|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
10 Oct 2006 : Column 702Wcontinued
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for selling alcohol to underage customers, England and Wales 1995-2004( 1,2)|
|Offence description||Principal statute||Year||Proceeded against|
Selling etc intoxicating liquor to person under 18 for consumption on the premises
Licensing Act 1964 S.169 A & B as added by Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000 S.1
Licensing Act 1964 S.181 A(1) as added by Licensing Act 1 988 S.1 7
|(1) These data are provided on the principal offence basis.|
(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the police forces and courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: RDSOffice for Criminal Justice Reform
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in applying the Reading Training for Work programme for young offenders in England and Wales; how many prisons offer the scheme; and what success rate has been achieved for participants finding work upon release after this scheme. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The National Grid programme is currently operating in a number of establishments across the prison estate.
Prisons do not keep separate records of the number of prisoners obtaining work upon release as a result of the National Grid programme.
To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons
Commission pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2006, Official Report, column 8W, on accommodation, what account was taken of the previous use of the buildings as set out in the Houses 1991 document The Parliament Street Building in deciding that they are structurally unsuitable for use as offices. 
Nick Harvey: As the document shows, the houses were originally private residences and then used as offices in the nineteenth century. It refers to their dilapidation, frailty and severe structural problems prior to the reconstruction completed in 1991. They are statutorily listed at grade II* and grade II. Use as offices would require planning permission for change of use and listed building consent for alterations which, I understand, is unlikely to be granted.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will instruct the director of estates of the Parliamentary Works Directorate that under no circumstances should he agree to a change in the size or perimeter of the parliamentary estate in his negotiations with the client team of the World Squares for All Group unless and until this matter has been discussed and approved by Members of both Houses. 
Nick Harvey: There are no plans to modify the perimeter of the parliamentary estate. Discussions between the World Squares for All Group on the future of Parliament Square are still at an early stage. Representations of the parliamentary estate and English Heritage on the steering group have not supported any proposal for change. The director of estates has made it very clear that such a change would be impractical and unrealistic. Any proposals to change the size or perimeter of the parliamentary estate would be subject to the agreement of the parliamentary authorities.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission how many complaints the Commission received about delays to the delivery of hon. Members and hon. Members staffs post in the last 12 months. 
Nick Harvey: No log has been made of complaints about delays to the delivery of post in the last 12 months. There were a small number of complaints when the new mail service contract began last autumn. Since then there have been few complaints, some of which have been related to mail delayed before it reached Parliament.
Mr. Morley: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission what steps he is taking to investigate claims plywood sourced from illegal logging was used in the refurbishment of Westminster Hall. 
Nick Harvey: Parliamentary Works Services (PWSD) have investigated these claims. The initial investigation centred on the specification used during the tendering process for the Press Gallery refurbishment project and in particular the plywood used on protection and temporary works.
Is a clear and established policy on the parliamentary estate that all wood used during refurbishment or construction work must come from a sustainable source. This rule applies equally to permanent use such as panelling and furniture, and temporary usage such as protective sheeting and temporary buildings. It was confirmed that the standard specification regarding sustainability was used in this contract. The key wording from this specification is
it is the employers policy to purchase only timber and timber products from sustainable managed sources.
Further investigation also confirmed that the more detailed architects specification was also very specific in specifying that
timber based products are sourced from sustainable managed forests controlled by a National Forest Certification Scheme assessed and recognised by the Pan European Forest Certification Council.
It was also confirmed that the timber supplier is FSC accredited.
Following further investigation it was established that the contractors original order for timber for the project included the words
in accordance with the specification.
However, further call off requests based on the original order contained no such wording. It is from these orders that the supplier delivered un-certified plywood to the Press Gallery project. The delivery of the un-certified plywood was the result of human error rather than a lack of a suitable specification.
Measures have been put in place to ensure that this situation does not reoccur.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps (a) are in place and (b) are planned to ensure that the Government of Afghanistan, his Department, the United States Agency for International Development and non-governmental organisations operating alternative livelihood programmes in Afghanistan are properly co-ordinated. 
Hilary Benn: The Ministry of Counter Narcotics (MCN) of the Government of Afghanistan leads on co-ordination, monitoring and review of alternative livelihoods policies and programmes in Afghanistan. DFID, along with other donors (including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)), send quarterly information on our programmes to the MCN alternative livelihoods Department and attend a monthly alternative livelihoods working group. This is a valuable forum which brings together the relevant ministries, donors and non government organisations to share lessons.
