|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles were prosecuted for (a) exhaust and (b) silencer systems that make excessive noise in the latest year for which figures are available. 
Mr. Coaker: Available information taken from the Court Proceedings Database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform shows that in 2004 (latest available) there were 2,048 prosecutions for noise offences under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, Regs. 54-58, 97-99 combined.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of injury to
young offenders were recorded in each of the last five years, broken down by (a) institution and (b) type of injury. 
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department is consulting (a) deaf people and (b) language service professionals for deaf people in the review by the Office of Criminal Justice Reform of the national guidance laid down by his Department regarding all interpreters in the criminal justice system. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The Office for Criminal Justice Reform consulted representative bodies throughout its review of the National Guidance. Views of bodies representing deaf people and language services professionals were also sought on the draft guidance. The new agreement will reflect the input received from both groups.
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaf detainees were bailed due to failure to find a suitably qualified British Sign Language/English interpreter or lipspeaker in the last period for which figures are provided. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The information requested is not held centrally; data held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on police and court remands does not include information on the reasons for bail being granted or refused.
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mini-motorbikes have been (a) seized and (b) crushed by local authorities since 1 August 2006, broken down by police authority; how many warnings have been issued to the riders of mini-motorbikes since 1 August broken down by police authority; and if he will make a statement. 
John Reid: The agreed protocol allows forces to submit their invoices in arrears during the period that Operation Safeguard is activated. Since only a small number of invoices have been received, we are unable to calculate the exact cost of the operation. At the present time it is estimated that the cost will be around £2.6 million a month. Operation Safeguard was implemented on 12 October.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many written parliamentary questions to his Department in the 2005-06 session were not answered wholly or in part on grounds of disproportionate cost. 
Mr. McNulty: The information is not held in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the information regarding individually answered parliamentary questions is a matter of public record and can be located within the Official Report.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many written parliamentary questions to his Department in the 2005-06 session were answered with a reply that it had not been possible to reply before prorogation, or similar wording. 
It has not been possible to reply before prorogation.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department in 2006, broken down by (a) ordinary written and (b) named day; what percentage of ordinary written questions were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage of named day questions were answered by the specific date. 
Mr. McNulty: The Department aims to answer parliamentary questions within the time scales specified by Parliament. It publishes its performance statistics on answering PQs within its annual report. Copies of these reports can be found in the House Library.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 19 December 2006, Official Report, column 1949W, what the evidential basis is for believing national security could be at risk if an individual is told, on inquiry, whether a personal file exists or not. 
Mr. McNulty: If a terrorist or spy is told the Security Service holds personal data on him or herso revealing a covert investigation of themthe individual could change their behaviour to thwart that investigation. Alternatively, if told that there is no data held he or she could continue their activities confident in the knowledge that his or her activities had escaped detection. A neither-confirm-nor-deny response avoids both these risks.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to extend the use of penalty notices for disorder amongst 10 to 15-year-olds in areas beyond the six pilot areas; 
(2) how many penalty notices for disorder (PNDs) have been issued to 10 to 15-year-olds in each of the six pilot police force areas in respect of (a) behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others or using threatening words or behaviour, (b) drunk and disorderly behaviour in a public place, (c) destroying or damaging property up to the value of £500, (d) retail theft under £200, (e) sale of alcohol to a person under 18 years of age, (f) selling alcohol to a drunken person, (g) breach of a fireworks curfew, (h) being drunk in a highway or consuming alcohol in a designated place and (i) other offences; and how many such PNDs were (i) paid within 21 days, (ii) contested in court and (iii) registered as fines against the parent of the recipient. 
Mr. Coaker: The evaluation of the pilots is currently under way. The final evaluation report will contain full details about the number of Penalty Notices for Disorder issued during the pilots. No decisions about extending the pilot areas will be taken until the results of the evaluation have been considered.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of people aged (a) 16 to 17, (b) 18 to 24 and (c) 25 years and above who have received a penalty notice for disorder committed a further offence within a period of 12 months. 
Mr. Coaker: The Office for Criminal Justice Reform does not hold information on the proportion of people who, having received a penalty notice for disorder, committed a further offence within a period of 12 months. Data are not collected to that level of detail.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place to identify (a) the recipients of penalty notices for disorder (PNDs) and (b) repeat offenders in receipt of PNDs. 
Mr. Coaker: The penalty notice for disorder (PND) Scheme was set up under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Under the scheme, the police may issue a fixed penalty notice of either £50 or £80 for a range of minor disorder offences. Details of PND recipients are initially recorded on a database kept by the Central Ticket Office of an individual police force. Each force is responsible for maintaining their own local database; there is currently no national system for recording PNDs. However the Government do intend to establish a single national penalty notice processing system for all PNDs and road traffic tickets by September 2009.
Where the PND is issued for a recordable offence, a record of the offender is also created on the Police National Computer (PNC) within 24 hours and updated within seven days: the PNC is available to officers 24 hours a day. Repeat offenders should be identified using PNC if they have committed recordable offences. For all other offences, while the
current local database could also be interrogated to check if a PND has already been issued, it is normally only available during office hours and to those officers local to the force.
|Penalty notice for disorder offences|
|PND offence code||CCCJS code||Act||Description||Notifiable/recordable|
|(1) Offence repealed by Communications Act 2003 with effect from 5 March 2004.|
(2) Offence repealed by Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 with effect from 1 October 2004.
(3) Offence added with effect from 8 August 2002.
(4) Offence added with effect from 1 November 2004.
(5) Offence added with effect from 11 October 2004.
(6) Offence added with effect from 4 April 2005.
(7) New legislative reference with effect from 2 November 2005 on implementation of Licensing Act 2003.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|