Author: admin

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Thangam Debbonaire on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people who applied for UK citizenship applied for an exemption from the written life in the UK test between June 2014 and June 2016; and how many such applications were refused.

    James Brokenshire

    The Secretary of State may waive the Knowledge of Language and Life in the UK requirement for British citizenship on the basis of a person’s age, physical or mental condition.

    A person will normally be exempted from this requirement if they provide evidence from an appropriate medical practitioner that their condition is so severe that it prevents them from being able to learn English or prepare for or sit an English test or the Life in the UK test. Each application is considered on its own merits.

    Information cannot be obtained from UKVI data systems to show how many exemption requests were made and granted. This information could only be obtained from looking at individual records at disproportionate cost.

  • Tim Farron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Tim Farron – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Farron on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she plans to deploy British police officers to popular holiday resorts abroad as a result of the outcome of the pilot scheme in summer 2015.

    Mike Penning

    The deployment of police resources is an operational matter for Chief Constables. However, any deployments overseas to provide advice or assistance to a foreign government must be approved by the Home Secretary under the provisions of Section 26 of the Police Act (1996). No decision has been made regarding any future deployments following last year’s pilot.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the current average waiting time is for the completion of pre-employment checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service; and if she will make a statement.

    Karen Bradley

    Performance data for the Disclosure and Barring Service for March 2016 indicates that average processing time for DBS applications was 14.8 days. Certificates dispatched to applicants by the DBS in March 2016 involving (a) Cleveland Police and (b) the Metropolitan Police Service took an average of (a) 24 days and (b) 122 days.

    Protecting the public is a priority for this Government and it is important that checks undertaken are thorough; a proportion of the applications received by the DBS must be referred to one or more police forces as part of the enhanced disclosure process. In the vast majority of cases these checks are completed within target. The DBS is working closely with the small number of forces, including the MPS, whose performance does not meet turnaround time targets. The performance of police disclosure units is an operational issue for individual police forces and the MPS has established a Gold Group to oversee the recovery plan which they have in place to reduce the time taken. I have made clear to the MPS that its current delays must be addressed as a matter of priority and I continue to maintain close oversight of the progress being made.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to reduce the time taken for the completion of pre-employment checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service.

    Karen Bradley

    Performance data for the Disclosure and Barring Service for March 2016 indicates that average processing time for DBS applications was 14.8 days. Certificates dispatched to applicants by the DBS in March 2016 involving (a) Cleveland Police and (b) the Metropolitan Police Service took an average of (a) 24 days and (b) 122 days.

    Protecting the public is a priority for this Government and it is important that checks undertaken are thorough; a proportion of the applications received by the DBS must be referred to one or more police forces as part of the enhanced disclosure process. In the vast majority of cases these checks are completed within target. The DBS is working closely with the small number of forces, including the MPS, whose performance does not meet turnaround time targets. The performance of police disclosure units is an operational issue for individual police forces and the MPS has established a Gold Group to oversee the recovery plan which they have in place to reduce the time taken. I have made clear to the MPS that its current delays must be addressed as a matter of priority and I continue to maintain close oversight of the progress being made.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking with the Metropolitan Police Service to reduce the time taken to complete pre-employment checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service.

    Karen Bradley

    Performance data for the Disclosure and Barring Service for March 2016 indicates that average processing time for DBS applications was 14.8 days. Certificates dispatched to applicants by the DBS in March 2016 involving (a) Cleveland Police and (b) the Metropolitan Police Service took an average of (a) 24 days and (b) 122 days.

    Protecting the public is a priority for this Government and it is important that checks undertaken are thorough; a proportion of the applications received by the DBS must be referred to one or more police forces as part of the enhanced disclosure process. In the vast majority of cases these checks are completed within target. The DBS is working closely with the small number of forces, including the MPS, whose performance does not meet turnaround time targets. The performance of police disclosure units is an operational issue for individual police forces and the MPS has established a Gold Group to oversee the recovery plan which they have in place to reduce the time taken. I have made clear to the MPS that its current delays must be addressed as a matter of priority and I continue to maintain close oversight of the progress being made.

  • Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Nicholas Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nicholas Brown on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, which guidance her Department provides to local authorities on the retention of case files for victims of serious child abuse in local authority-provided care.

    Edward Timpson

    Paragraphs 7.10 and 7.11 of Volume 2[1] of the guidance and regulations to Children Act 1989 (on care planning, placement and case review) explains how a local authority should retain and safe keep all looked after children’s case files.

    Paragraphs 4.21 et seq of Volume 3[2] of the same guidance (on transition to adulthood for care leavers) includes information about access to records for people who have spent all or part of the childhood or adolescence in local authority care.

    [1]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441643/Children_Act_Guidance_2015.pdf

    [2]https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397649/CA1989_Transitions_guidance.pdf

    “

  • Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alex Cunningham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the current average waiting time is for the completion of pre-employment checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service involving (a) Cleveland Police and (b) the Metropolitan Police Service.

    Karen Bradley

    Performance data for the Disclosure and Barring Service for March 2016 indicates that average processing time for DBS applications was 14.8 days. Certificates dispatched to applicants by the DBS in March 2016 involving (a) Cleveland Police and (b) the Metropolitan Police Service took an average of (a) 24 days and (b) 122 days.

    Protecting the public is a priority for this Government and it is important that checks undertaken are thorough; a proportion of the applications received by the DBS must be referred to one or more police forces as part of the enhanced disclosure process. In the vast majority of cases these checks are completed within target. The DBS is working closely with the small number of forces, including the MPS, whose performance does not meet turnaround time targets. The performance of police disclosure units is an operational issue for individual police forces and the MPS has established a Gold Group to oversee the recovery plan which they have in place to reduce the time taken. I have made clear to the MPS that its current delays must be addressed as a matter of priority and I continue to maintain close oversight of the progress being made.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Written Statement of 18 April 2016, on immigration detention, HCWS679, how many pregnant women (a) are detained and (b) have been detained for immigration purposes in each of the last five years.

    James Brokenshire

    Management information for 19 April showed that two pregnant women were held at the border and there was one pregnant woman held in an IRC. Information on those held at the border and in IRCs in each of the last five years is not held centrally and providing it would incur disproportionate cost.

  • Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Paul Blomfield – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Blomfield on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Written Statement of 18 April 2016, on immigration detention, HCWS679, whether there will be independent oversight of decisions to detain pregnant women.

    James Brokenshire

    At present, detention is authorised by an officer of at least the rank of Chief Immigration Officer (CIO) or Higher Executive Officer (HEO). As stated in the Government’s Written Ministerial Statement of 14 January, the Government is developing a new approach to the case management of those detained. This is intended to replace the existing detention review process with a clear removal plan for all those in detention.

    It will ensure that all detainees, including pregnant women, spend the minimum possible time in detention. Under the new policy in order for detention to be extended beyond 72 hours ministerial authorisation will be required and the maximum detention period will be one week.

    Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards already provide independent oversight of detention facilities and conditions of detention. Individuals, including pregnant women, are given prior notification of their liability to removal from the UK by the Home Office and they would be detained only for the purposes of identification or removal.

  • Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Paula Sherriff – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paula Sherriff on 2016-04-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Written Statement of 18 April 2016, on immigration detention, HCWS679, in what ways the policy to end the routine detention of pregnant women differs from the current policy that pregnant women should be detained only in exceptional circumstances.

    James Brokenshire

    Current policy is set out in paragraph 10 of Chapter 55 of the Home Office Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, which states that certain groups of individuals, including pregnant women, are normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances.

    The Government announced in a Written Ministerial Statement on 14 January that it was introducing a new “adult at risk” concept into decision making on immigration detention, with a clear presumption that people who are at risk should not be detained, building on the existing legal framework. The Government has made a commitment to publish its “adult at risk” policy in May.

    The new process announced in the Written Ministerial Statement on 18 April, will, if agreed by Parliament, provide an additional safeguard. It will provide absolute clarity that no woman who is known to be pregnant can be detained for longer than 72 hours, or, with Ministerial authorisation a maximum of a week. This puts in place the same safeguards as introduced in 2014 when the government put in place its policy to end the routine detention of children for immigration purposes.