Also, following the release of the National Drug Control Strategy in January, non government organisations and donors including DFID and USAID, have worked with the MCN to develop the Alternative Livelihoods Implementation Plan. Thematic and geographic analysis is now planned to ensure that there is no duplication of donor and non-governmental organisation activities and to identify the gaps.
DFIDs office in Kabul meets regularly with donor counterparts, including USAID, to co-ordinate programmes.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of how long it will take for alternative livelihoods programmes to affect opium yields in Afghanistan. 
Hilary Benn: The Government of Afghanistans National Drugs Control Strategy makes clear that in dealing with the drugs issue in Afghanistan, effective sequencing between the various strands of activity is paramount. Alternative livelihoods work alone will not affect opium yields. On the other strands, for example, law enforcement is also needed. As we know from experience elsewhere, sustainable drug elimination takes a considerable time. This is particularly the case in Afghanistan where the challenges are very significant.
The approach set out in the Government of Afghanistans Strategy represents the best means of tackling the problem. The strategy has four key prioritiestargeting the trafficker, strengthening livelihoods, reducing demand and developing effective institutions. To affect opium yields progress needs to be made on all. There is no simple answer to how long the Afghan counter-narcotics battle will take, although President Karzai said at the London Conference in January 2006 that it would need at least 10 years of consistent effort.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his assessment is of the effect of opium eradication projects on alternative livelihoods programmes in Afghanistan. 
Hilary Benn: The Government of Afghanistans National Drug Control Strategy makes clear that in dealing with the drugs issue in Afghanistan, effective sequencing between the various strands of activity within the strategy is paramount. It recognises that eradication is an important component of the counter narcotics effort, as it raises risk in the eyes of those involved. However, the strategy says that eradication should only be applied where there is access to legal economic alternatives. Without this sequencing, eradication runs the risk of further impoverishing those involved, and to leave them with little choice but to replant poppy again the next planting season.
So in an effectively counter narcotics plan, the uptake of alternative livelihoods is more likely, as the risk of eradication is seen to be greater. To what extent this has been a factor to date in Afghanistan is very hard to tell, given our limited understanding of the choices which farmers make. But we do know from
Afghanistan and elsewhere, that eradication does increase perceived risk, and thus is a significant factor in a farmers decision whether to plant poppy or not.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of British aid in the promotion and planting of alternative crops in Afghanistan. 
Hilary Benn: DFID is currently working on a structured community and household assessment to determine the impact of the development effort (both policy influence and direct programmes) and its potential contribution to reductions in poppy cultivation. DFID has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Central Statistics Office (CSO) to carry out an annual household survey over the next three years.
However, alternatives to opium cannot be delivered through a single project or crop. A broad based rural development programme must respond to the needs of rural people involved in opium poppy cultivation. The National Drugs Control Strategy also makes clear, in dealing with the drugs issue in Afghanistan, that effective sequencing of the various strands of activity (for example livelihoods and eradication) is paramount.
Mr. Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of (a) the World Food Programmes deployment in Chechnya and (b) the recent announcement that the World Food Programme may be forced to pull out of Chechnya due to insufficient funding; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Thomas: To a large extent DFID relies on the UN organisations, including the World Food Programme (WFP), working in Chechnya to provide information on the humanitarian situation in Chechnya. This information indicates a continuing need to provide food to the most vulnerable people in Chechnya, and we will continue to push WFP and other UN Agencies and NGOs involved for better targeting of that food for particularly vulnerable groups. We will also continue efforts to shift towards more sustainable assistance that will focus on recovery and reduce dependency on food distributions.
Following a WFP announcement in July 2006 about their funding situation, the European Commissions Humanitarian Office provided an additional €3 million to WFP for 2006-07. This, together with a US cash contribution, will allow WFP to continue operations in Chechnya in 2006 through to the end of May 2007. DFID provided £200,000 through the WFP to support continued food distribution during 2006.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his Departments
expenditure to sexual and reproductive health non-governmental organisations through the Civil Society Challenge Fund was in 2005-06. 
Mr. Thomas: We are currently finalising this years Statistics for International Development. It will be published on 26 October 2006 and expenditure figures for DFID bilateral assistance provided in advance are provisional.
We can therefore provisionally advise that DFID expenditure for sexual and reproductive health (including HIV and AIDS) to non-governmental organisations through the Civil Society Challenge Fund was £1.8 million in financial year 2005-06.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|