1-11 of 11 results for subject:Vetting
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.238 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Vetting
- We searched for
- subject_t:Vetting OR subject_t:Blacklisting OR subject_t:"Positive vetting" OR subject_ses:93418
Primary member
X
Cameron of Chipping Norton, Lord
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Cameron of Chipping Norton, Lord (11)
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
So much for freedom of information. Let me ask the Prime Minister about the inquiry. Will he confirm that it will look at the role played by Ministers, including the Home Secretary?
So much for freedom of information. Let me ask the Prime Minister about the inquiry. Will he confirm that it will look at the role played by Ministers, including the Home Secretary?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 January 2007
Of course it will look at the role played by Ministers; it will look at the role played by everybody. I simply point out to the right hon. Gentleman the evidence that was given yesterday by the permanent secretary.
Subjects
Criminal records; Administrative delays; Offenders; Vetting
Date
17 January 2007
Reference
455 c777
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Royal Marine Thomas Curry, Kingsman Alexander Green and Lance Corporal Mathew Ford. I also congratulate the Royal Marines on the bravery of their operation to recover Lance Corporal Ford’s body. It was a reminder of the incredible professionalism of our armed forces.
Last week, the junior Home Office Minister responsible told us that she knew nothing about the fiasco of the foreign criminal records. Now we know that she was receiving and signing letters about the issue as long ago as October. Why is she still in her job?
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Royal Marine Thomas Curry, Kingsman Alexander Green and Lance Corporal Mathew Ford. I also congratulate the Royal Marines on the bravery of their operation to recover Lance Corporal Ford’s body. It was a reminder of the incredible professionalism of our armed forces.
Last week, the junior Home Office Minister responsible told us that she knew nothing about the fiasco of the foreign criminal records. Now we know that she was receiving and signing letters about the issue as long ago as October. Why is she still in her job?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 January 2007
As the permanent secretary indicated in his evidence yesterday, the backlog was not drawn to the Minister’s attention. There is an internal inquiry about exactly what took place. Let me emphasise that, as I explained last week and shall explain again this week, since the Association of Chief Police Officers and those people at the Home Office have gone through the matter, no significant public protection issues have arisen so far in respect of the Criminal Records Bureau checks. It is correct that—since May 2006, when ACPO was given responsibility for the matter—a new system is in place. It is working well but, of course, we have had to work through the backlog of cases. Let me emphasise that we are in no different a position on the matter from any other European country.
Subjects
Criminal records; Administrative delays; EU countries; Offenders; Vetting; Criminal Records Bureau
Date
17 January 2007
Reference
455 c776
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Let us be clear. This inquiry is being carried out by the head of personnel at the Home Office. If this scandal had happened in a care home, in a hospital or in any business in this country, do you think you would ask the head of personnel to conduct the inquiry? This comes at the end of the week in which two more murderers have walked out of open prison, the immigration staff at Heathrow say they cannot cope and potential terrorists walk free from house arrest and nothing is done. The Government’s response when things go wrong is to put junior officials in charge of an inquiry. Does that not show that this Government and these Ministers are interested in protecting themselves, not in protecting the public?
Let us be clear. This inquiry is being carried out by the head of personnel at the Home Office. If this scandal had happened in a care home, in a hospital or in any business in this country, do you think you would ask the head of personnel to conduct the inquiry? This comes at the end of the week in which two more murderers have walked out of open prison, the immigration staff at Heathrow say they cannot cope and potential terrorists walk free from house arrest and nothing is done. The Government’s response when things go wrong is to put junior officials in charge of an inquiry. Does that not show that this Government and these Ministers are interested in protecting themselves, not in protecting the public?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 January 2007
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, since he mentioned control orders and terrorism, that it was the desire of this side of the House to detain people. We were the Government who introduced legislation toughening up the laws on terrorism which he and his colleagues voted against. The one group of people we will not take lessons from on control orders or action on terrorism is him and his colleagues.
Subjects
Criminal records; Offenders; Vetting
Date
17 January 2007
Reference
455 c777-8
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The Prime Minister likes to tell us that he believes in freedom of information, so I ask him again: publishing the letter would not harm national security or confidentiality, so publish the letter—why not?
The Prime Minister likes to tell us that he believes in freedom of information, so I ask him again: publishing the letter would not harm national security or confidentiality, so publish the letter—why not?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 January 2007
There is an inquiry under way and when it completes its investigation, everything will be published fully so that people can see it. Let me however once again repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not an issue where prior to May 2006 there should have been a proper system in place in Britain, because there was no proper system in place across Europe. We have now introduced a proper system for the very first time, and that means, as with many of the other issues, for the first time data are being properly collected and acted upon.
Subjects
Disclosure of information; Criminal records; Administrative delays; Offenders; Vetting
Date
17 January 2007
Reference
455 c777
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The Prime Minister tries to say this is not serious, but someone went on to kill and a people trafficker was cleared to work with children. The Prime Minister’s defence seems to be that the Minister knew about the problem, but not about the backlog—but the problem was the backlog. Do we not want Ministers who are going to ask some questions and show some judgment, rather than just operating like giant franking machines signing letters? The Prime Minister could clear up a lot of this if he published the letter that the Association of Chief Police Officers sent to the Home Office. Why does he not publish that letter? It is probably in his file right there. Go on and publish it.
The Prime Minister tries to say this is not serious, but someone went on to kill and a people trafficker was cleared to work with children. The Prime Minister’s defence seems to be that the Minister knew about the problem, but not about the backlog—but the problem was the backlog. Do we not want Ministers who are going to ask some questions and show some judgment, rather than just operating like giant franking machines signing letters? The Prime Minister could clear up a lot of this if he published the letter that the Association of Chief Police Officers sent to the Home Office. Why does he not publish that letter? It is probably in his file right there. Go on and publish it.
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 January 2007
First, let me point out that if the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the case that was in the newspapers at the weekend, my understanding is that this particular individual in fact was on the police national computer. Secondly, let me point out that it is simply not correct to say that the problem was the backlog alone. The problem was that there was no proper system and had not ever been a proper system—[Interruption.]—for the exchange of information between European countries. That has now changed. Indeed, I can tell the House that, in addition, there is a proposal from Germany, France, Spain and other countries now to connect databases across Europe. We will look very carefully at that, but it is simply not right to say that this was a problem that we had and no other country had. Every country had it. We have now introduced a new system. If I may say, yet again with this issue, as with many others, prior to 1999 there were absolutely no records kept at all.
Subjects
Disclosure of information; Criminal records; Administrative delays; EU countries; Offenders; Vetting
Date
17 January 2007
Reference
455 c776-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Does not this go to a much bigger problem about the Home Office? We have had illegal immigrants working in the Home Office, endless escapes from open prisons, and foreign prisoners released and not deported, and now there is this latest fiasco. Let me make a constructive suggestion to the Prime Minister. The Home Office is a huge Department, covering prisons, probation, immigration, criminal justice and terrorism. Will the Prime Minister take up my suggestion that there should now be a separate Home Office Minister responsible for terrorism, who sits in the Cabinet alongside the Home Secretary? We are on our fourth failing Home Secretary; would not that suggestion at least give him some chance of doing his job properly?
Does not this go to a much bigger problem about the Home Office? We have had illegal immigrants working in the Home Office, endless escapes from open prisons, and foreign prisoners released and not deported, and now there is this latest fiasco. Let me make a constructive suggestion to the Prime Minister. The Home Office is a huge Department, covering prisons, probation, immigration, criminal justice and terrorism. Will the Prime Minister take up my suggestion that there should now be a separate Home Office Minister responsible for terrorism, who sits in the Cabinet alongside the Home Secretary? We are on our fourth failing Home Secretary; would not that suggestion at least give him some chance of doing his job properly?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 January 2007
No, I am afraid that I do not think that that is the right way to proceed on security. Let me just make one thing clear in relation to absconds, which the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned. Absconds from open conditions are at their lowest level since we came to office, and absconds from closed conditions are at their lowest level. [Interruption.] Let me give him the facts. The facts are that, prior to 1997, some 1,300 prisoners escaped. For the 10 years since 1997, the figure is 137. There have, of course, been several category A escapes, including when he was at the Home Office as an adviser, but there have been no category A escapes since we came to power.
Subjects
Criminal records; British nationality; Vetting
Date
10 January 2007
Reference
455 c277
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lance Bombardier James Dwyer, Sergeant Graham Hesketh and Sergeant Wayne Rees. They died serving their country and we honour their memory.
Yesterday, the police revealed that details of British criminals, including rapists and murderers, who have committed offences abroad were sitting in boxes in the Home Office and that nothing had been done. Can the Prime Minister at least reassure us that all their details have now been entered on the police national computer and, where appropriate, the sex offenders register?
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lance Bombardier James Dwyer, Sergeant Graham Hesketh and Sergeant Wayne Rees. They died serving their country and we honour their memory.
Yesterday, the police revealed that details of British criminals, including rapists and murderers, who have committed offences abroad were sitting in boxes in the Home Office and that nothing had been done. Can the Prime Minister at least reassure us that all their details have now been entered on the police national computer and, where appropriate, the sex offenders register?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 January 2007
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Secretary will make a statement immediately after I sit down, but I can tell him that the Home Secretary has been informed this morning by the Association of Chief Police Officers that every one of the most serious offenders that it has identified—on whom there is sufficient detail to be put on the police national computer—have now been entered on the system. Let me make one thing clear: until May of last year, there was no proper system, not merely in this country but elsewhere in Europe, for the details of people who have committed offences in other countries to be given to Britain, or indeed to other Europe countries, as may be. The situation changed as a result of the decision taken by the November 2005 Justice and Home Affairs Council. Since May 2006, ACPO has been working through all the cases to make sure that there is proper protection for the public.
Subjects
Criminal records; British nationality; Offenders; Vetting; Police national computer
Date
10 January 2007
Reference
455 c275-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister has just said: the names of those people have been sitting in box files and he is admitting today that not all their details have been put on the police national computer. The Prime Minister has confirmed that yet again the Government have failed in their central duty to protect the public. Let us also be clear: of the 525 serious criminals, there are 25 rapists, 29 paedophiles and five murderers. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that none of those very dangerous people has been working with children since their conviction?
Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister has just said: the names of those people have been sitting in box files and he is admitting today that not all their details have been put on the police national computer. The Prime Minister has confirmed that yet again the Government have failed in their central duty to protect the public. Let us also be clear: of the 525 serious criminals, there are 25 rapists, 29 paedophiles and five murderers. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that none of those very dangerous people has been working with children since their conviction?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 January 2007
The Home Secretary will make a statement in a moment that covers precisely that point. However, let me just make one thing clear. Before May 2006, there were no proper details; indeed, before 1999, no details of any sort whatever were kept. Between 1999 and May 2006, details were sent under the old voluntary system that used to apply in Europe. Very often, however, those details were not sufficient to allow us to identify people properly. That is why I said that those on whom proper information was sent to us by other European countries have been entered on the police national computer. In so far as insufficient details have not been sent to us, that is not, with respect, the fault of the Home Office but of those people who have been sending the details from other countries. All the way through there was, of course, an attempt to improve the system; however, it was only when Europe took a decision to make compulsory what had previously been voluntary that we were able to deal with the backlog satisfactorily.
Subjects
Criminal records; British nationality; Offenders; Vetting; Police national computer
Date
10 January 2007
Reference
455 c276
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Let us be clear: I asked the Prime Minister for a guarantee and he simply cannot give one. His answer underlines just how serious this is. There are rapists, murderers and paedophiles at large in Britain who could have got through the net and could have been working with children in the NHS, in social services or in our schools. The Prime Minister says that the Home Secretary will give a statement, but is not it the fact that the Home Office is part of the problem? Last night, the Home Office said that details of the serious offenders had all been entered into the computer—that is what they said. This morning, a Home Office Minister said that they had not all been entered. Why does the Home Office keep giving such misleading information about such an important matter?
