|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the advertising campaigns commissioned by his Department since May 1997, showing for each (a) its objectives, (b) its beginning and end dates, (c) the media used, (d) the criteria adopted to judge its effectiveness, (e) the extent to which effectiveness criteria were met, (f) any agency involvement and (g) its cost. 
Mr. Blunkett: In relation to expenditure in 19992000 and 200001, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of 17 January, 2002, Official Report, column 465W. In relation to expenditure from 199697 to 199899 the figures are as follows:
1. Figures include value added tax (VAT).
2. Figures for 199798 and 199899 reflect spending levels determined in 1996.
The Home Office uses advertising in various media to inform the public how they are affected by departmental legislation, and also to effect attitudinal and behavioural change in such areas as vehicle crime reduction, fire safety, voter registration and police recruitment. Each campaign is rigorously evaluated to ensure maximum effectiveness and value for money. Evaluation criteria are set according to the individual objectives of each campaign (for example increases in awareness and understanding of fire safety issues were measured, along with changes in public attitudes and subsequent shifts in fire statistics). The results of each evaluation exercise are used to inform future campaign development.
Historical data on the individual communication objectives, timings and evaluation criteria for each campaign can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Blizzard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will offer separate funding for local closed circuit television schemes apart from the Safer Communities Initiative. 
Mr. Denham: Under the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative a potential £170 million will be spent funding 686 CCTV schemes.
Although this initiative is now closed, other opportunities for funding of CCTV schemes may exist under the Communities against Drugs or the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiatives. Further funding for CCTV schemes may also be available under the Safer Communities Initiative (SCI).
28 Jan 2002 : Column 88W
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost was for all Departments arising from the case of Jane Coker v. The Lord Chancellor considered by (a) the Industrial Tribunal, (b) the Employment Appeal Tribunal and (c) the Court of Appeal; and if, in each instance, she will identify the costs of Counsel and other lawyers, outside of the Government's service. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: The total legal costs for all Departments arising from the case of Jane Coker and Martha Osamor v. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department were as follows:
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason there was no application for costs on her behalf in the case of Jane Coker. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: No application was made for costs on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to the hearings before the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal as the general rule in relation to costs before those Tribunals is that each side bears its own costs.
No application was made for costs on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to the hearing before the Court of Appeal as the Lord Chancellor was by that stage aware that the case brought by Jane Coker and Martha Osamor was supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department did not consider it would be appropriate to seek a costs order in circumstances where publicly funded bodies with particular responsibility for promoting equal opportunities in relation to employment matters had taken the view that there was a public interest in having the legal issues raised in the proceedings resolved by the Court of Appeal.
Bob Russell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the new courthouse at Colchester will be opened. 
Mr. Wills: It is anticipated that the new courthouse will be opened in Colchester during 2005.
Bob Russell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the upgrading of cells at Colchester magistrates court; what the cost involved is; and when he expects the work to be completed. 
28 Jan 2002 : Column 89W
Mr. Wills: In the financial year 200102, £60,192 has been allocated to the Magistrates Courts Committee and local authority to address health and safety issues in Colchester magistrates court by removing all ligature points in the cells. This is not essentially an upgrade of the cell accommodation, but necessary work to ensure that defendants are unable to harm themselves or others. This work is expected to be completed in 200203, at a total cost of £63,715. The new courthouse in Colchester planned for 2005, to be constructed under the private finance initiative, should address any concerns raised over the quality of the custody accommodation.
Gillian Merron: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many families in the UK in each of the last three years have been granted shared residency orders in cases where parents have divorced or separated and terms governing the custody of children must be decided and approved by the courts; and what proportion of those orders dictate that custody should be split equally between parents. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: In 2001 there were 22,970 residence orders granted in private law proceedings in the county and High Courts. The Lord Chancellor's Department statistics do not differentiate between those residence orders made in favour of one or both parents. The underlying philosophy of the Children Act 1989 is that parents share responsibility for the upbringing of their children, even after their own relationship has failed.
Mr. John Taylor: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement about the initial performance of the 1901 Census website. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: The 1901 Census website was successfully piloted and tested in advance of its launch on 2 January 2002. Based on benchmarking, the 1901 site was specified to allow for 1 million users, with provision to cope with peak equivalent demand of 1.2 million users, in any 24-hour period. Prior to the site being closed on 7 January 2002 to enable enhancements to be carried out, it was estimated by the PRO's business partner QinetiQ Ltd., who are responsible for the technical aspects of the service, that the maximum demand it experienced was approximately 1.2 million users per hour. This prevented many users accessing the service. A decision to close the website temporarily to general internet access was taken by the PRO and QinetiQ Ltd. in order to allow enhancements to be made. The general internet service will be restored incrementally, on completion of this work.
The online service is currently available at the Public Record Office at Kew, the Family Records Centre in Islington, and at a number of local public libraries and archives while the enhancements are being carried out. Meanwhile, the Public Record Office has fulfilled its statutory obligations by providing microform copies of the 1901 Census returns at the Public Record Office at Kew and at local record offices and public libraries across the country.
28 Jan 2002 : Column 90W
Harry Cohen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when it is proposed to notify the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead of the closure of Waltham Forest court; for what reason the media were notified before local hon. Members; what arrangements are proposed for Leyton and Leytonstone residents who have to attend a local magistrates court as defendants, victims or witnesses; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Wills: The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (GLMCA) issued their strategic plan on 13 December 2001. I understand that hon. Members, the press and trade unions were notified at this time by the GLMCA. No final decisions will be made on Waltham Forest magistrates court until the GLMCA has concluded statutory consultation and taken into account all representations made during this period. The GLMCA plan to commence the first stage of their consultation next month. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) will, in due course, have opportunity to comment directly to the GLMCA on the future of Waltham Forest magistrates court. The Government's policy is that decisions concerning listing practices, the number, location and future of magistrates courts are for magistrates courts committees to determine, in consultation with their local paying authority.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|