|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what (a) representations he has received and (b) action he is pursuing in respect of water shortages in south-east London. 
Any projected shortage in water supply this year will be addressed though the relevant water company's drought plan. Drought plans contain mechanisms which trigger a range of actions to be initiated at different times as a drought develops. One of the actions may involve applying to my Department for drought orders to restrict non-essential uses of water, as some companies in the south-east of England have already done. For example, on 15 May 2006 the Secretary of State granted Sutton and East Surrey Water's application for a non-essential use drought order.
Ian Pearson: Water companies have a duty to develop and maintain efficient and economical systems of water supply. Since 1996 Ofwat has assessed water company performance against leakage targets that balance the needs of customers and the environment. This approach has resulted in a reduction in leakage of around 29 per cent. since 1994-95.
In 2001, following Thames Water's failure to meet their leakage targets, Ofwat suspended the company's leakage targets in favour of an action plan to improve its leakage monitoring and control activities. Thames Water is also required to provide quarterly reports on progress with its agreed leakage reduction plan. The aim is to restore leakage to its target level and achieve adequate security of supplies.
The company is now carrying out 60 per cent. more repairs than two years ago, and a major upgrade of its water distribution network in London is under way. This involves the replacement of more than 1,200 km of water mains by 2010. In 2004-05 Thames Water reduced its overall leakage for the first time since 1999-2000.
Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which consultancy firms have been engaged by his Department to provide advice about the funding of the Royal Mail over the last 12 months. 
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the (a) outgoings and (b) revenue of the Official Receiver in the Insolvency Service for each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Fitzpatrick: Prior to 1 April 2004 The Insolvency Service was funded on a gross basis and its fees were not set in accordance with HM Treasury Fees and Charges Guide which requires that fees should be set only to recover costs. Changes introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 led to The Service moving to a net funded regime from 1 April 2004 and since that date fees have been set in accordance with the Fees and Charges Guide.
Official Receivers staff carry out both case administration functions that are funded from fees and investigation and enforcement functions that are funded from a DTI programme. However, other staff in The Service also carry out investigation and enforcement functions and the costs are not separately shown to those incurred by Official Receivers on these activities.
Prior to The Service becoming an agency in 1990 results were included in the DTIs appropriation accounts. Since 1990-91 Annual Report and Accounts have been published and are available in the Libraries of the House. Annual Reports and Accounts since 2000-01 are also available on The Services website at www.insolvency.gov.uk.
Jim Fitzpatrick: DTI spent £418,300 (excluding VAT) on paid advertising to publicise the October 2005 increases in the national minimum wage. In addition the cost of producing guides and mailings cost the Department £22,295.
The Government remain committed to making progress towards its target of 10 per cent. of electricity from Renewable Obligation eligible sources of energy by 2010, with an aspiration to double that by 2020.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) males and (b) females have been (i) prosecuted and (ii) convicted of offences under (A) the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, (B) the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, (C) the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (D) the Pet Animals Act 1951, (E) the Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 and (F) the Deer Act 1991 in each year since 1996, broken downby age. 
Mr. Byrne: The requested information is provided in the table (a copy of which will be placed in the House Library), comprising prosecutions and convictions for males and females in England and Wales, by age group for offences under the following acts, the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Pet Animals Act 1951, the Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 and the Deer Act 1991. Responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the licensing system and the administration of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 rests with local authorities and no criminal proceedings can be brought under the Act. Data for 2005 will be available in the autumn.
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrest warrants for (a) non-payment of fines and (b) breaching of the conditions of a community service order have been cancelled in each of the last five years. 
Information on the number of arrest warrants for (a) non-payment of fines and (b) breaching of the conditions of a community service order which have been cancelled in each of the last five years is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Sir Michael Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to ensure that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Agency is alert to sophisticated uses of the internet to exploit children. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 22 May 2006]: The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) was launched on 24 April. The Centre is a world first and will play a decisive part, with police
forces, offender managers, children's services and other stakeholders, in protecting children, young people, families and society from paedophiles and sex offenders; in particular from those who use the internet and other new technologies in the sexual exploitation of children.
CEOP is different from traditional policing responses, with law enforcement officers sitting alongside industry and child protection experts. It is built around three core facultiesIntelligence, Operations and Harm Reductionand will deliver a range of functions designed to empower children and parents through information and education, protect young people through better use of intelligence and better management of offenders and enforce the law both on and offline.
The clear focus on intelligence about offenders and the direct input from the industry will drive CEOP's operational and harm reduction effort, as well as the support it can provide to its partners, in protecting children from those who seek to use new technologies to exploit them.
The Centre is legally part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) but is operationally autonomous with a separate budget of nearly£5 million. The Centre reports to Home Office Ministers and is accountable through SOCA's governance structure.
Margaret Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will be registered under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. 
Mr. Coaker: The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is affiliated to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). SOCA is a relevant public authority for the purposes of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) by virtue of amendments to that Act contained in schedule 4 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and consequent to statutory instrument 2006 No. 594. Although CEOP is operationally autonomous and has a specific budget, it is legally part of SOCA and therefore needs no separate provisions in relation to RIPA.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of cases were heard in (a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available in (i) England and Wales and (ii) the Southend area concerning (A) shoplifting, (B) theft and (C) burglary; and what percentage of defendants in each category of crime, were found (1) guilty and(2) not guilty. 
|Number and percentage of cases heard at magistrates courts, crown courts and number found guilty at all courts for theft from shops', burglary and total theft, England and Wales 1994-2004( 1)|
|Magistrates court cases (Percentage)||Crown court cases (Percentage)|
|Year/Offence||Proceeded against||Heard at magistrates courts||Committed for trial to crown court||Found guilty||Found not guilty ( 2)||Total tried||Found guilty||Found not guilty ( 3)|
|(1) These data are provided on the principal offence basis|
(2) Includes defendants discharged and dismissed at magistrates court
(3 )Includes defendants acquitted and not tried at crown courts
RDSOffice for Criminal Justice Reform
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|