Let us be clear: I asked the Prime Minister for a guarantee and he simply cannot give one. His answer underlines just how serious this is. There are rapists, murderers and paedophiles at large in Britain who could have got through the net and could have been working with children in the NHS, in social services or in our schools. The Prime Minister says that the Home Secretary will give a statement, but is not it the fact that the Home Office is part of the problem? Last night, the Home Office said that details of the serious offenders had all been entered into the computer—that is what they said. This morning, a Home Office Minister said that they had not all been entered. Why does the Home Office keep giving such misleading information about such an important matter?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 January 2007
It is not giving misleading information—[Interruption.] As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman beforehand, while the system was voluntary in the rest of Europe, when details were provided on a voluntary basis, there were often not sufficient details to allow people to be put on the police national computer. Now that we have a compulsory requirement, all those for whom there is sufficient detail are, as I understand it, now on the police national computer. It is correct that it is important that we make sure that from now on—now there is a compulsory system in place—all the information is entered properly; but before that decision was taken in Europe, some countries, despite the fact that obviously we wanted greater amounts of information, did not provide it. As a result of the decision taken in December 2005, as I explained to the right hon. Gentleman, that information is now given on a compulsory basis.
Subjects
Criminal records; British nationality; Vetting
Date
10 January 2007
Reference
455 c276-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The Prime Minister has completely failed to answer the question. Why is it that last night the Home Office said one thing, but this morning the junior Minister said something completely different? On taking office, the Home Secretary said that he would have a fundamental review of his Department. A hundred days later he said, ““Job done””, yet we now know that 500 criminals are on the loose and his Department did virtually nothing about it. Is not it the case that if one of those dangerous criminals is found to have been working with vulnerable adults or with children, the Home Secretary will not be able to run away from responsibility for it?
The Prime Minister has completely failed to answer the question. Why is it that last night the Home Office said one thing, but this morning the junior Minister said something completely different? On taking office, the Home Secretary said that he would have a fundamental review of his Department. A hundred days later he said, ““Job done””, yet we now know that 500 criminals are on the loose and his Department did virtually nothing about it. Is not it the case that if one of those dangerous criminals is found to have been working with vulnerable adults or with children, the Home Secretary will not be able to run away from responsibility for it?
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
10 January 2007
No one is seeking to do that. I thought that I had explained the position to the right hon. Gentleman, but let me explain it again to him. All the people for whom there is sufficient information are on the police national computer, but as for those who are part of the backlog of cases, and where the information was delivered to us when doing so was only voluntary, not compulsory, there may be some of those for whom there is insufficient information. That is not the fault of the Home Office. In respect of those for whom there is sufficient information, they, I am now informed, are all on the police national computer.
Subjects
Criminal records; British nationality; Vetting
Date
10 January 2007
Reference
455 c277
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most recent performance statistics are of the (a) Security Industry Authority for the issuing of licences for door supervisors and (b) Criminal Records Bureau on the vetting procedure for door supervisors.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most recent performance statistics are of the (a) Security Industry Authority for the issuing of licences for door supervisors and (b) Criminal Records Bureau on the vetting procedure for door supervisors.
Asked by
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Reid of Cardowan
(Labour)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
3 July 2006
For answer on
5 July 2006
Answered on
25 July 2006
The information is as follows:"(a) As at 14 July 2006, 47,597 door supervisor licences have been issued by the Security Industry Authority.""(b) Specific performance statistics for the vetting of door supervisors are not available. Door supervisors are eligible for the Standard Disclosure check provided by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). The most recent performance figures show that in June 98.6 per cent of applications for Standard Disclosure were processed by the CRB within its Public Service Standard."
Subjects
Licensing; Vetting; Security guards
Date
25 July 2006
Reference
82748; 449 c1339W
House
House of Commons