Previous Section Index Home Page

21 Mar 2006 : Column 302W—continued

European Employment Practices

Mr. Chope: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action she is taking to ensure that English notaries are able to practise in other European countries. [58605]

Ian Pearson [holding answer 14 March 2006]: I have been asked to reply.

The Government have supported the inclusion of notary services within the European Commission's proposal for a directive on services in the internal market. However, in its first reading of the directive the European Parliament has proposed excluding those exercising official authority from the scope of the directive, and specifically identifies notaries as an example. This would have the effect of excluding notaries from the scope of the directive. Discussions on the scope of the directive are continuing.

The UK SOLVIT Centre in DTI, which helps businesses and citizens enforce their EU cross-border rights, is also taking forward a case on behalf of an English notary.

Legal Advice

Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to her answer of 9 March 2006 to the hon. Member for Wirral, South, what assessment she has made of the likely effect on the quality of front-line advice of the decision to withdraw access to specialist and complex legal advice. [59575]

Ms Harman: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Bridget Prentice) to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on 15 February 2006, Official Report, column 2145W.

Middlesex Guildhall

Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 March 2006, Official Report, column 1579W, on Middlesex Guildhall, whether she has asked officials in her Department to make alternative plans for the site of the new Supreme Court; and if she will make a statement. [59574]

Ms Harman: Middlesex Guildhall has been identified as the best location for a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. The Department has undertaken the required planning and consultation to ensure the Supreme Court can be established at Middlesex Guildhall.
 
21 Mar 2006 : Column 303W
 

Sentencing Guidelines

Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what sentencing guidelines she issues to magistrates and judges; what circumstances she takes into account when drawing up such guidance; what compulsion there is for magistrates and judges to follow these guidelines; and if she will make a statement. [59892]

Ms Harman: Responsibility for issuing sentencing guidelines lies with the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which was created by section 167 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 172 of that Act places a duty on the court to have regard to any sentencing guidelines that have been issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

The Government do not issue sentencing guidelines to judges and magistrates.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Consultants

Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list departmental projects conducted by consultants in each year since 2000; what the cost was in each case; and what the total cost of employing consultants was in each year. [29055]

Mr. Charles Clarke: Information on whether departmental projects are conducted by consultants or Home Office staff is not held centrally and to obtain this information would incur disproportionate cost.

The information held by the Home Office on its spending on consultants is as follows:
£
2000–0127,877,286
2001–0221,147,058
2002–03(44)
2003–04106,800,000
2004–0546,900,000


(44)Not held


We do not hold information on the Department's total expenditure on consultants for 2002–03 and to obtain this information would incur disproportionate cost.

The best information available for the financial year2003–04 from interrogation of the Business and Accounting Strategic System (BASS), indicates that the cost of external consultants to the department in 2003–04 was £106.8 million.

The best information available for the financial year2004–05 from the interrogation of the Adelphi Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system Accounts Payable Module indicates that the cost of external consultants to the Department was £46.9 million.

The Department awards contracts in open competition according to the EU Procurement Regulations based on best value for money. The use of external consultants in the Home Office provides the
 
21 Mar 2006 : Column 304W
 
Department with specialist knowledge, skill, capacity and technical expertise that is not otherwise available in house.

Correspondence

Clare Short: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, dated 22 November 2005 (acknowledgement B28011/5) on behalf of Lukusa Dan Mukendi, Home Office Reference M1059271. [59406]

Mr. McNulty: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood about Mr. Mukendi on 22 December 2005.

Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Banbury of 17 October 2005 concerning Fatemah Sayyabi. [60048]

Mr. McNulty: The Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to the hon. Member on 17 March.

Criminal Records Bureau

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people applying for positions within residential care and nursing homes are awaiting clearance from the Criminal Records Bureau in (a) the East Riding of Yorkshire, (b) Hull and (c) England. [49100]

Mr. Charles Clarke: The information requested by the hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is not available. The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is unable to provide information on disclosure applications based on specific employment sectors or geographical areas.

The CRB aims to complete disclosure applications across all sectors within the shortest time possible. Its published service standards are to issue 93 per cent. of standard disclosures within two weeks and 90 per cent. of enhanced disclosures within four weeks for all applications.

Dangerous Dogs Act

Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were (a) brought and (b) successful under (i) section 1 and (ii) section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [59034]

Fiona Mactaggart: Data from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on the number of people prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for England and Wales, from 2000 to 2004, is shown in the table.

Court statistics for 2005 will be available in Autumn 2006.
 
21 Mar 2006 : Column 305W
 

Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates court and found guilty at all courts under sections 1 and 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, in England and Wales, 2000 to 2004(45)

2000
2001
2002

Offence Act

Offence Description

Prosecuted
Found guilty
Prosecuted
Found guilty
Prosecuted
Found guilty
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (a)Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog2163
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (b)Selling, exchanging, offering, advertising or exposing for sale a fighting dog1
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (c)Giving or offering to give a fighting dog
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (d)Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or a lead964232
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (e)Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog10
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(3)Possession, without exemption, of a Pit Bull terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog524262
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3(1)Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place injuring any person458260490285537300
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3(1)Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a Public place, no injury being caused483250313830
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3(3)Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a non-public place and injure any person266130278157284150
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3(3)Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a non-public place causing reasonable apprehension of injury to a person24132014187

2003
2004

Offence Act

Offence Description

Prosecuted
Found guilty
Prosecuted
Found guilty
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (a)Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog421514
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (b)Selling, exchanging, offering, advertising or exposing for sale a fighting dog
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (c)Giving or offering to give a fighting dog
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (d)Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or a lead2021
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(2) (e)Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 1(3)Possession, without exemption, of a Pit Bull terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog1152
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3(1)Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place injuring any person560302597350
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3(1)Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a Public place, no injury being caused52334825
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3(3)Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a non-public place and injure any person329171290167
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 section 3(3)Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a non-public place causing reasonable apprehension of injury to a person2010115


(45)These data are on the principal offence basis.
—=Nil
Source:
RDS-Office for Criminal Justice Reform





Next Section Index Home Page