Blog

  • Steve McCabe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Steve McCabe – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what progress her Department has made on implementing the Prime Minister’s proposal that mothers’ names should be added to marriage certificates.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office is working with all interested parties to confirm the most efficient and effective way to enable mothers’ names to be recorded on marriage certificates.

    Achieving this is likely to require additional funding and changes to legislation, IT systems and administrative processes.

    The Government will confirm a timetable for the transition to a new system to introduce the changes in due course.

  • Cat Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Cat Smith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cat Smith on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what support the Government is providing to disabled refugees from Syria who are currently in Europe.

    Richard Harrington

    The UK is prioritising its support and aid efforts where the need is greatest. Only a small percentage of Syrians displaced from Syria are seeking asylum in Europe; the vast majority remain in Syria and neighbouring countries. Those that remain in the immediate region around Syria are more likely to be particularly vulnerable and this is rightly where our focus remains. We are the second largest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid to the Syrian crisis with £1.12 billion already pledged.

    With assistance from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees we will identify the most vulnerable Syrian refugees who cannot be effectively supported in the region for resettlement through our Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme with the aim of resettling 20,000 refugees during this Parliament.

    The UK is not providing direct resettlement or other support to asylum seekers in other Member States. The UK is already providing practical support to those Member States who are experiencing particularly serious pressures and will provide a further ten personnel to the European Asylum Support Office.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what legal advice she has sought on the use by police of data from CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities; and if she will publish that advice.

    Mike Penning

    I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

    Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

    It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what representations she has received from civil liberties campaign groups on the operation of and use of data from CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    Mike Penning

    I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

    Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

    It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 16 October 2015 to Question 11726, how many Prevent co-ordinators are employed in England and Wales.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Home Office provides funding for the necessary numberof Prevent co-ordinators in priority areas. The list of areas is kept under review.

  • Roger Mullin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Roger Mullin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Mullin on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she has taken to ensure that assessments of applications for leave to remain in the UK provide sufficient personal consideration to meet the individual needs of applicants.

    James Brokenshire

    The Immigration Rules provide designated routes through which individuals can choose to apply for leave to remain in the UK depending on their circumstances. The requirements of each route are set out in published guidance. It is for individuals to raise any grounds that they wish to be considered and provide any supporting evidence regarding their personal circumstances.

    Applications for leave to remain in the UK are considered on a case-by-case basis, including any claims about personal issues, in accordance with the relevant Immigration Rules and the Secretary of State’s published guidance on the application of these.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what access foreign security services have in the UK to CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    Mike Penning

    I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

    Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

    It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there are processes in place to ensure that people not suspected of criminal offences can request deletion of data recovered by CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    Mike Penning

    I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

    Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

    It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions she has had with police authorities on the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    Mike Penning

    I have received no representations about the use of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and biometric tracking capabilities.

    The use of any CCTV system operating in a public place in England and Wales (whether or not any facial recognition or biometric tracking technology is being used) is subject to the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, issued as guidance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The police, as a relevant authority, are duty bound to have regard to the Code when performing their functions. Any use of such technology for covert investigative purposes by a public authority would be subject to the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its related Code of Practice. Further, the use and disclosure of personal data, such as CCTV images, is generally governed by the Data Protection Act 1998.

    Information on the fields of data which any CCTV system operator may use to identify individuals of interest is not held centrally. Further, any person (including those not suspected of an offence) may make a subject access request to a police force in respect of personal information which is held about them (including CCTV images). In broad terms, pursuant to the Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) and accompanying guidance published by the College of Policing, this should trigger a review of whether or not to delete such material based on an assessment of danger to the public and its value for policing purposes.

    It is the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  • Chuka Umunna – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Chuka Umunna – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chuka Umunna on 2015-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of resources allocated within the Metropolitan Police to investigate cases of historical child sexual abuse; and if she will make a statement.

    Karen Bradley

    No case of child abuse is ‘historical’ for victims and survivors. They must live with the consequences of their abuse each and every day of their lives. The allocation of resources on investigations into cases of child sexual abuse, including abuse that has taken place in the past, is an operational matter for the police and law enforcement.

    We have prioritised child sexual abuse as a national threat which means that police forces and Police and Crime Commissioners must have in place the capabilities they need to protect children from sexual abuse. In 2015/16 we provided an additional £10 million to the National Crime Agency for the creation of more specialist teams to tackle online child sexual exploitation. We have also made available £1.7 million to fund Operation Hydrant, which coordinates the handling of multiple historical child sexual abuse investigations specifically concerning institutions or persons of public prominence, and up to £1.5 million to support regional coordinators and analysts to oversee the implementation of the National Policing Plan for tackling Child Sexual Exploitation.