|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Ms Christine Russell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to keep under review the fee for individuals to gain access to their medical records under the Data Protection Act 1998. 
Mr. Wills: The maximum fee for subject access to medical records held in computerised form is £10. For the time being, the Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 maintain at £50 the maximum fee for subject access to medical records held in other forms. The Government believe that, in the light of current technology and record-keeping practice, the £50 maximum strikes the proper balance between ensuring that cost is not a barrier >to subject access and avoiding the diversion of resources from patient care. The Government are committed to working with the Information Commissioner, in consultation with other key interests, with the aim of finding a long-term solution.
Mr. Watson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates court trials scheduled to be heard on a particular day in England and Wales between January and July had to be rescheduled because the prosecution police witness failed to attend. 
Mr. Wills: Information is not collected nationally on adjournments and rescheduling, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, in a pilot study run in nine of the 42 magistrates courts committee areas between 2 April and 29 June 2001, 6,267 trials were listed. Of those, 1,176 trials were ineffective for a variety of reasons, 81 of which were as a result of a prosecution police witness failing to attend. An ineffective trial is defined as:
Mr. Wills: In the period between January 2001 and June 2001 a total of 27,444 cases brought by the Crown Prosecution Service were contested in the magistrates courts, compared to 29,030 in the same period in 2000 and 31,857 in 1999. A contest is defined as
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases of computer (a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department has recorded in 2000 and 2001; and on how many occasions in 2000 and 2001 computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside his Department. 
|Illegal access by computer hackers|
Geraint Davies: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the annual report of the chief inspector of the magistrates courts service; and if he will make a statement. 
The chief inspector's report describes the work of the Inspectorate over the past year and reports some of its principal findings. Magistrates courts committees (MCCs) are seen to have made improvements in many areas. In particular, the co-operation between the courts, police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) at an operational level, has strengthened further. The progress made on the operation of the 'Narey' reforms aimed at reducing delay in the magistrates courts and the Government's pledge to reduce the time taken to deal with persistent young offenders are examples of the benefits of close working.
There have been advances made in the collection of performance information, and in the way it is represented to the MCC, but effective analysis of this information remains a weakness for a number of MCCs. This is in spite of the situation being highlighted in last year's report. MCCs are, however, demonstrating a better awareness of the need to provide the strategic direction and of leaving operational matters to their officers.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what stocks of (a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell further such assets over the period of the current comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Paul Murphy: A summary of my Department's asset holdings is given in the National Asset Register (Cm 5221, July 2001). Since it was established on 1 July 1999, the Wales Office has made no significant disposal of assets and has no plans to do so. >
Apart from the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill, which is undergoing parliamentary scrutiny, no relevant legislation is currently proposed. An extensive range of specific legislative measures is in place for tackling violence and disorder at football matches while general public order and other provisions are available for dealing with the much lower levels of disorder experienced at other sporting events. Legislation alone will not eradicate violence and hooliganism. That is why the Government are committed to monitoring implementation of the >55 recommendations contained in the Working Group on Football Disorder report, published in March, and to helping the relevant authorities take forward the recommendations on crowd management contained in the Cricket Disorder Review Group report, published in September.
Mr. Caborn: Following the election the ad hoc Ministerial Group on the Commonwealth Games was reconstituted as a formal Cabinet Committee, MISC 15, under the joint chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Its terms of reference are
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public money has been spent in each of the last five years to construct the necessary facilities, transport networks and accommodation in connection with the Manchester Commonwealth Games. 
|City of Manchester Stadium||0.5||0.4||3.3||12.9||41.9||59.0|
|English Institute of Sport||||||0.1||0.2||1.3||1.6|
|Manchester Acquatics Centre||0.6||3.3||11.4||11.8||5.2||32.3|
|Heaton Park Bowling Greens||||||||||0.4||0.4|
The table shows public expenditure over the last five financial years on venues primarily constructed for the Commonwealth Games. The expenditure is made up of funds from Manchester City Council and/or Sport England. To date no public money has been incurred on Games accommodation or on transport networks.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|