---

11 Oct 2004 : Column 163W—continued

Breathalyser Tests

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many breathalyser tests were carried out in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 2000; and what percentage resulted in convictions. [189858]

Ms Blears: Available information collected centrally on breath tests is at police force area level only. Buckingham constituency falls within the Thames Valley police force area. The table shows the number of breathalyser tests undertaken in Thames Valley in each year between 2000 and 2002 and the percentage resulting in a positive test or a refusal.
 
11 Oct 2004 : Column 164W
 

Thames Valley

Positive/refused	Number of screening breath tests	Percentage
2000	30,800	17
2001	26,200	18
2002	25,300	30

Central Casualty Bureau

Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Central Casualty Bureau is funded by central Government. [184597]

Ms Blears: There is no specific ring-fenced budget to meet the costs of running the Central Casualty Bureau when it has been opened. Funding is derived from the central Government police grant, as are all other police activity costs.

If the Central Casualty Bureau has been opened on behalf of a number of counties, forces may make a retrospective contribution following the incident.

Chechnya

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will halt the deportation to the Russian Federation of citizens from the Chechnya region until such time as their safety can be guaranteed; and if he will make a statement. [187979]

Mr. Browne: At the present time country information does not indicate that there are any reasons to halt the return to the Russian Federation of individuals from Chechnya, including those whose claims for asylum have been rejected, who no longer have a right to stay in the United Kingdom.

All asylum and human rights claims are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This consideration takes into account up to date information on the situation in the country of origin.

Child Abductions

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the Police Information Technology Organisation on developing new systems for alerting the public about child abductions. [189428]

Caroline Flint: The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) has tested the alert messaging capabilities of the Police Portal. The Portal can provide any force with a means to alert public subscribers, for example by text message to mobile phones, to inform them of child abductions. Planned co-operation with local media to quickly broadcast child alerts has proved itself the most reliable means for informing and engaging public support.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has decided to progress the Portal's alert capability in the first instance for emergency messaging to those in the public and private sectors who have responsibility for public safety. This is being taken forward by a PITO Service
 
11 Oct 2004 : Column 165W
 
Implementation Group, with representatives from the Metropolitan police, London Resilience within the Government Office for London, the Home Office and Cabinet Office.

Community Sentences

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the impact of community sentencing on re-offending rates. [182288]

Paul Goggins: There was a 3.1 per cent. reduction in reconviction rates for those commencing community penalties in 1999, compared to 1997. The methodology is explained in Home Office On-line Report 16/02.

Community Support Officers

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it takes to train a community support officer. [186907]

Ms Blears: The length of training given to Community Support Officers is a matter for individual chief officers to determine. In most forces training lasts from three to six weeks and combines classroom training with supervised patrol.

Corrections Bill

Mr. Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward a Corrections Bill; and if he will make a statement. [189088]

Paul Goggins [holding answer 16 September 2004]: We intend to introduce legislation at the next available opportunity to implement a number of reforms which follow Lord Carter's review of the Correctional Services.

Correspondence

Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 8 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regards to Mr. and Mrs. T. Mahmoud; [188872]

(2) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 8 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. T. Mahmoud. [189706]

Mr. Blunkett: Home Office officials have sent to my right hon. Friend a copy of the reply I sent to him on 12 July. I am sorry it did not reach him. Mr. and Mrs. Mahmoud do appear to qualify for consideration under the one-off exercise announced in October 2003, which allows a number of people who have claimed asylum and who have children in the UK to remain here indefinitely. Their case is now being considered.

Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Torbay of 26 August regarding NHS work permits. [189649]

Mr. Browne: The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) replied to the hon. Member on 21 September.
 
11 Oct 2004 : Column 166W
 

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in responding to the hon. Member for Leicester East's letter of 17 May. [189933]

Mr. Browne: The Managed Migration Directorate (MM) of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate replied to my hon. Friend on 8 September 2004.

MM apologised for the delay in replying, which was due to an administrative error. MM now have systems in place to minimise such delays in replying to official correspondence.

Departmental Expenditure

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent by his Department on (a) advertising and (b) public relations consultants in each of the past eight years. [184805]

Mr. Blunkett: The Home Office uses advertising and public relations consultants in support of public information and communication campaigns. Since 1996–97 spending has been as follows:

1996–97

£5.23 million on advertising costs as part of total spend of £8.328 million. Communication spend represents 0.13 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £6,416 million.

Campaigns included car crime, recruitment of special constables, fire safety and electoral registration.

1997–98

£1.4million on advertising costs as part of total spend of £3.372 million on total communications. Communication spend represented 0.05 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £6,747 million.

Campaigns included recruitment of special constables, fire safety, absent voting and electoral registration.

1998–99

£1.8 million on advertising costs as part of total spend of £4.194 million on total communications. Communication spend represents 0.06 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £7,608.2 million.

Campaigns included smoke alarms, recruitment of special constables, crime partnerships and electoral registration.

1999–2000

£5.65 million on advertising costs as part of total spend of £10.08 million on total communications. Communication spend represents 0.13 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £7,996.2 million.

Campaigns included chip pan safety, fire safety, recruitment of special constables, European Parliament elections and electoral registration.

2000–01

£28.36 million on advertising costs as part of total spend of £35.637 million on total communication. Communication spend represents 0.39 per cent. of total Home office public expenditure of £9,068.7million.

Campaigns included fire safety, vehicle crime and recruitment of police officers.
 
11 Oct 2004 : Column 167W
 

2001–02

£14.4 million on advertising costs as part of total spend of £25.1 million on total communications. Communication spend represented 0.23 per cent. of total Home Office expenditure of £10,820.8 million.

Campaigns included fire safety (smoke alarms), vehicle crime, internet child protection, drugs, recruitment of police officers and special constables and postal voting.

2002–03

£9.9 million on advertising costs as part of total spend of £18.3 million on total communications. 0.14 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £13,493.1 million.

Campaigns included vehicle crime, internet child protection, drugs, firearms amnesty and recruitment of police officers.

2003–04

£12.487 million on advertising costs as part of total spend of £22.083 million on total communications. Communication spend represents 0.18 per cent. of total Home Office expenditure of £12,605.5million.

Campaigns included vehicle crime, internet child protection, drugs, recruitment of police officers and domestic.

Figures up to 1997–98 are on a cash basis; after that they reflect the introduction of full Resource Accounting and Budgeting.

---