| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 Dec 2004 : Column 747W—continued
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Departmental Mobile Phones
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many departmental mobile telephones were used by Ministers, Special Advisers and officials in the Department in each year since 1997; at what cost; how many such telephones were lost or stolen in each year since 1997; and what the replacement costs were in each case. [202154]
Mr. Lammy [holding answer 6 December 2004]: My department has provided the following number of mobile phones to (a) Ministers and Special Advisers and (b) officials in the Department since 1997:
| (a) | (b) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1997–98 | n/a | — |
| 1998–99 | n/a | — |
| 1999–2000 | 9 | 1486 |
| 2000–01 | 9 | 1346 |
| 2001–02 | 9 | 1497 |
| 2002–03 | 9 | 1780 |
| 2003–04 | 10 | 1971 |
| 2004- September 2004 | 10 | 2750 |
9 Dec 2004 : Column 748W
Figures from 1997 to March 1999 cannot be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.
The "cost' of these mobile phones has been interpreted to mean, the cost of the equipment, the line rental and the call costs and is:
| £ | |
|---|---|
| 1997–98 | n/a |
| 1998–99 | n/a |
| 1999–2000 | 223,000.00 |
| 2000–01 | 202,000.00 |
| 2001–02 | 224,626.00 |
| 2002–03 | 266,969.00 |
| 2003–04 | 295,741.00 |
| 2004-September 2004 | 185,000.00 |
During the period 1999 to 2004, four phones have been reported lost and one phone reported stolen from the HQ Estate. The only cost to the Department has been for the replacement handsets and this equates to £250.00 in total. Due to the fact that on the wider Court Service and PGO estates, the phones are allocated to individual cost centres, it would incur a disproportionate cost to try obtain this information.
Directgov
Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) which Government Departments are (a) covered by and (b) excluded from the Directgov website; [201919]
(2) how much of the Department's budget (a) was spent on the launch of the Directgov website and (b) is incurred in Directgov's running costs; and how many hits it has received since its launch. [201920]
Ruth Kelly: I have been asked to reply.
Directgov is the Government's new primary digital service to provide citizens access to the full range of Government services. Launched in April 2004 it continues to expand its range of citizen focused content with contributions in its latest release from Cabinet Office, Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Work and Pensions, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (including local authorities), Department for Transport, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Inland Revenue, Home Office, Environmental Agency, Office of Fair Trading, Land Registry, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Electoral Commission, H.M. Customs and Excise, Department for Constitutional Affairs, Department for Trade and Industry, and Financial Services Authority. This list is expected to expand with all Government Departments encouraged to present their citizen facing information and services through Directgov.
9 Dec 2004 : Column 749W
Directgov was initially delivered as an integrated programme with UK Online from an existing operational budget of £4.4million in 2003–04. Annual running costs for this financial year are not yet available. Since Directgov's launch in April 2004 it has recorded over 5.2 million visits to the website, increasing from 420,000 visits in May to over 900,000 visits during November.
Family Division
Mr. Robathan: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average length of time was between applications for hearings in the Principal Registry of the Family Division and the hearings themselves between 1 November and 3 December; and which cases were given return dates of less than 21 days. [203730]
Mr. Leslie: The Principal Registry of the Family Division issued 2,521 applications between the 1 November and 3 December. Cases were listed individually with reference to the specific circumstances involved. Information about the average length of time between application being made and the hearing is not collected and is therefore not available.
Mr. Robathan: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many applications for adjournment were made in the Principal Registry of the Family Division in London between 18 November and 1 December; what the average length of time was between application and hearing during that period; and which cases were heard within fewer than seven days. [203731]
Mr. Leslie: Appeals to the High Court relating to applications for adjournment in the Family Division are relatively rare. Between the 18 November and 3 December there was one such appeal, this appeal was heard in fewer than 14 days.
Mr. Robathan: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many appeals were made to the High Court relating to applications for adjournment in the Family Division between 18 November and 3 December; what the average length of time was between application and hearing; and which appeals were heard in fewer than 14 days. [203732]
Mr. Leslie: Detailed information relating to the specific nature of applications made to the Principal Registry of the Family Division is not collected outside of general business headings i.e. Ancillary Relief—211; Applications for Decree Nisi listed—658. Adjournments are not classified as a business heading as they can apply across all business areas. It is therefore not possible to provide information about the average length of time between application and hearing for types of application, between specific dates, or at all.
FOI (Ministerial Committee)
Norman Baker: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the work programme of the Ministerial Committee on Freedom of Information (MSC28). [202109]
9 Dec 2004 : Column 750W
Mr. Leslie: It is established practice, as reflected in the Ministerial Code and Under Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of the Cabinet and its committees.
However in a previous written answer on 8 September 2004 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted that the Ministerial Committee on Freedom of Information (MISC28) was announced to Parliament on Thursday 27 May 2004. The Committee was established to oversee the Government's strategy on Freedom of Information, particularly as Government Departments make final preparations for the full implementation of the Freedom of Information Act on 1 January 2005.
As the Prime Minister announced to Parliament on 18 November 2004, Official Report, column 105WS the current list of Cabinet committees, their membership and terms of reference are available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Cabinet Office website. The terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee on Freedom of Information (MISC 28) are:
"To oversee the Government's strategy on freedom of Information and implementation of the Freedom of Information 2000."
Hearing Technology (XHIBIT)
Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what impact the Exchanging Hearing Information by Internet Technology scheme has had on Crown court trials and witness waiting times since its introduction; [201918]
(2) what the cost is of implementation of the advance pilot of XHIBIT which was run at Snaresbrook Crown court; [201922]
(3) what plans he has to roll out the advance pilot of XHIBIT run at Snaresbrook Crown court to the rest of England; [201923]
Mr. Leslie: The Snaresbrook XHIBIT (Exchanging Hearing Information BY Internet Technology) pilot evaluation report has identified the following major impacts on Crown court trials:
A significant reduction in the amount of time spent by Police Officers waiting to give evidence (valued nationally at £15 million per annum);
The cost of the Snaresbrook pilot has been £10.5 million, over three years (2002–03; 2003–04; 2004–05).
The Snaresbrook Pilot has been completed and the business case has been accepted. The formal approval to proceed to national rollout of XHIBIT was given on 10 November 2004 by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform Operational Board. The evaluation identified the potential to realise benefits in excess of £50 million per annum across the Criminal Justice System.
9 Dec 2004 : Column 751W
In addition, benefits estimated to be a further £96 million per annum are available to the wider UK economy as a result of reductions in the overall cost of crime.
XHIBIT is now being rolled out in every Crown court within the 42 criminal justice areas that make up England and Wales.
National rollout will be completed in spring 2006.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |