|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
7 Nov 2006 : Column 1430Wcontinued
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 26 October 2006, Official Report, column 2144W, on road safety, what proportion of fines were (a) issued after an offence was recorded on a traffic camera and (b) fixed penalty notices issued by police officers to motorists. 
Mr. Coaker: Available data on the amount of court fines issued for motoring offences detected by camera as a proportion of the total amount of court motoring fines are given in the table.
The number of cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court cannot be identified separately.
|Amount of court fines issued for motoring offences detected by camera as a proportion of the total amount of court fines issued for all motoring offences by region, 2000 to 2004|
| Notes: 1. Includes cases where a fixed penalty notice was originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court. 2. It is known that for some police force areas, the reporting of court proceedings, in particular those relating to summary motoring offences, may be less than complete. Work is under way to ensure that the magistrates courts case management system currently being implemented by the Department for Constitutional Affairs reports all motoring offences to the Office for Criminal Justice Reform. This will enable more complete figures to be disseminated. 3. 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 courts and police forces. 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.|
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic accidents in Cambridgeshire in each of the last 10 years involved (a) speeding, (b) driving under the influence of alcohol and (c) unlicensed vehicles. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The information is not collected centrally by my Department.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals working in his Department are on secondment from private companies; and if he will list their companies of origin. 
John Reid: Secondments are part of the Interchange initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: public, private and voluntary - although the majority of secondees in the Home Office come from the public and voluntary sectors. There are currently no individuals on secondment to the Home Office from private companies, although there are a number of individuals currently working in the Home Office on a consultancy basis.
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many doormen have (a) applied for and (b) been issued with a security industry authority licence since the Licensing Act 2003 came into force; what the backlog is for licences; what the cost of the individual is of acquiring a licence; and who is responsible for paying for a licence. 
Mr. McNulty: Between 11 April 2005, when the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (the 2001 Act) came into force for the door supervision sector, and 18 October 2006, the Security Industry Authority (a) received 74,394 applications for door supervisor licences, of which (b) 57,834 have been granted.
There is currently no backlog in placing applications onto the SIA licensing system.
The 2001 Act requires the applicant to pay the licence fee to the SIA. In practice, the employer often agrees to pay all or part of the fee.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what details of residence a (a) registered sex offender and (b) other offender is obliged to supply to the court. 
John Reid: The requirements for offenders to supply details of residence vary according offence type and sentence.
Offenders subject to sex offender notification (sex offender register).
A person convicted of, cautioned for or in respect of whom a finding is made in relation to an offence listed in Schedule three to the Sex Offenders Act 2003 (the Act) will become subject to the notification requirements of Part two of that Act. During the period for which they must comply with the notification requirements they must notify their home address to the police within three days of the date of conviction, caution or finding unless is detained or outside of the United Kingdom, in which case the three days runs from the end of that period of detention or return to the United Kingdom. "Home address" is defined in section 83(7) as meaning the address of his sole or main residence in the United Kingdom or, if there is no such residence, the address or location of a place in the United Kingdom where he can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the person may select. Changes to home address must also be notified, within three days. Details of home address must also be updated to the police once a year."
Offenders subject to a community order or a suspended sentence
Section 220 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 obliges an offender to keep in touch with the responsible officer including, expressly, notifying him of any change of address.
Offenders subject to prison licence conditions
The standard conditions of licences, set out in the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/3337) made under section 250 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, include residence at an address approved by the responsible officer and a duty to stay in touch with the responsible officer.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the non-enforcement by police of 20 mph zones. 
John Reid: The information requested could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to prevent spy software being installed on UK mobile networks; and if he will make a statement. 
John Reid [holding answer 23 March 2006]: Each mobile phone operator is responsible for the integrity of its own systems and has a duty of care to prevent illegal access to calls made on its networks. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 makes it illegal for a person to intercept the communications of another without lawful authority.
Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether (a) Ministers and (b) others in his Department have met representatives of Tablighi Jammaat during the last three years; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. McNulty: As far as I am aware, there have been no meetings between Ministers or officials and representatives of Tablighi Jammaat in the last three years.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking in conjunction with HM Revenue and Customs to reduce suspected organised fraud of the tax credits system. 
Mr. Coaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to HMRCs document Tackling Error and Fraud in the Child and Working Tax Credits which is available at www.hmrc.gov.uk, in particular paragraphs 43 and 44.
Mr. Vara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer provided by the Minister of State on 18 September 2006, Official Report, column 2490W, what factors he took into account when deciding not to collect data on the length of time a suspect is held under terror legislation before they are charged or released. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 19 October 2006]: Information on the use of the Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006 is collated by the Metropolitan Police Service, not the Home Office. Statistics on the length of time an individual is held under terror legislation is available. However to have produced the information in the form requested, in the previous parliamentary question, would have incurred disproportionate costs.
Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detained without charge under the most recent anti-terrorist legislation have been held for (a) longer than 14 days, (b) longer than 21 days and (c) up to the maximum 28 days. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 19 October 2006]: The maximum period of detention pre-charge was extended to 28 days with effect from 25 July 2006. Statistics compiled from police records show that until 30 September 2006, nine people were held for longer than 14 days. Of these nine individuals, five were held for longer than 21 days of which four were held for the maximum 28 days.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce amendments to terror legislation to allow the use of interview after charge. 
The Government keep all counter-terrorism legislation under review to ensure that it
continues to meet the threat from terrorism that we face. As I announced on 28 September, I am currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of the United Kingdoms counter-terrorism strategy and this will include looking at existing legislation. I will update the House on the outcome of the review in due course.
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to assess the involvement of far-right political groups in terrorist activities. 
Mr. McNulty: The actions of far-right groups are currently monitored by the polices National Public Order Intelligence Unit. There is no current evidence of far-right terrorist capacity in the UK or links to terrorist activity.
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources his Department has allocated to the prevention of fascist and far-right terrorism. 
Mr. McNulty: In 2006-07 the Home Office has made a provision of over £460 million to the Police Service to increase its counter terrorism capability. There are a number of UK-based extremist groups motivated by domestic causes.
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were arrested for shoplifting in Chorley in the last 12 months; 
(2) how many people were arrested for car theft in the last 12 months. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The information requested is not available centrally. Information on arrests held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform is based on persons arrested for recorded crime notifiable offences by main offence group (i.e. theft and handling stolen goods, drugs, robbery, violence against the person, burglary etc.) at police force area only. Information is therefore not available to the detail required.
Anne Snelgrove: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of fixed penalty notices for proxy purchase relating to underage drinking. 
No assessment has been made of the effectiveness of fixed penalty notices for the offence of proxy purchase of alcohol for individuals aged under 18 on tackling the problem of underage drinking. Fixed penalties for the offence of purchasing alcohol for underage consumption were introduced as part of the penalty notice for disorder (PND) scheme established under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The PND scheme, which was piloted in 2002, was rolled out to all police forces in England and Wales in 2004. In November 2004 the scheme was widened to include proxy purchase offences of buying or attempting to buy alcohol on behalf of an individual
aged under-eighteen. 84 PNDs were issued for these related offences in 2004; 253 in 2005 and 245 for the first half of 2006 (provisional).
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|