1-19 of 19 results for subject:"Foreign nationals"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.223 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.005 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Foreign nationals"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Foreign nationals" OR subject_t:Aliens OR subject_t:Foreigners OR subject_ses:91327
Primary member
X
Cameron of Chipping Norton, Lord
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Cameron of Chipping Norton, Lord (19)
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
We have learned in the past few months that it is completely unsafe to trust the Government with any more of our identity information. If the Prime Minister wants to trade quotes, what about one from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said that identity cards were ““not necessary””. He continued:"““I do not want my whole life to be reduced to a magnetic strip on a plastic card.””—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 70.]"
Compared with being Chancellor in the Government, being a magnetic strip on a plastic card would probably be a welcome relief.
If it is the Government's policy to press for compulsion, why did the Prime Minister say in The Observer on Sunday that,"““under our proposals, there is no compulsion for existing British citizens””?"
Why did he give such a misleading answer?
We have learned in the past few months that it is completely unsafe to trust the Government with any more of our identity information. If the Prime Minister wants to trade quotes, what about one from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said that identity cards were ““not necessary””. He continued:"““I do not want my whole life to be reduced to a magnetic strip on a plastic card.””—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 70.]"
Compared with being Chancellor in the Government, being a magnetic strip on a plastic card would probably be a welcome relief.
If it is the Government's policy to press for compulsion, why did the Prime Minister say in The Observer on Sunday that,"““under our proposals, there is no compulsion for existing British citizens””?"
Why did he give such a misleading answer?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 January 2008
Because there has to be a vote of Parliament. We have passed the original identity cards proposals. That is a voluntary system. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that not only do some members of his party support identity cards, but people recognise that the identity card will contain little more than the information that is now given for passports. I have to ask him: does he support identity cards for foreign nationals, which we are introducing this year?
Subjects
Data protection; Identity cards; Foreign nationals
Date
9 January 2008
Reference
470 c295-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Everybody in the House wants proper biometric visas for people visiting this country. The question for the Prime Minister is why he cannot give a straight answer on identity cards. Let me try it another way. What is his personal view? My personal view is that I am against compulsory identity cards. What is his view? Is he in favour—yes or no?
Everybody in the House wants proper biometric visas for people visiting this country. The question for the Prime Minister is why he cannot give a straight answer on identity cards. Let me try it another way. What is his personal view? My personal view is that I am against compulsory identity cards. What is his view? Is he in favour—yes or no?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 January 2008
It is the Government's policy to move ahead with this, but subject to a vote of Parliament, and depending on how the voluntary scheme works. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again: does he support ID cards for foreign nationals—yes or no? He says that he is against them; is he in favour of them for foreign nationals?
Subjects
Biometrics; Identity cards; Foreign nationals; Entry clearances
Date
9 January 2008
Reference
470 c296
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I just answered the Prime Minister's question. Does he not recognise that part of his problem is that he cannot give a straight answer to a straight question?
Let us have a look at another vital decision, this time on the economy. It is only three months before the start of the financial year. Businesses throughout the country want to know the capital gains tax rate that they will face in April. Will the Chancellor go ahead with his 80 per cent. increase in capital gains tax rates, or are we set for another humiliating U-turn?
I just answered the Prime Minister's question. Does he not recognise that part of his problem is that he cannot give a straight answer to a straight question?
Let us have a look at another vital decision, this time on the economy. It is only three months before the start of the financial year. Businesses throughout the country want to know the capital gains tax rate that they will face in April. Will the Chancellor go ahead with his 80 per cent. increase in capital gains tax rates, or are we set for another humiliating U-turn?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 January 2008
I see that the right hon. Gentleman's incursion into identity cards did not last long. He cannot answer the central question of whether he supports ID cards for foreign nationals. He could not give me the answer on two occasions. I suggest that the whole country supports ID cards for foreign nationals, and that that is the best protection we have, and one of the best against illegal immigration. If he cannot answer that question, he is not fit to ask questions about other issues.
On capital gains tax, when we came to power it was 40 per cent. Now, under the Chancellor's proposals, it is 18 per cent. The Chancellor has agreed to consult on its implementation and will report back to the House of Commons in due course. Why did the Conservatives have 18 years of not reducing the rate of capital gains tax?
