---

25 May 2004 : Column 1549W—continued

Correspondence

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Wrexham of 23 October 2003 in connection with Mr. Jama Ali Farah (ref. F1036752). [172199]

Mr. Browne: Officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate replied on 3 November 2003 to my hon. Friend's letter of 23 October 2003.

Sir Michael Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive a response to his letter of 7 April 2004, reference PO4301/4. [174749]

Mr. Browne [holding answer 20 May 2004]: I wrote to the hon. Member's letter on 25 May 2004.

Criminal Justice

David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Transport on reform of the criminal justice system. [172844]

Paul Goggins: The Home Office is in regular contact with the Department for Transport on criminal justice issues, including sentencing, support for victims of road crash incidents and road traffic policing.

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget is for each local criminal justice board in 2004–05; and what the proposed budget is for 2005–06. [172957]

Paul Goggins: The amount of funding from the centre to support the activities of each Local Criminal Justice Board in 2004–05 has yet to be agreed but it is hoped that it will be at least equal to the £40,000 that was provided to each Local Criminal Justice Board in 2003–04. The final sum provided in 2004–05 will be in addition to the salary cost paid by the centre for the support provided by the Performance Officer to each Local Criminal Justice Board area. The proposed
 
25 May 2004 : Column 1550W
 
budget for 2005–06 will not be known until after the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review has been considered.

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criminal justice boards    where representatives of Victim Support are (a) full members of the Board and (b) attend board meetings. [172958]

Paul Goggins: The four Criminal Justice Boards where representatives of Victim Support are full members of the Board are Avon and Somerset, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and London.

Attendance at Local Board meetings is a matter for each Board's discretion. However, Boards where the Victim Support representative may, on occasion, attend board meetings as a member of a Victim and Witness sub-group include Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall, Durham, Dyfed Powys, Essex, Greater Manchester, Hampshire, Kent, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Sussex, Thames Valley, Warwickshire and West Yorkshire. In addition to this, a Victim Support representative is a member of the Merseyside Advisory Group and therefore may possibly attend some of the Board meetings.

Drugs Testing/Treatment

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drugs testing and treatment orders were issued in (a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each year since 1997. [163092]

Paul Goggins [holding answer 22 March 2004]: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) have been available since October 2000 when they were rolled out nationally following an 18-month pilot period in three areas. The London Probation Area is required to submit monthly figures to the National Probation Directorate pertaining to the number of Orders made but is not required to break this down by boroughs. The breakdown by borough shown in Annexes A and B has been obtained from London Probation Area records.

The number of orders made in each year from October 2000 to February 2004 is as follows:

	Number
October 2000 to March 2001	251	(not available by borough)
April 2001 to March 2002	556	(not available by borough)
April 2002 to March 2003	715	(by borough at Annex A)
April 2003 to February 2004	941	(by borough at Annex B)

Annex A: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders made in London between April 2002 to March 2003 by borough

	Number
Bexley	11
Greenwich	32
Brent	23
Harrow	10
Ealing	33
Hillingdon	7
Hounslow	22
Barnet	16
Enfield	27
Haringey	38
Bromley	18
Croydon	44
Camden	35
Islington	28
Hammersmith and Fulham	16
Kensington and Chelsea	12
Westminster	12
City	0
Hackney	43
Newham	21
Tower Hamlets	22
Lambeth	39
Lewisham	25
Southwark	45
Barking and Dagenham	15
Havering	9
Redbridge	21
Waltham Forrest	17
Kingston	7
Merton	10
Richmond	3
Sutton	12
Wandsworth	29
Total	702

Note:
In addition, 13 orders were made in London on offenders of No Fixed Abode in any borough.




 
25 May 2004 : Column 1551W
 

Annex B: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders made in London between April 2003—February 2004 by borough

	Number
Bexley	8
Greenwich	37
Brent	30
Harrow	14
Eating	37
Hillingdon	27
Hounslow	24
Barnet	22
Enfield	31
Haringey	41
Bromley	23
Croydon	35
Camden	47
Islington	35
Hammersmith and Fulham	24
Kensington and Chelsea	16
Westminster	34
City	0
Hackney	34
Newham	35
Tower Hamlets	44
Lambeth	53
Lewisham	47
Southwark	62
Barking and Dagenham	21
Havering	7
Redbridge	17
Waltham Forrest	30
Kingston	7
Merton	15
Richmond	6
Sutton	19
Wandsworth	53
Total	935

Note:
In addition, six orders were made in London on offenders of No Fixed Abode in any borough.




 
25 May 2004 : Column 1552W
 

Fines

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of fines was collected by each local criminal justice board in the last year for which figures are available. [173777]

Paul Goggins: Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) do not directly collect fines. Fine enforcement is the responsibility of local Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs). But, given the importance of fine enforcement to public confidence in the Criminal Justice System, LCJBs are encouraged to monitor and to work jointly to improve payment rates within their local areas.

The table shows the payment rate for April 2003 to March 2004 for each of the 42 local MCCs. This represents the total value of fines (excluding confiscation orders) collected as a percentage of the total value of fines imposed over this period. The Department for Constitutional Affairs set MCCs a target of 75 per cent. for the year ending March 2004. Note that it is possible for an area's payment rate to exceed 100 per cent. if a sufficiently high value of fines imposed prior to April 2003 are collected.

	Payment rate (Percentage)
Magistrates' Court Committee	Q4 (January to Mar 2004)	Year 2003–04
Avon and Somerset	77	83
Bedfordshire	84	80
Cambridgeshire	110	100
Cheshire	78	82
Cleveland	114	91
Cumbria	91	93
Derbyshire	89	79
Devon and Cornwall	55	68
Dorset	69	72
Durham	93	90
Dyfed Powys	102	81
Essex	109	94
Gloucestershire	61	95
Greater London	82	66
Greater Manchester	72	64
Gwent	84	85
Hampshire and Isle of Wight	68	86
Hertfordshire	63	68
Humberside	87	96
Kent	78	78
Lancashire	90	86
Leicestershire	73	69
Lincolnshire	75	75
Merseyside	51	59
Norfolk	85	79
North Wales	75	89
North Yorkshire	138	98
Northamptonshire	81	96
Northumbria	81	82
Nottinghamshire	68	72
South Wales	76	76
South Yorkshire	101	81
Staffordshire	67	78
Suffolk	71	80
Surrey	77	74
Sussex	95	100
Thames Valley	63	65
Warwickshire	80	94
West Mercia	74	79
West Midlands	54	53
West Yorkshire	69	58
Wiltshire	92	94
England and Wales	76	74

 
25 May 2004 : Column 1553W
 

---