Author: admin

  • Sarah Teather – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sarah Teather – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Teather on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Investigation into the Establishment of the Performance and Compliance Unit, published in May 2013, what steps have been taken in response to recommendation 1 of that report.

    James Brokenshire

    Following the reorganisations which flowed from the decision to bring the
    functions of the UK Border Agency back into direct ministerial control, the
    Performance and Compliance Unit no longer exists.

  • Sarah Teather – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sarah Teather – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Teather on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Inspection into the Handling of Asylum Applications made by Unaccompanied Children, published in October 2013, what steps have been taken in response to recommendations 1, 3, 4 and 8 of that report.

    James Brokenshire

    In response to recommendation 1, a clear and consistent approach has been
    adopted. A pilot was run shortly after the inspection that led to the adoption
    of a new screening process for unaccompanied children; this has led to
    increased consistency between the Home Office and local authorities. All
    initial screenings take place within five days of initial claim. Local
    Authorities are clearly responsible for facilitating the access to legal advice
    and responsible adults prior to the screening interview.

    In response to recommendation 3, this guidance and policy has been reinforced
    locally. The Asylum Casework Directorate has implemented new structures that
    offer better technical support for promoting and monitoring family tracing.
    This guidance has been reinforced locally in all teams through the creation of
    specialised family and minors teams in each regional location. Work is
    ongoing with the Foreign Office on new family tracing arrangements for volume
    UASC nationalities (Albanian and Afghan) that should help to expedite the
    tracing process in these countries. The practicality of specialised teams
    will be reviewed once all decision units are fully staffed.

    In response to recommendation 4, the move to a single national directorate has
    led to greater consistency and control of asylum case work. This has helped to
    address the consistency of operations and outcomes in each of the seven
    casework locations. Customer service standards have been reviewed with the
    expectation that straightforward claims can expect to receive their decision
    within six months. Unaccompanied children should receive their decisions
    quicker than that.

    In response to recommendation 8, as part of the ongoing continuous improvement
    programme decision letters have been reviewed and changed. Templates are now
    clearer, more concise and customer friendly. This new approach to producing
    more concise grant letters and minutes has been implemented whilst a pilot
    regarding refusal letters is underway.

  • Sarah Teather – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sarah Teather – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Teather on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Inspection of the UK Border Agency’s handling of legacy asylum and migration cases, published in November 2012, what steps have been taken in response to recommendation 1 of that report.

    Karen Bradley

    The Older Live Cases Unit routinely and regularly matches asylum and migration
    legacy cases against the Police National Computer (PNC) and Warnings Index (WI)
    records, until the point at which cases are finally concluded. The checks are
    undertaken on a rolling three monthly basis. Results are recorded on a bespoke
    database which informs the decision making process within the Older Live Cases
    Unit.

    Compliance with the recommendation was acknowledged by the Independent Chief
    Inspector of Borders and Immigration in his report, An investigation into the
    progress made on legacy asylum and migration cases January – March 2013,
    published in June 2013, where he stated, "security checks had been completed
    in each of the cases we sampled (144), indicating that the Agency had
    implemented our earlier recommendation to routinely and regularly
    match legacy cases against the PNC and WI until finally concluded."

  • Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Sawford on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many times an escaped person has been categorised as a high harm person and the senior management team believe there is a high risk of reputational damage to the Home Office as set out in the Home Office Guidance on Escaped Detainees at immigration removal centres in the last four years.

    Karen Bradley

    The Home Office does not routinely categorise immigration detainees against a
    scale of harm. They are instead subject to individual risk assessment linked
    to their suitability for placement in an immigration removal centre (IRC) which is
    based on a number of different factors.

    Where an escape or attempted escape from an IRC takes place, Criminal and
    Financial Investigation (CFI) immigration specialist teams will assist in the
    investigation where the individual is assessed to be a ‘high harm’ person, or
    where the senior management team believe there is a high risk of reputational
    damage to the Home Office.

    In the last four years the CFI team has conducted two investigations relating
    to escapes of individuals from escort who were assessed to fit the
    investigation criteria. There have not been any cases of escapes from an IRC
    which have warranted the involvement of the CFI.

    This data is management information and does not form part of published
    statistics and is not subject to the detailed checks that apply for National
    Statistics publications. It is provisional and subject to change.

  • Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Sawford on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of detainees who have escaped from detention or from escort in each of the last four years have been returned to detention.

    James Brokenshire

    The proportion of detainees who have escaped from detention or from escort in each of the last four years who have been returned to detention is 37% (7) of 19 detainees. One detainee was not returned to detention but located overseas. Major changes to the estate since 2010 have included the closure of the lower security site at Oakington Reception Centre in November 2010 and increased capacity at the higher security centre at Harmondsworth in July 2010. The management information above has been reached by the examination of individual records. It does not form part of published statistics and is not subject to the detailed checks that apply for National Statistics publications. It is provisional and subject to change.

  • Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Philip Davies – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the cost to the public purse of the police hunt for Michael Wheatley who absconded from HM Prison Standford Hill on 3 May 2014.

    Damian Green

    This information is not held centrally.

  • Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Sawford on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many times the Gold Suite has been opened at each Immigration Removal Centre in England and Wales in the last year; and what the nature was of each incident that caused it to be opened.

    Karen Bradley

    The Home Office command suite structure for the management of serious
    incidents is based on the model operated by the Prison Service. Silver Command
    Suites are opened in the establishment where the incident occurred.

    A Gold Command Suite is opened in Prison Service Headquarters for incidents
    where the Home Office requests mutual assistance from the Prison Service and is
    attended by a Home Office senior manager.

    Any other serious incident, which does not require mutual assistance but
    requires ongoing management, is dealt with by opening a Gold Command Suite at
    Detention Operations headquarters.

    The number of times Silver Suites have been opened in the past year in
    immigration removal centres is detailed in the table below for January 2013
    to March 2014 and is provided in line with the data periods for published statistics.

  • Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Sawford on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Immigration Removal Centre detainees have (a) escaped from detention, (b) escaped whilst being escorted and (c) attempted to escape each IRC in the last four years; and how many such people are still at large.

    Karen Bradley

    Escapes from immigration removal centres and while under escort are a subset of
    published statistics. The following table shows absconds for the financial
    years 2010/11-2013/14.

    Information on attempted escapes is not held centrally and could only be
    provided by examination of individual records at disproportionate cost.

    Eleven of those individuals recorded as escaped 2010/11-2013/14 have not been
    located.

    The police are informed immediately when a detainee has escaped and the
    individual’s details are recorded on the Police National Computer should the
    individual be apprehended at a later date.

    People leaving detention by place of last detention, absconded 2010/11-2013/14 (financial year) (1)(2).

    Year

    Absconded

    2010/2011

    Absconded from centre

    5

    Absconded from escorts

    3

    Total

    8

    2011/2012

    Absconded from centre

    3

    Absconded from escorts

    3

    Total

    6

    2012/2013

    Absconded from centre

    4

    Absconded from escorts

    1

    Total

    5

    2013/2014

    Absconded from centre

    0

    Absconded from escorts

    0

    Total

    0

    (1) Data from 2011/12 onwards are provisional.

    (2) Total detainees are those detained in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers and exclude those in police cells, Prison Service establishments, short term holding rooms at ports and airports (for less than 24 hours), and those recorded as detained under both criminal and immigration powers and their dependants.

  • Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Andy Sawford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Sawford on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) Red incidents and (b) Amber incidents have occurred at each Immigration Removal Centre in each of the last four years.

    Karen Bradley

    Incidents in the detention estate are reported in accordance with Detention
    Services Order (DSO) 12/2008. Incidents are classified according to their
    seriousness as red, amber or green.

    Examples of the types of red or amber incidents are given in the DSO. Red
    incidents are generally those relating to serious disturbances and/or fires
    within a centre. Amber incidents may be those involving threats to the centre,
    external demonstrations, or co-ordinated food or fluid refusal.

    This data has been collected by different business areas in the Home Office
    over the data period requested and has not been collated centrally.

    Management information is only available for the period 01 July 2013 – 9 March
    2014 in the following table and is in line with the data period for published
    statistics.

    This data is management information collected and collated from Immigration
    Removal Centre suppliers. This information does not form part of published
    statistics and is not subject to the detailed checks that apply for National
    Statistics publications. It is provisional and subject to change.

    Table showing incidents in immigration removal centres for the period 01 July 2013 – 9 March 2014 by status.

    IRC

    Red Incidents

    Amber Incidents

    Total of Incidents

    Brook House

    2

    59

    61

    Campsfield

    1

    14

    15

    Colnbrook

    4

    109

    113

    Dover

    1

    39

    40

    Dungavel

    0

    3

    3

    Harmondsworth

    0

    145

    145

    Haslar

    0

    2

    2

    Morton Hall

    6

    29

    35

    Tinsley House

    0

    17

    17

    Yarlswood

    1

    109

    110

    Total

    15

    528

    541

  • John Denham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    John Denham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Denham on 2014-06-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what her Department’s policy in funding overseas organisations that restict their employment to members of particular faiths.

    Lynne Featherstone

    DFID works to ensure that organisations supported do not discriminate. All DFID funding is subject to pre funding Due Diligence, which includes an analysis of the robustness of the organisation’s operational and commercial systems, processes and procedures, including compliance with relevant policies, legislation and regulations on discrimination.