Subjects
Capital gains tax; Identity cards; Foreign nationals; Economic situation; Tax rates and bands
Date
9 January 2008
Reference
470 c296
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
We have had foreign criminals let out of prison when they should have been deported, and the Prime Minister now plans to release more prisoners this year than the entire prison population of Australia. Ten years ago, he told us that he would be tough on crime; now he is releasing 25,000 criminals on to our streets. Should he not, just this once, apologise for what can only be described as an abject failure to deliver?
We have had foreign criminals let out of prison when they should have been deported, and the Prime Minister now plans to release more prisoners this year than the entire prison population of Australia. Ten years ago, he told us that he would be tough on crime; now he is releasing 25,000 criminals on to our streets. Should he not, just this once, apologise for what can only be described as an abject failure to deliver?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 June 2007
When we came to power in 1997, crime had doubled. When we came to power in 1997, there were no proper plans for making sure that we had the money to invest in our prison system. As I have said, I regret very much having to take the measures on early release. However, over the 10 years of this Government we have reduced crime, increased the number of police officers and introduced measures on antisocial behaviour, and we have 20,000 extra prison places. When we compare the 18 years of a Government who doubled crime with the 10 years of this Government, it is clear who people should vote for on law and order.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Prisoners' release; Prison accommodation
Date
20 June 2007
Reference
461 c1371
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
On behalf of the Opposition, may I add our sympathies to what the Prime Minister said about the soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq. Our thoughts should be with their families for what they have done on our behalf.
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that automatic deportation would apply to any foreign national"““convicted of an imprisonable offence””.—[Official Report,3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 960.]"
Last week he said it would apply to those actually imprisoned. This week the Home Secretary said that automatic deportation would now apply only to foreign nationals serving a ““significant”” jail term. Which is it?
On behalf of the Opposition, may I add our sympathies to what the Prime Minister said about the soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq. Our thoughts should be with their families for what they have done on our behalf.
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that automatic deportation would apply to any foreign national"““convicted of an imprisonable offence””.—[Official Report,3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 960.]"
Last week he said it would apply to those actually imprisoned. This week the Home Secretary said that automatic deportation would now apply only to foreign nationals serving a ““significant”” jail term. Which is it?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 May 2006
It is exactly as I explained when I first answered the right hon. Gentleman. It applies only to people who have gone to prison, which is why we are talking about foreign prisoners. If, for example, someone is sent to prison for a very short space of time and they have been in this country for a long period of time, then the presumption of automatic deportation would not apply, but in the vast bulk of cases, as has been explained, there will be an automatic presumption to deport, and the vast bulk of those people will, indeed, be deported. In my view, those people should be deported, irrespective of any claim that they have that the country to which they are returning may not be safe. That is why it is important that we consider legislating, if necessary, to ensure that such an automatic presumption applies.
Subjects
Deportation; Convictions; Foreign nationals; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Prison sentences
Date
17 May 2006
Reference
446 c989-90
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) was the Minister for hospitals and she has resigned. I know that things are bad, but the Prime Minister ought to know who is actually in his Government. She said that the Government’s reforms had resulted in the crisis at Alder Hey and her attempts to speak out had been overruled by No. 10.
Last week, I asked about dangerous foreign criminals who were released instead of deported. We were told that there were 79 who had committed serious offences. Then we were told that there were 90. This week we are told that there are 150. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the number will not go up again?
The right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) was the Minister for hospitals and she has resigned. I know that things are bad, but the Prime Minister ought to know who is actually in his Government. She said that the Government’s reforms had resulted in the crisis at Alder Hey and her attempts to speak out had been overruled by No. 10.
