Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timetable is for assessment of each of the category of projects under the crime reduction programme; and if he will make a statement. [128524]
Mr. Charles Clarke: The provisional timetable is shown in the table.
4 Jul 2000 : Column: 173W
Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the targets set by his Department for the reduction of crime, the date the targets were set and the timescale of the targets; what further targets he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [128525]
Mr. Charles Clarke: In September 1998, the Government set a target for a 30 per cent. reduction in thefts of and from motor vehicles. This target covers the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004.
In addition, by 31 March 2000, all police authorities in England and Wales were required to set for themselves five-year targets for reductions in domestic burglary and vehicle crime. The police authorities in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire and the Metropolitan Police Service were also required to set five-year targets for reductions in robbery. These targets cover the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2005 and have been published in each police authority's Best Value Performance Plan for 2000-01. The full list of these targets, as they appear in Best Value Performance Plans, is available on the website of the Association of Police Authorities--www.apa.police.uk.
In their Best Value Performance Plans, police authorities have also set a number of other crime reduction targets which reflect local priorities.
Local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships will set targets for April 2001.
The Home Office Public Service Agreement, which will be published to coincide with the outcome of the Spending Review 2000, is also likely to contain targets reflecting key aspects of the Department's business.
4 Jul 2000 : Column: 174W
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the evidence which he has disclosed to the Court in the judicial review application by Williams Jeffery Barber on behalf of the National Crime Squad and others. [128923]
Mr. Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not submit evidence in this case, in which the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is an independent body, sought judicial review of a decision by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net revenue cost was in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000; and what the planned revenue cost is for 2000-01 of each of the executive and advisory non-Departmental public bodies listed on pages 88 to 96 of his Annual report for 1999-2000. [128926]
Mr. Straw: The net revenue cost and planned costs for the Home Office Executive and Advisory Non- Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are set out in the following table. I have taken "net revenue costs" to mean the Grant in Aid for Executive NDPBs minus any receipts payable to the Exchequer offsetting costs.
Neither the Tote nor the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) have any revenue cost, as they are self-financing. The expenses payable to the Alcohol Education and Research Council are within the travel and subsistence budget of the Liquor Gambling and Data Protection Unit.
It is not possible to estimate the planned costs for some Advisory Bodies, as the members of those bodies only receive expenses when necessary.
4 Jul 2000 : Column: 173W
1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Executive NDPBs: Net revenue cost | ||||
1. Alcohol Education and Research Council | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
2. Commission for Racial Equality | 14,825 | 16,425 | 16,835 | |
3. Community Development Foundation | 1,090 | 14,363 | 14,643 | |
4. Criminal Cases Review Commission | 4,300 | 4,800 | 5,400 | |
5. Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority(19) | 125,200 | 142,100 | 214,600 | |
6. Gaming Board | 1 | 232 | -336 | |
7. Horserace Betting Levy Board | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
8. Horserace Totalisator Board (The Tote) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
9. Office of the Data Protection Registrar | -3,324 | -880 | 3,143 | |
10. Parole Board | 2,669 | 2,672 | 3,100 | |
11. Police Complaints Authority | 3,410 | 3,444 | 3,468 | |
12. Police Information Technology Organisation | 36,229 | 52,055 | 33,781 | |
13. Youth Justice Board (YJB) | 900 | 36,528 | 234,019 | |
Advisory NDPBs: Net revenue cost | ||||
1. Advisory Board on Restricted Patients | 60 | 66 | n/a | |
2. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs | 20 | 22 | n/a | |
3. Animal Procedures Committee | 285 | 315 | 295 | |
4. Firearms Consultative Committee | 4 | 6 | 20 | |
5. Metropolitan Police Committee | 29 | 36 | 8 | |
6. Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England | 299 | 797 | 1,731 | |
7. Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales | 29 | 39 | 61 | |
8. Poisons Board | 0 | 0 | n/a | |
9. Police Negotiating Board | 70 | 79 | 47 | |
10. Race Relations Forum | 4 | 23 | 23 |
(19) Compensation and Administration costs combined
Note:
Cost rounded to the nearest £000
4 Jul 2000 : Column: 175W
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in 1999 applied for permission to switch their visa category; how many such applications were approved; what the net cost was to public funds of handling these applications; and if he will make a statement. [128925]
Mrs. Roche: The available information relates to decisions taken on all applications to switch category after entering the country. In 1999, 40,900 principal applicants switched into a non-asylum category and 2,700 were refused. This excludes 41,700 (provisional) applications for asylum made by principal applicants after entry. I regret that the costs incurred dealing with applications to switch category cannot be separated from the overall costs of the Integrated Casework Directorate.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |