1-20 of 88 results for subject:Enforcement
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.246 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Enforcement
- We searched for
- subject_t:Enforcement OR subject_ses:91126
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, while I thank my noble friend the Minister, I regret that I have to join the critics of this policy. When Europe is talking about freeing its cross-border movement—15 June is a likely date—we are in danger of freezing and closing ours down. This can only bring disastrous...
My Lords, while I thank my noble friend the Minister, I regret that I have to join the critics of this policy. When Europe is talking about freeing its cross-border movement—15 June is a likely date—we are in danger of freezing and closing ours down. This can only bring disastrous...
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Ivory Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for...
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Ivory Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for...
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, in so far as they are affected by the Bill, at...
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, in so far as they are affected by the Bill, at...
My Lords, the regulations are made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which became law two weeks ago. They provide the detail of how communications providers can be required to retain data and the increased safeguards that will be in place for these data. They therefore form part...
My Lords, the regulations are made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which became law two weeks ago. They provide the detail of how communications providers can be required to retain data and the increased safeguards that will be in place for these data. They therefore form part...
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this. There has been a general welcome for these regulations, as there was for the Bill in general. I appreciate the support of the House in what has been a difficult matter for Parliament to resolve satisfactorily, and I believe...
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this. There has been a general welcome for these regulations, as there was for the Bill in general. I appreciate the support of the House in what has been a difficult matter for Parliament to resolve satisfactorily, and I believe...
The Information Commissioner has a role, as has been made clear. However, it is a continuing role in investigating this; it is not a question of reports or reviews. The six-monthly review is done by the Interception Commissioner, and the oversight of retained data in respect of security and deletion...
The Information Commissioner has a role, as has been made clear. However, it is a continuing role in investigating this; it is not a question of reports or reviews. The six-monthly review is done by the Interception Commissioner, and the oversight of retained data in respect of security and deletion...
Lords motion to approve. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to approve. Agreed to on question.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 3 February (WA 17), whether court orders handed down in the United Kingdom are enforceable in the Channel Islands; and, if not, what action is taken in those circumstances to ensure the safety and...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 3 February (WA 17), whether court orders handed down in the United Kingdom are enforceable in the Channel Islands; and, if not, what action is taken in those circumstances to ensure the safety and...
The Channel Islands (the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey) are Crown Dependencies. The Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK but are self-governing dependencies of the Crown, with their own directly elected legislative assemblies, administrative, fiscal and legal systems and their own courts of law. Judgments of the courts of England and Wales are not, therefore , of themselves effective in the Bailiwicks of Guernsey or Jersey, but it is possible for UK court orders to be recognised and enforced if they meet certain established criteria whether pursuant to statute, or pursuant to the common or customary law. Much depends upon the circumstances and type of offence committed or judgment made.
Criminal law in Scotland and Northern Ireland is devolved, meaning that responsibility for such matters lie with the devolved administrations of Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.
There is excellent co-operation between Common Travel Area (CTA) partners, including the UK and the Channel Islands, to prevent abuse of the CTA by strengthening its external border. The UK Government is working with the Channel Islands authorities to ensure that the implications of the Modern Slavery Bill and the Modern Slavery action plan for the Common Travel Area are fully understood.
UK Border Force staff receive mandatory training to help identify and tackle human trafficking, and to date we have not seen any evidence that individuals are being trafficked to the UK via the Channel Islands. However, we remain alert and will act on any information received.
My hon Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement:
We have taken the opportunity of the G8 presidency to galvanise international partners and institutions to meet the global challenge presented by New Psychoactive Substances.
The G8 meetings have developed a consensus to...
My hon Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement:
We have taken the opportunity of the G8 presidency to galvanise international partners and institutions to meet the global challenge presented by New Psychoactive Substances.
The G8 meetings have developed a consensus to...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many arrests were made for illegal immigration in the week referred to in their “Go home or face arrest” advertising campaign in (1) Hounslow, (2) Barking and Dagenham, (3) Ealing, (4) Barnet, (5) Brent, and (6) Redbridge.[HL2059]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many arrests were made for illegal immigration in the week referred to in their “Go home or face arrest” advertising campaign in (1) Hounslow, (2) Barking and Dagenham, (3) Ealing, (4) Barnet, (5) Brent, and (6) Redbridge.[HL2059]
The data used in support of the claim was the most reliable and recent information. 106 arrests was the total number of arrests made by the West, North and East London Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) teams and arrests made from seven police custody suites in
the six pilot boroughs, during the week 30 June to 6 July 2013. The number does not include those who had been refused entry or arrested at Heathrow airport.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government with which communities they expect the “Go home or face arrest” billboard campaign to be most successful; and what assessment they have made of the languages spoken in those communities.[HL1989]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government with which communities they expect the “Go home or face arrest” billboard campaign to be most successful; and what assessment they have made of the languages spoken in those communities.[HL1989]
This is a pilot and part of the evaluation will be to determine which nationalities of immigration offenders this is likely to have an effect on.