Last week, I asked about dangerous foreign criminals who were released instead of deported. We were told that there were 79 who had committed serious offences. Then we were told that there were 90. This week we are told that there are 150. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that the number will not go up again?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 May 2006
The number has gone up simply because as the police investigate each of the cases, the details of those cases change— [Interruption.] That is perfectly obvious, if one thinks about it for a moment. However, of the 1,000 cases of foreign national prisoners who were part of the backlog that had built up over a considerable time, three quarters have been considered. Almost 600 deportation orders have been given and about 30 deportations are already under way. There are 126 of those people in detention. We will continue to work through the backlog, as I explained before, but I might just state to the right hon. Gentleman that now, as a result of the changes that have been put in place, all cases are considered before release. As I explained to him last week, there is a quite separate issue with which we must also deal, which is, in the end, at the heart of the matter: we need to ensure that those people who are convicted of a serious criminal offence and become foreign prisoners are deported, not retained in this country.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Offenders; Prisoners
Date
10 May 2006
Reference
446 c305
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
If it is all going so well, why did the Prime Minister sack the Home Secretary? After three weeks of investigations, he still cannot tell us how many dangerous criminals who have committed serious offences are roaming the streets? Are not the crises in the health service and the criminal justice system symptoms of a Government who are paralysed? In the past three days, former Ministers have been queuing up to tell the Prime Minister that it is time to go. We have heard from the former Education Secretary, Pensions Secretary, terrorism Minister and local government Minister, and they have all said the same thing. Presumably the Prime Minister appointed them because of their judgment. Why does he think that he has lost their confidence?
If it is all going so well, why did the Prime Minister sack the Home Secretary? After three weeks of investigations, he still cannot tell us how many dangerous criminals who have committed serious offences are roaming the streets? Are not the crises in the health service and the criminal justice system symptoms of a Government who are paralysed? In the past three days, former Ministers have been queuing up to tell the Prime Minister that it is time to go. We have heard from the former Education Secretary, Pensions Secretary, terrorism Minister and local government Minister, and they have all said the same thing. Presumably the Prime Minister appointed them because of their judgment. Why does he think that he has lost their confidence?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 May 2006
If I can just go back to deal with the two policy issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised— [Interruption.] Well, I know that he is not very comfortable with policy. Actually, because I thought that we might be debating these types of issues, I asked my staff to look up what policies he has. I have found two: one on children’s clothes and one on chocolate oranges. Other than that, he does not seem to have any, so I am delighted to have a policy debate with him.
On the health service, in respect of children’s hospitals, there is an issue to do with payment by results and the tariff. At a meeting a few days ago we listened to the representations of the four hospitals that wrote to us, and we are satisfied that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. I might just point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we are putting more money into the health service than ever before and getting better results than ever before, but he opposed that additional investment.
I have explained the situation regarding the foreign national prisoners to the right hon. Gentleman. As I said a moment or two ago, for the first time we now have in place a proper system that allows us to consider for deportation prior to a prisoner’s release. However, as I said last week—I repeat it—in my view, there should be an automatic presumption of deportation for anyone convicted of a serious criminal offence, and I hope that he agrees with that.
Subjects
Deportation; Hospitals; Finance; Foreign nationals; Offenders; Prisoners
Date
10 May 2006
Reference
446 c305-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
That is absolutely no explanation why the rate accelerated. Is not the reason why the number accelerated made clear by a senior immigration officer? He said:"““There was an unwritten rule that immigration officers could not go to prisons because senior officials knew that most of the prisoners up for deportation would automatically claim asylum. This was one of several ‘creative' solutions thought up by senior officials to please ministers””,"
so that the official asylum numbers would come down. Can the Prime Minister give us an absolute assurance that that was not the case?
That is absolutely no explanation why the rate accelerated. Is not the reason why the number accelerated made clear by a senior immigration officer? He said:"““There was an unwritten rule that immigration officers could not go to prisons because senior officials knew that most of the prisoners up for deportation would automatically claim asylum. This was one of several ‘creative' solutions thought up by senior officials to please ministers””,"
so that the official asylum numbers would come down. Can the Prime Minister give us an absolute assurance that that was not the case?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 May 2006
Yes, I can, for the reason that I have just given. The whole number of cases being considered increased. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that somehow the system was changed and weakened by the Home Secretary is wrong. About 1,500 prisoners are being deported a year. If we go back, not just over the period of this Government, but over the past couple of decades—[Interruption.] I say this not in excuse or mitigation but to show that the system has had faults from the beginning. If, for example, we take the time when the right hon. Gentleman was a special adviser at the Home Office—[Interruption.] I am not expecting him to take responsibility; I am simply saying that whereas the system now deports 1,500 a year, at that time, the number of people removed on court recommendation, or as not conducive to the public good, was 370. At that time, only one in five failed asylum seekers were removed; now, we remove more than the number of unfounded asylum claims every month. The backlog of cases was 60,000; it is now a few thousand.
If the right hon. Gentleman would like to know how many cases were not considered then, I cannot tell him and neither can he tell me, because there were no such records. Incidentally, at that time, according to Government figures at that time from Earl Ferrers, there were at least 6,000 prisoners at any one time who were in our prisons whose nationality we did not know.
All I say to the right hon. Gentleman is this: this system has not worked properly for decades, and it is actually working now. We have to work through the backlog of cases, which we will do, but it is completely wrong to say that this problem was created or began under this Home Secretary.
Subjects
Asylum; Deportation; Foreign nationals; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Repatriation
Date
3 May 2006
Reference
445 c959-60
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The Home Secretary was told last July about the scandal of dangerous prisoners released on to our streets instead of being considered for deportation. The Prime Minister has now had a week to find out what is actually going on in the Home Office. Can he explain why the rate at which prisoners were released and not deported actually accelerated after the Home Secretary found out about it?
The Home Secretary was told last July about the scandal of dangerous prisoners released on to our streets instead of being considered for deportation. The Prime Minister has now had a week to find out what is actually going on in the Home Office. Can he explain why the rate at which prisoners were released and not deported actually accelerated after the Home Secretary found out about it?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 May 2006
Yes, I can explain that. Back in August 2005, before any parliamentary questions were raised about the issue, the practice of the immigration department changed so that instead of relying on the prisons to notify it of the release dates of prisoners, it sent immigration officers directly into prisons. That, therefore, meant that many more cases were identified and I can give the right hon. Gentleman the figures. After that point, there were 1,000 actual removals and deportations and 3,000 cases considered, so the rate at which cases came to the immigration and nationality department increased dramatically. However, from 30 March, every case is considered before release and that, let me tell the House, is the first time that has happened for decades.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Repatriation
Date
3 May 2006
Reference
445 c959
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The fact is that 1,000 people were released from prison and their deportation was not even considered. This Home Secretary will for ever be associated with the scandal of releasing foreign prisoners on to our streets. While the Prime Minister keeps him in office, his claims to be tough on crime will be completely hollow. Are not people now paying the price for the arrogant attachment to office of a leader who has completely lost control?
The fact is that 1,000 people were released from prison and their deportation was not even considered. This Home Secretary will for ever be associated with the scandal of releasing foreign prisoners on to our streets. While the Prime Minister keeps him in office, his claims to be tough on crime will be completely hollow. Are not people now paying the price for the arrogant attachment to office of a leader who has completely lost control?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 May 2006
That was the right hon. Gentleman's pre-arranged soundbite. Let me just tell him that, as I have just pointed out to him—I notice that he did not come back on any of the facts that I gave—this is a system that has not considered all those cases prior to release at any point. Even if those cases were considered, significant numbers have always not been deported. As I said to him a moment or two ago, at the time when he was working in the Home Office, it had to admit that about 6,000 prisoners in the system at any one time did not even have their nationality identified. All that I am saying, very simply, is this: there are faults with the present system in its implementation, which have been corrected since 30 March, but the real issue, which we have to face in this House if we want to deal with the public concern, is to change the system itself.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Repatriation
Date
3 May 2006
Reference
445 c961-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Let us just be clear about what we have heard: murderers, rapists, paedophiles released from prison—and the Prime Minister does not want to know immediately. What sort of Government is that? At the weekend, the Prime Minister was asked whether the Home Secretary should resign. He said, ““It depends.”” On what does it depend?
