|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list meetings her Department has had with representatives of the drinks, licensing and public house industries in the last 12 months, broken down by (a) date and (b) attendees; and whether civil servants were present at the meetings to record what occurred. 
Mr. Caborn: The most recent application to list this building has been assessed by English Heritage, the Secretary of State's statutory advisors on listing matters. English Heritage's advice has now been sent to the Department and officials are considering this advice prior to advising Ministers. This building was previously assessed in 2002 and the decision taken then was that the building was not of sufficient architectural merit to warrant being listed.
Estelle Morris: Together with Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science and Innovation at the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), I chair the Creative Industries Forum on Intellectual Property. The forum has been exploring the issue of piracy as it affects all the creative industries. The forum's members include Government Departments and representatives from the creative industries sectors, including the UK Film Council, the Government's strategic agency for film. The threat of piracy to the film industry was outlined in the UK Film Council's report Film Theft in the UK", published in December 2004 and these findings have been fed into the work of the forum.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1570W
of whether the public service agreement target to halt the rise in obesity among children aged under 11 by 2010 will be met. 
Tony Lloyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how long it took for a case for a breach of an antisocial behaviour order to appear before the courts in the last period for which figures are available; what the sentencing guidelines are in such cases; and what sentences have been imposed by the courts for breaches of such orders. 
Breach of an ASBO carries a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or a maximum £5,000 fine in the magistrates courts and a maximum five years imprisonment and/or a fine in the Crown court. The maximum sentence the Youth Court can impose is a 2-year detention and training order. Guidance on how to deal with a breach is set out in the Magistrates' Courts Sentencing Guidelines" produced by the Magistrates' Association. These give a starting point guideline of custody based on a first time adult offender pleading not guilty. They also list examples of possible aggravating factors. When dealing with a child or young person, the court is required to have regard to his or her welfare.
Data on the sentences imposed by the courts for breach of ASBO is available for the period June 2000 to December 2003. It shows that 55 per cent. of defendants who breached their ASBO received a custodial sentence, 27 per cent. received a community penalty, 9 per cent. received a fine, 3 per cent. received a discharge and 6 per cent. received some other sentence.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Lord Chancellor will discipline or dismiss Mr. Philip Bassett for his use of foul and abusive language to BBC employees when present with the Lord Chancellor in an official capacity in BBC studios on the morning of 21 March. 
Mr. Lammy: No and No. Following the interview in the BBC studios on 21 March Mr. Bassett sent a letter of explanation to the editor of the Today programme and apologised unreservedly. No further action is contemplated.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what his Department's policy is on the use of foul and abusive language by its employees when dealing with third parties. 
Mr. Lammy: My Department conduct policy identifies offensive language as one example of inappropriate behaviour. Serious cases, or repeated incidences of minor misconduct, would result in formal action. Line managers are encouraged in the first instance to resolve issues of minor misconduct informally.
Paddy Tipping: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time judicial officers were in post in each year since 1975, broken down by gender. 
Mr. Lammy: Figures detailing the numbers in post across the full range of judicial offices for 197587 are not easily available in any complete form. It is important to note that the figures provided are not necessarily complete and reflect only those that are available or were collected.
The number of judicial officers that were in post between 198792 is detailed in tables A (full time) and B (part time). Gender breakdown for this period has not been given because it is not available. These figures include the Tribunal posts known about.
The numbers of judicial officers who were in post 19932004 are detailed in tables C (i) and (ii) for full time officers and D (i) and (ii) for part time officers) and are broken down by gender. The figures for the years 199398 do not include Tribunal offices as these are incomplete and unobtainable in this timescale or without disproportionate cost.
Between 19992004 there were a number of Tribunal officers in post who cannot be verified by the judicial database as full or part time. These figures are detailed in table E and are not included in tables C or D.
In post figures for the Lay Magistracy between 19882004 can be found at table F. Figures are not available for the years 1987 and 1989. Until 2001 the figures were compiled on a calendar year basis, after which they were compiled on a financial year basis. All figures include the Duchy of Lancaster.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|