Management information was used on the boroughs targeted to allow for different languages to be available for the leaflets, advertisements in newspapers and posters that support the billboard campaign.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when and by what criteria they plan to evaluate the piloting of the billboard scheme aimed at illegal immigrants.[HL2008]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when and by what criteria they plan to evaluate the piloting of the billboard scheme aimed at illegal immigrants.[HL2008]
The pilot, part of which included billboards on vans is being fully evaluated. There are a number of criteria, the primary one being whether or not it has increased the ability for immigration offenders to approach the Home Office for assistance in voluntarily departing from the United Kingdom.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government in what languages the mobile “Go home or face arrest” billboards have been printed.[HL1988]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government in what languages the mobile “Go home or face arrest” billboards have been printed.[HL1988]
The mobile billboards have been printed in English. However, other campaign material such as leaflets, posters, advertisements in newspapers and in local newsagents and internet cafes have been produced in a range of languages.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the total cost of the “Go home or face arrest” billboard campaign.[HL2014]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the total cost of the “Go home or face arrest” billboard campaign.[HL2014]
The total cost of the entire pilot was just under £10,000. This amount includes the cost of the advertising vans, communication materials, including translation fees, the text message service, adverts in newspapers and shop windows, posters and leaflets. The total cost for the billboard element of the pilot was £4734. Even one immigration offender voluntarily departing from the United Kingdom as a result of this pilot would pay for the cost of the pilot in comparison to the same individual being subject to an enforced removal—which can cost the taxpayer up to approximately £15,000.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government who prepared the written brief used by the advertising agency instigating the “Go home or face arrest” billboard campaign.[HL2013]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government who prepared the written brief used by the advertising agency instigating the “Go home or face arrest” billboard campaign.[HL2013]
The Home Office commissioned the use of the advertising vans and billboards, and prepared all the written material.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the source for the claim in their “Go home or face arrest” advertising campaign that 106 people were arrested in the previous seven days in the London boroughs in which the campaign was piloted. [HL2044]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the source for the claim in their “Go home or face arrest” advertising campaign that 106 people were arrested in the previous seven days in the London boroughs in which the campaign was piloted. [HL2044]
The data used were the most reliable and most recent management information. The 106 arrests referred to on the AdVans include arrests for immigration offences made in the Metropolitan Police custody suites of the six pilot boroughs and the work of the West, North and East London Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) teams. The relevant police custody suites are Acton, Chiswick, Colindale, Fresh Wharf, Hounslow, Ilford and Wembley. These arrests are usually conducted by immigration officers already present in those police stations or called to them for the purpose of serving immigration papers. The ICE teams are responsible for tackling immigration offences in the relevant geographical boundaries of London.
It should be noted that this figure of 106 arrests reflected a typical week and was not significantly higher than usual. The number of arrests on the AdVans does not include those refused entry at port or those arrested at Heathrow airport.
“Your area” was defined as the six boroughs referred to and identified on the bottom left hand corner of the advertisement.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the criteria used for the selection of London boroughs to be targeted by the "Go home or face arrest" advertising campaign pilot; and what assessment they made prior to its implementation of its projected impact on (1) public order, (2) community relations, and...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the criteria used for the selection of London boroughs to be targeted by the "Go home or face arrest" advertising campaign pilot; and what assessment they made prior to its implementation of its projected impact on (1) public order, (2) community relations, and...
The vans were targeted to six London boroughs which had either significantly above average, or very low, uptake of the voluntary departure route for illegal immigrants; the pilot was designed to test the media used and to identify which areas produced the highest response rate. Operational intelligence was used to target specific areas within those boroughs, such as locations where illegal immigrants or people seeking work illegally were known to congregate, and high streets.
The Home Office considered all aspects of the pilot before its launch, including public order and community relations, and we have kept this situation under review. An evaluation of the impacts from the pilot will be published in due course however the Metropolitan Police Service have confirmed that there was no increase in community tension during the period of the pilot.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to use the “Go home or face arrest” billboard campaign more widely; if so, where such campaigns will take place; and how, in advance of any future campaign, local people and any interested parties will be consulted.[HL2138]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to use the “Go home or face arrest” billboard campaign more widely; if so, where such campaigns will take place; and how, in advance of any future campaign, local people and any interested parties will be consulted.[HL2138]
The AdVans referred to were used in six London Boroughs from 22 to 28 July. The AdVans are part of a wider pilot to improve awareness and take up of voluntary departures and the effectiveness of this pilot will be evaluated before any decisions on future deployment are taken.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many working hours were expended in the development and implementation of the “Go home or face arrest” advertising campaign pilot.[HL2055]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many working hours were expended in the development and implementation of the “Go home or face arrest” advertising campaign pilot.[HL2055]
The pilot is part of wider work by the Home Office to encourage voluntary departures from the United Kingdom. It is not possible to calculate the exact number of working hours spent developing this specific pilot.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how “your area” was defined in the “Go home or face arrest” advertising campaign piloted in several London boroughs in July 2013.[HL2045]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how “your area” was defined in the “Go home or face arrest” advertising campaign piloted in several London boroughs in July 2013.[HL2045]
The data used were the most reliable and most recent management information. The 106 arrests referred to on the AdVans include arrests for immigration offences made in the Metropolitan Police custody suites of the six pilot boroughs and the work of the West, North and East London Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) teams. The relevant police custody suites are Acton, Chiswick, Colindale, Fresh Wharf, Hounslow, Ilford and Wembley. These arrests are usually conducted by immigration officers already present in those police stations or called to them for the purpose of serving immigration papers. The ICE teams are responsible for tackling immigration offences in the relevant geographical boundaries of London.
It should be noted that this figure of 106 arrests reflected a typical week and was not significantly higher than usual. The number of arrests on the AdVans does not include those refused entry at port or those arrested at Heathrow airport.
“Your area” was defined as the six boroughs referred to and identified on the bottom left hand corner of the advertisement.