Let us just be clear about what we have heard: murderers, rapists, paedophiles released from prison—and the Prime Minister does not want to know immediately. What sort of Government is that? At the weekend, the Prime Minister was asked whether the Home Secretary should resign. He said, ““It depends.”” On what does it depend?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 May 2006
I do not believe that the Home Secretary has created the problems of this system. I believe that those problems have existed for a very long time, in the way in which I have described. I think that it is important that we take the measures necessary to sort out the existing system. That has been done and that is why, since 30 March, the cases have been considered prior to release. But I think that there is a far bigger question, which was raised by the shadow Home Secretary earlier. The fact is that even if all the cases are considered prior to release, we do not at the moment deport all those people convicted of a serious criminal offence. The truth is that, even if we take those cases that have been considered, there are still a significant number that, having been considered under the existing system—which has, as I say, been in place for decades—do not result in deportation. Therefore, in my view, it is not just a question of the existing system; it is about making sure that that system is radically overhauled so that those who are convicted of a serious criminal offence are deported automatically. If we do not do that, we may consider all the cases in time, but we will not deport all the people who should be deported.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Repatriation
Date
3 May 2006
Reference
445 c961
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I look forward to the Home Secretary's statement. I stuck around to listen to his statement last week when the Prime Minister scuttled out of the building.
In March this year, the Home Secretary was told that a significant number of the criminals released and not deported had committed the most serious offences, including murder and rape. It is now clear that he did not tell the Prime Minister for three weeks. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is the sort of information that a Prime Minister should be told at once?
I look forward to the Home Secretary's statement. I stuck around to listen to his statement last week when the Prime Minister scuttled out of the building.
In March this year, the Home Secretary was told that a significant number of the criminals released and not deported had committed the most serious offences, including murder and rape. It is now clear that he did not tell the Prime Minister for three weeks. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is the sort of information that a Prime Minister should be told at once?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 May 2006
The important thing was that, from 30 March onwards, the new system that was put in place meant that the cases were considered prior to release. That has now been done; the backlog is now being dealt with.
I return to the point that I have made. On any basis, for years, we have not been deporting all those people convicted of a serious criminal offence. I say now, ““Let us deport all those people””, and I hope that we can get support for that right across the House. Up until now, every time we have taken these measures, they have been opposed by the Conservative party.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Repatriation
Date
3 May 2006
Reference
445 c961
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
People listening to that answer will, frankly, think it pathetic. This scandal has happened on the Prime Minister's watch and he cannot run away from responsibility for it. His assurances are worth so little, when last week at the Dispatch Box, he admitted that he did not even have the figures.
I have a letter from another immigration officer who has worked in the service for 30 years. He says that we"““are under instruction not to get involved in assisting the police with offenders . . . because these offenders are likely to claim asylum and tip the scales the wrong way. Thus are the figures massaged.””"
Should we not believe the people who have been working on the front line for nine years rather than a Prime Minister who did not know about this nine days ago?
People listening to that answer will, frankly, think it pathetic. This scandal has happened on the Prime Minister's watch and he cannot run away from responsibility for it. His assurances are worth so little, when last week at the Dispatch Box, he admitted that he did not even have the figures.
I have a letter from another immigration officer who has worked in the service for 30 years. He says that we"““are under instruction not to get involved in assisting the police with offenders . . . because these offenders are likely to claim asylum and tip the scales the wrong way. Thus are the figures massaged.””"
Should we not believe the people who have been working on the front line for nine years rather than a Prime Minister who did not know about this nine days ago?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
3 May 2006
If the right hon. Gentleman talks to people on the front line, they will tell him that there have been problems with this system for a very long time. The important thing is how we now overhaul not just the way the system works, but the system itself, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will deal with that in a few moments. The fact is that we have not deported all those convicted of imprisonable offences from the very beginning of this system. I think that it is now time that anybody who is convicted of an imprisonable offence and who is a foreign national is deported.
I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when this Government introduced a provision in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to say that anybody convicted of any offence carrying more than two years' imprisonment should not be eligible for asylum and therefore could be deported, his party opposed that amendment. In addition—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but if we want to take the measures, let us take the measures. Let me also point out that, when we introduced the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that allowed us to carry out the early removal of these prisoners—in other words, instead of waiting to the end of their sentence, we could remove them early—his party also voted against that Act. So I suggest that we now take the measures necessary not just to improve the way the existing system works, which the Home Secretary has done, but to change it fundamentally for the future.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Repatriation
Date
3 May 2006
Reference
445 c960-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Peter Law. On behalf of the official Opposition, let me say that our thoughts and prayers are with his family.
The Government were told in July last year that there was a massive problem with foreign prisoners being released and not considered for deportation. The prisoners released on to Britain's streets included murderers, rapists and paedophiles. Does the Prime Minister accept that the measures taken after the Government were told about the problem were completely insufficient?
I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Peter Law. On behalf of the official Opposition, let me say that our thoughts and prayers are with his family.
The Government were told in July last year that there was a massive problem with foreign prisoners being released and not considered for deportation. The prisoners released on to Britain's streets included murderers, rapists and paedophiles. Does the Prime Minister accept that the measures taken after the Government were told about the problem were completely insufficient?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 April 2006
First, let me say that I fully accept and regret that until recently the system for identifying and, where possible, deporting foreign nationals who have served sentences in United Kingdom jails has been seriously and fundamentally at fault.
Let me answer the direct question that the right hon. Gentleman asked. Last July, it was proposed that there should be a substantial expansion of both the funding and the staff to look after this particular aspect of the work of the immigration and nationality directorate. That actually happened: almost £3 million extra was put into financing the system adequately, and the number of staff has been built up. As a result, although it has taken time to put the proper system in place, since 1 April all cases are now considered pre-release.
There is another piece of information that I should give the House. It is, of course, a matter of deep regret, as the Home Secretary said, that since 1999—we have the figures since 1999 because that is when records were first kept; the system has been in place for many decades—there have been 1,023 cases. It is, however, important for people to understand that a third of those cases—cases in which there should have been consideration pre-release from prison—have been considered subsequently, or are under consideration, and many of those people have been deported. I agree that that still means that the system was not working adequately, which is why the changes that I have just described were implemented.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Home Office; Maladministration; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Reoffenders; HM Prison Service; Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Date
26 April 2006
Reference
445 c563
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Let us be absolutely clear about what we have just heard. The Prime Minister backs incompetent Ministers, even when he does not know the facts. That is what we have discovered. When are this Government going to start backing and protecting the public, instead of protecting their own backs? Let us be clear about what has happened: 1,000 prisoners have been released on to our streets, when they should have been considered for deportation; the Prime Minister does not know where they are, or how many crimes they have committed since they were released. Is this not part of a wider story: a Government who said that they would be tough on crime releasing dangerous prisoners; a Government who told us that there were 24 hours to save the NHS sacking nurses? When a Prime Minister cannot even deport dangerous foreign criminals in our jails, are the public not entitled to say, ““Enough is enough””?
Let us be absolutely clear about what we have just heard. The Prime Minister backs incompetent Ministers, even when he does not know the facts. That is what we have discovered. When are this Government going to start backing and protecting the public, instead of protecting their own backs? Let us be clear about what has happened: 1,000 prisoners have been released on to our streets, when they should have been considered for deportation; the Prime Minister does not know where they are, or how many crimes they have committed since they were released. Is this not part of a wider story: a Government who said that they would be tough on crime releasing dangerous prisoners; a Government who told us that there were 24 hours to save the NHS sacking nurses? When a Prime Minister cannot even deport dangerous foreign criminals in our jails, are the public not entitled to say, ““Enough is enough””?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 April 2006
First, I did give the right hon. Gentleman the facts on the 1,023 prisoners, and I indicated that over a third of them have already had their cases considered, or are in the course of being considered. As for the national health service, I think that people know very well, when they compare—[Interruption.] Well, it was the right hon. Gentleman who raised the issue of the national health service. I am well aware of the reason why Opposition Members do not want the answer.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Home Office; Maladministration; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Reoffenders; HM Prison Service; Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Date
26 April 2006
Reference
445 c565
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
We learned this morning that the Home Secretary offered to resign. That contradicts what Downing street said yesterday. They were asked:"““Has Charles Clarke or anyone else offered to resign?””,"
and replied, ““No.””
That is the sort of thing that we have come routinely to expect from this Government. Can the Prime Minister answer this? When the Home Secretary offered to resign, did the Prime Minister know that, even after the Government were told about systemic failure, 288 prisoners were released without being considered for deportation?
We learned this morning that the Home Secretary offered to resign. That contradicts what Downing street said yesterday. They were asked:"““Has Charles Clarke or anyone else offered to resign?””,"
and replied, ““No.””
That is the sort of thing that we have come routinely to expect from this Government. Can the Prime Minister answer this? When the Home Secretary offered to resign, did the Prime Minister know that, even after the Government were told about systemic failure, 288 prisoners were released without being considered for deportation?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 April 2006
I do not accept that the Home Secretary did not act on this matter. He did act, for the very reasons that I have given, and in the way that I just described. The fact is that there has been action as a result of people realising that there were cases that should have been considered pre-release which were only considered post-release. There is now a system in place, however, for the first time since these procedures began, that will allow us to make sure that all cases are considered pre-release and that deportations follow, where appropriate. I may point out that that is literally the first time for decades that such a system has been in place.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Home Office; Maladministration; Offenders; Prisoners; Ministers; Prisoners' release; Resignations; Reoffenders; HM Prison Service; Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Date
26 April 2006
Reference
445 c564-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
But that, I am afraid, just is not good enough. We now know that even after Ministers were told about the problem in July, 288 prisoners were released without being considered for deportation. Why did the Home Secretary describe that last night as ““very, very few people””?
But that, I am afraid, just is not good enough. We now know that even after Ministers were told about the problem in July, 288 prisoners were released without being considered for deportation. Why did the Home Secretary describe that last night as ““very, very few people””?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 April 2006
Again, it is important to emphasise that many of those 288—more than 70, I think—have been considered. Indeed, some of them have been deported. It is, however, correct that all of them must now be considered. The point that I am making to the right hon. Gentleman is that from last year extra resources and extra staff—[Interruption.]
As I was saying, from last July procedures were implemented to increase the number of staff and the resourcing of the unit concerned. That has taken time to build up, but as I said a moment ago, many of those 288 cases—more than 70—have already been considered or are being considered. Some of those people have already been deported. All those cases will be considered, and since 1 April the system has been working properly, so that for the first time ever, everyone who is identified pre-release has his or her case considered.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Home Office; Maladministration; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Reoffenders; HM Prison Service; Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Date
26 April 2006
Reference
445 c563-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
But the Prime Minister simply has not answered the question about what the Home Secretary said last night. Let us be clear about what he said on television. When asked whether anyone was released after he was told about it, the Home Secretary replied:"““I'm not prepared to say no one but . . . certainly very, very few people.””"
Given that the actual number was 288, that was completely misleading.
This Home Secretary has presided over systemic failure. He has failed to deal with this, and last night he misled people about the scale of the problem. Is it not clear that he cannot give the Home Office the leadership that it so badly needs?
But the Prime Minister simply has not answered the question about what the Home Secretary said last night. Let us be clear about what he said on television. When asked whether anyone was released after he was told about it, the Home Secretary replied:"““I'm not prepared to say no one but . . . certainly very, very few people.””"
Given that the actual number was 288, that was completely misleading.
This Home Secretary has presided over systemic failure. He has failed to deal with this, and last night he misled people about the scale of the problem. Is it not clear that he cannot give the Home Office the leadership that it so badly needs?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 April 2006
Not surprisingly, I do not agree with that. The Home Office has given the figure of 288. Indeed, the reason we can give figures is that there is now a proper case management system. As I have said, the reason we give the figures since 1999 is that that was the first time that any figures were kept. I would also point out that over the last two years there have been more than 3,000 deportations. Indeed, since last October there have been 800. But let me repeat again that since 1 April all cases have been considered pre-release. The 288 cases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred will be considered; some have already been considered, and deportations have followed.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Home Office; Maladministration; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Reoffenders; HM Prison Service; Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Date
26 April 2006
Reference
445 c564
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I asked a simple question: can the Prime Minister tell us whether he knew, or not?
I asked a simple question: can the Prime Minister tell us whether he knew, or not?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 April 2006
I did not know the details of the figures that the Home Secretary gave until today. However, it is as a result of the Home Office having put out the figures that we actually know them. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that these figures were somehow concealed by the Home Secretary, and as I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman, it is not correct that the 288 cases will not be considered. They will be considered, and the Home Secretary will give details later of how quickly that can be done.
Subjects
Deportation; Foreign nationals; Home Office; Maladministration; Offenders; Prisoners; Prisoners' release; Reoffenders; HM Prison Service; Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Date
26 April 2006
Reference
445 c565
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons