Previous Section Index Home Page

10 Jan 2005 : Column 280W—continued

Child Abuse

Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been convicted of child abuse offences in each of the last five years in England; and what proportion of offenders were (a) men and (b) the parent or step-parent of the child victim in each year. [205290]

Paul Goggins: Statistics on the number of offenders convicted of sexual offences involving minors, are provided in the table. The figures also include the proportion of offenders found guilty who were male, aged 18 and over.

It is not possible to identify the relationship of the offender to the victim, as these data are not collected centrally on the Home Office court proceedings database.

Statistics for 2004 will be available in autumn 2005.
Number of offenders found guilty at all courts, and the percentage of which were males aged 18 and over for sexual offences against minors where the age of the victim is identified by the offence(5507180079)(5507180080) England 1999 to 2003

1999
2000(5507180081)
Found guiltyPercentage that were male aged 18 and overFound guiltyPercentage that were male aged 18 and over
Buggery by a male of a male under 1649964698
Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 1711003100
Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 171100
Buggery by a male with a female under 16119112100
Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 171100
Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 1711001100
Indecent assault on male person under 16 years3088527582
Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 18810011100
Rape of a female aged under 162229418892
Rape of a male aged under 1632592167
Attempted rape of a female aged under 1642862986
Attempted rape of a male aged under 16650250
Indecent assault on a female under 161,376851,20185
Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 1351754873
Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 161809319787
Incest with a girl under 1313771283
Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse11002100
Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16
Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.10
Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male31003100
Abduction of unmarried girl under 161100367
Abduction of unmarried girl under 181100
Gross indecency with boys aged less than 1666895188
Gross indecency with girls aged less than 161349512892
Total2,508782,23486

 
10 Jan 2005 : Column 281W
 

2001
2002
Found guiltyPercentage that were male aged 18 and overFound guiltyPercentage that were male aged 18 and over
Buggery by a male of a male under 1657984994
Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 17
Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 17
Buggery by a male with a female under 167869100
Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 171100
Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 17
Indecent assault on male person under 16 years2568428178
Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 184100
Rape of a female aged under 161689319396
Rape of a male aged under 1626693087
Attempted rape of a female aged under 1630873786
Attempted rape of a male aged under 165804100
Indecent assault on a female under 161,194841,22981
Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 1349614468
Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 161948721084
Incest with a girl under 134751090
Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse3100367
Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 1610
Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.
Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male21004100
Abduction of unmarried girl under 162503100
Abduction of unmarried girl under 18
Gross indecency with boys aged less than 1673896887
Gross indecency with girls aged less than 161548816890
Total2,226852,34683

 
10 Jan 2005 : Column 282W
 

2003
Found guiltyPercentage that were male aged 18 and over
Buggery by a male of a male under 1640100
Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 17
Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 17
Buggery by a male with a female under 165100
Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 17
Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 17
Indecent assault on male person under 16 years24785
Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 18
Rape of a female aged under 1623994
Rape of a male aged under 162677
Attempted rape of a female aged under 163288
Attempted rape of a male aged under 16863
Indecent assault on a female under 161,13785
Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 134461
Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 1623390
Incest with a girl under 13956
Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse250
Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16
Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc,
Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male
Abduction of unmarried girl under 16250
Abduction of unmarried girl under 18
Gross indecency with boys aged less than 167989
Gross indecency with girls aged less than 1617790
Total2,28086


(5507180079) These data are on the principal offence basis.
(5507180080) Excludes those offences where the age of a victim cannot be identified in the wording of the offence.
(5507180081) Staffordshire Police Force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000 Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.



 
10 Jan 2005 : Column 283W
 

 
10 Jan 2005 : Column 284W
 

Civil Service

Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time taken for civil service staff to pass security vetting procedures was in the last period for which figures are available. [204453]

Mr. Miliband: I have been asked to reply.

The security vetting process is managed by the employing or contracting Government Department. Details of the time taken to carry out individual clearances are not held centrally.

The length of time taken to carry out a clearance is dependent on a number of factors. These include the nature and extent of the checks involved at each level of clearance: Developed vetting (DV) clearance, which is necessary for long term frequent and uncontrolled access to top secret information or assets, requires a greater breadth and depth of checks as well as an interview with the subject and referees, and generally takes longer to carry out than a security check (SC—for long term, frequent and uncontrolled access to secret information or assets) or counter-terrorist check (CTC—for access to public figures or establishments at particular risk of terrorist attack).

Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days sick leave were taken by civil servants in the Department in each year since 1997; and what the sickness absence rate was in each year. [204518]

Fiona Mactaggart: The following is a table of recorded sick leave for staff within the main Home Office Department since 1997:
Days sick
Calendar days
Working daysPercentage WD lostStaff covered(5507180082)
1997191,812141,837.826.99,174
1998189,107139,837.576.79,317
1999186,074137,594.786.29,812
2000212,102156,841.526.311,060
2001222,924164,843.986.611,142
2002248,650183,867.406.512,607
2003286,259226,685.296.914,686
200492,11574,226.146.610,026
2002Core and IND160,3575.5
Core32,9176.0
IND127,4404.0
2003Core and IND149,216.34.1
Core31,9464.5
IND117,270.33.2
2004Core and IND155,6324.2
Core31,0433.0
IND124,5894.1


(5507180082) Staff sick in calendar year, sickness begins before end of year, ends after start.
Notes:
1. Calendar to working day conversion has been given by applying the ratios found in the earliest available full breakdown (November 2002) to the earlier data. This provides an adjustment for part year workers, and part-time staff. However it assumes that years previous to 2002 had a similar ratio of such staff.
2. Figures are lower than those for 2002 from archive, in part because of winter sickness November/December 2002 that will have not reached the system at the time this report was run in November.





 
10 Jan 2005 : Column 285W
 


Next Section Index Home Page