating to the management and dissemination of information received and language difficulties. The value of a hotline over and above national arrangements and existing structures would have to be demonstrated.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will deny entry to the UK to Ibrahim Moussawi; what recent representations she has received about this person; and if she will make a statement. 
Meg Hillier: It is expected that the full cost of Identity Services provided by the National Identity Scheme will be recovered through charges to individuals and to private and public user organisations. A detailed charging strategy is still to be fully developed, although it is intended that running costs of the scheme will be recovered from fees just as they are now for passports.
The previous best estimate for the average unit cost of the combined passport and ID card package was £93, based on 2005 prices. A figure at 2007-08 prices would be subject to increase, in line with the rate of inflation. Decisions on the actual fee structure will be made before the first identity cards are issued and so it is not possible to give a precise figure for the cost of an identity card and passport package at present.
Mr. Byrne: The cost of investigations into employers who give jobs to illegal immigrants is not disaggregated from the overall costs of the Border and Immigration Agency and therefore not readily available. Any attempt to calculate the cost of investigations into employers who give jobs to illegal immigrants would need to take into account a large number of factors and this could be done only at disproportionate cost. However the total public spending for the Border and Immigration Agency is set out in the published Home Office Report, a copy of which is available in the House Library and on the Home Office website at:
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) injuries and (b) deaths there were per 1,000 of the population from (i) traffic accidents, (ii) assaults and (iii) other violent crimes in each year since 1997. 
The available recorded crime data is given in the following table. Figures for wounding and homicide per 1,000 population have been provided. However, the figures given in the table are not directly comparable due to an expansion in the offence coverage in 1998-99 and the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in 2002-03, both of which increased the amount of recorded crime significantly. These changes will have affected the calculations derived from the base figures.
|Number of offences per 1,000 population which resulted in wounding( 1) and homicide|
|Wounding offences per 1,000 population||Homicides per 1,000 population|
|(1) Recorded offences of more serious wounding or other act endangering life and less serious wounding (including racially or religiously aggravated).|
(2) Recorded crime statistics were collected on a calendar year basis up to 1998 and on a financial year basis thereafter.
(3) The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998.
(4) The number of offences recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.
(5) The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in April 2002. Figures before and after that date are not directly comparable.
(6) Includes the British Transport police from 2002-03 onwards.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|