|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|N umber( 1) of persons proven in court to have breached their ASBO in the Lancashire criminal justice system (CJS) area in each of the last five years|
|(1) ASBOs may be issued in one area and breached in another. In this table ASBOs breached in Lancashire are counted irrespective of whether issued in Lancashire or not.|
1. It is possible for an individual to breach their ASBO in more than one year, so persons may be counted more than once in this table.
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 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.
OCJR Court Proceedings Database.
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in (a) the North East and (b) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland; what percentage have been breached in each case; and what percentage of recipients went on to re-offend. 
Mr. Coaker: The number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued at all courts in the north-east region (comprising the Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria Criminal Justice System (CJS) areas) from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2005 (latest available) is 513. ASBO data are not available at parliamentary constituency level. The number of ASBOs issued at all courts, by the local government authority area in which prohibitions have been imposed in the Cleveland CJS area, is given in the table.
Information on the number of ASBOs breached is available at CJS area level only. From 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2005 54 per cent. of ASBOs issued in the north-east region were subsequently proven in court to have been breached at least once and 37 per cent. on more than one occasion. The corresponding figures for the Cleveland CJS area are 64 per cent. and 43 per cent. respectively.
|Number of ASBOs issued at all courts, as reported to the Home Office by the Court Service, where restrictions are imposed within local authority areas in the Cleveland Criminal Justic e System (CJS) area, 1 June 200 0( 1) to 31 December 2005|
|CJS area||Total issued|
|(1) From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 data were collected on aggregate numbers only by police force area (pfa). During this period one ASBO was reported issued in the Cleveland pfa.|
1. This local authority area table differs from criminal justice system (CJS) area tables in that an issuing court can be outside the area in which the restrictions have been imposed.
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 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.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the current level of police resources on the ability of law enforcement agencies adequately to monitor individuals subject to control orders; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. McNulty: The Home Office undertakes a regular assessment of resources allocated to the police. Funding allocated to the police has increased significantly. Between 2005-06 and 2007-08 we have increased overall police funding by £978 million and within this, counter-terrorism specific funding by over £144 million. Responsibility for monitoring and enforcement of control orders lies with the police and is managed from within their overall budget.
Information is not collected centrally on persons arrested for non-recordable offences. The main arrests collection, held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, covers persons arrested for recorded crime (notifiable offences), by age group, gender, ethnicity, and main offence group only within the 43 police force areas in England and Wales.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library figures to show how much of (a) the total resource budget, (b) the total capital budget and (c) total public spending by the Assets Recovery Agency in each year since 2003-04 relates to the work of the agency in Northern Ireland. 
[ h olding answer 11 June 2007]: The information available is set out in the tables. The information in the tables on the operating costs of the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) in Northern
Ireland in 2005-06 varies slightly from that provided in my written answer of 24 January 2007, Official Report, column 1823W, to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). The revised figures are the result of a more appropriate reapportionment of associated overhead costs between the London and Belfast offices.
|Table 1: ARA, breakdown of Northern Ireland costs|
|(1) the total resource budget figure excludes recovered assets applied against receivers fees, as this funding does not come from the public purse. All other income is netted off against total resource budget, including training income despite not being obtained from public purse. This latter amount is not included due to its relative immateriality.|
The proportion of capital expensed in the relevant year (depreciation) has already been included in the net operating costs figures. Therefore, the capital figures should only be used as memorandum figures to the net operating costs.
Total public spending includes net operating costs and capital. The net operating costs include certain non-cash costs, such as depreciation.
|Police force||Avon and Somerset||Northumbria|
|As at 31 March:|
|(1) This table contains full-time equivalent figures that have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Because of rounding, there may be an apparent discrepancy between totals and the sums of the constituent items|
(2) Full-time equivalent excludes those on career breaks or maternity/paternity leave
Dr. Tony Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have (a) taken and (b) passed the Life in the UK test since November 2005; and how many in each category have been refused citizenship. 
Mr. Byrne: The number of Life in the UK tests taken between 1 November 2005 and 30 April 2007 is 270,149. Of those, 184,798 were passed (68.4 per cent.). Information relating to the number of people who took the test and then were refused citizenship could be obtained by the detailed examination of individual case records only at disproportionate cost. The Life in the UK test is only one of the ways of satisfying the knowledge of language and life in the UK requirement and applications may be refused for other reasons.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies have been (a) undertaken and (b) commissioned by his Department into the prevalence of companies that advertise and sell false official documents and employment records via the internet; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the potential effect on costs in (a) the private sector and (b) the public sector of the introduction of data-sharing measures under part 3 of the Serious Crime Bill. 
Mr. Coaker: A public sector cost/benefit analysis of the data sharing measures under part 3 of the Serious Crime Bill can be found in the regulatory impact assessment published on the Home Office website:
We do not envisage the powers leading to additional costs or burdens on the private sector. Our expectation
is that where the powers are taken up they will help to lead to reductions in the cost of fraud in both the public and private sector.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|