|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Woolas: A decision to deny entry to the UK may be made at the entry clearance application stage, or when a person arrives at the port of entry. Additionally, denial of entry may include individuals who have either been deported from, or removed and subsequently excluded from, the United Kingdom and in certain cases the Home Secretary may personally decide that an individual should be excluded from the United Kingdom on unacceptable behaviour grounds.
There are no centrally held records which encompass the total number of foreign nationals who have been denied entry to the UK because of concerns about their extremist views, but the Government's unacceptable behaviours policy is directed at those who advocate hatred or violence in support of their beliefs.
I can confirm that since October 2008 the Home Secretary has excluded 27 individuals from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) from the UK on the
grounds of unacceptable behaviour. During the same period, two EEA nationals have been refused admission on public policy grounds linked to their advocacy of racial or religious hatred.
Mr. Woolas: During June and July it took 15 working days to process short-term visa applications (for stays of up to 12 months), and 28 days to process student visa applications (under Tier 4 of the Points Based System). The relevant agreed global targets are:
The extended processing times were publicised at the time via the Russian Commercial Partner's website, and through the Moscow UK Border Agency User Panel, with visa applicants encouraged to apply in good time in advance of proposed travel dates.
In order to ensure that students were able to travel to commence their courses on time, a dedicated team of Entry Clearance Officers was set up to deal with student applications. Other visa applications were also prioritised, where appropriate, and applications in the following categories generally processed within the global target of five working days i.e. applications from (a) previous travellers, (b) the four Regional Visa Application Centres outside Moscow (acknowledging the longer transit time), and (c) business people enrolled in a local Trusted Partner scheme. All backlogs were cleared by the end of September.
Mr. Alan Campbell: The primary goal of the FSS transformation is to build a more robust and resilient business that is both profitable and fully able to respond to the changing needs of our customers. The FSS has produced a business case which will deliver significant savings in the future years. The figure is commercially sensitive and dependent upon the success of the FSS in competing for and retaining customers' business.
When an individual is refused entry to the United Kingdom, they are liable to be removed by the first available service to (a) the country from which
they travelled, or (b) a country where they are admissible. After completion of satisfactory risk assessments, the individual will either be detained or granted conditional temporary admission until removal can be effected.
Individuals who are refused entry at our juxtaposed controls in northern France and Belgium are served with written notices explaining the reasons why they have been denied entry to the UK. Responsibility for the individual is then passed to the relevant host authority.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with (a) his French counterpart and (b) his other EU counterparts on UK border security and migration policy. 
Mr. Woolas: The UK, French and other EU Governments maintain regular contact in the area of UK border security and migration. On 22-24 June 2009 the Home Secretary made introductory calls to his counterparts in Spain, Germany and Sweden. He discussed amongst other issues the UK position on the Stockholm Programme which encompasses border security and migration policy.
On 21 September the Home Secretary attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels, along with all of his European counterparts. European Ministers discussed a range of issues including European asylum policy and how to strengthen the management of migration flows in the Mediterranean. The Home Secretary had bilateral discussions with some of his counterparts in the margins of the Council, including with the French Minister for Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Solidarity-based Development, Eric Besson. I met with Eric Besson, the French Minister for Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Solidarity-based Development at the UK-France summit in Evian on 6 July 2009. where we both committed to further action to combat illegal immigration, including through strengthening security at the shared border and taking resolute action to reduce the pull factors for illegal immigrants and criminal networks.
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of applications from (a) Chinese, (b) Indian, (c) Pakistani, (d) Bangladeshi and (e) US nationals for a student visa were rejected between July and September 2009. 
Mr. Woolas [holding answer 19 October 2009]: The percentage of applications from (a) Chinese, (b) Indian, (c) Pakistani, (d) Bangladeshi and (e) US nationals for a student visa that were refused between July and September 2009 is shown in the following table.
|PBS Tier 4 - Student visa applications 1 July 2009 to 30 September 2009|
|Nationality||Refusal rate ( percentage)|
This data are unpublished and should be treated as provisional
Central Reference System
Table 1 shows the number of people cautioned on at least one occasion in each calendar year from 2000, and provides a breakdown of this total by the number of times each person was cautioned in the year.
|Table 1: Numbers of people cautioned by calendar year|
|Number of people cautioned on:|
|Total number of people cautioned at least once in year||Only one occasion in year||Two occasions in year||Three occasions in year||Four or more occasions in year|
Table 2 shows the number of people that have been cautioned on at least one occasion at any time between 2000 and 2008, and the breakdown of this total by the number of times each person has been cautioned over this time period.
|Table 2: Numbers of people cautioned between 2000-08|
|Caution occasions||Number of people with cautions between 2000-08|
These figures have been drawn from the police's administrative IT system, the police national computer (PNC), which, as with any large scale recording system, is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have received police cautions for the offences of (a) taking, permitting to be taken, or making distributing or publishing indecent photographs or pseudo-
photographs of children and (b) possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child in each of the last five years. 
The number of persons issued with a caution for offences of taking, permitting to be taken, or making, distributing or publishing indecent photographs of children and possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child in England and Wales, from 2003-07 (latest available) is given in the following table.
|Number of offenders cautioned( 1, 2) for offences of taking, or possession of, an indecent photograph of a child, England and Wales, 2003-07( 3)|
|(1) From 1 June 2000 the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force nationally and removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and replaced them with reprimands and warnings. These figures have been included in the totals.|
(2) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been cautioned for two or more offences at the same time, the principal offence is the more serious offence.
(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
(4) Offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978, section 1 and section 6 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 84 and Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 S.41(1).
(5) Offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 sec.160 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.
Office for Criminal Justice Reform: Evidence and Analysis Unit.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|