|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Kate Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what account UK Sport takes of recognition of national governing bodies of sports by international federations in deciding whether to fund them; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: One of the criteria for recognition of a governing body used by all the sports councils, including UK Sport, is that it is affiliated or is in the process of affiliating to the international governing body for the sport (as appropriate to the sport).
The recognition of a governing body does not necessarily make it eligible or entitled to consideration for funding. The decision on which body to fund is based on various separate considerations, of which recognition is one.
Joan Ryan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will cease returning Darfuri asylum seekers pending (a) review of the safety of such asylum seekers who have already been returned to Sudan and (b) a ceasefire peace agreement and secure environment being in place in that country. 
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment her Department has made of the (a) safety of Darfuri asylum seekers who have been returned to Khartoum from the UK since 2003 and (b) likely safety of Darfuri asylum seekers who are due to be returned to Khartoum from the UK. 
Mr. Byrne: We take the recent allegations made by the Aegis Trust regarding the treatment of failed asylum seekers who have returned to Sudan very seriously and we are investigating them very thoroughly.
On 4 October, the House of Lords heard an appeal brought by the Home Office on whether it is reasonable to return failed asylum seekers to Khartoum where the Court of Appeal have found no risk of persecution.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time was between the receipt of a letter by the Border and Immigration Agency and its predecessor from a hon. Member and the sending of a substantive reply in each year since 2001; and if she will make a statement. 
August-December 200437.83 working days
January-December 200532.80 working days
January-December 200623.56 working days
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of letters sent by hon. Members to the Border and Immigration Agency in 2006 received a substantive reply within (a) three, (b) four, (c) six, (d) eight, (e) 10 and (f) more than 10 weeks; and if she will make a statement. 
(a) 22,837 (55.0 per cent.) were answered in three weeks or less
(b) 32,436 (78.1 per cent.) were answered in four weeks or less
(c) 34,802 (83.8 per cent.) were answered in six weeks or less
(d) 35,575 (85.7 per cent.) were answered in eight weeks or less
(e) 36,121 (87.0 per cent.) were answered in 10 weeks or less
(f) 5,393 (13.0 per cent.) took more than 10 weeks to answer.
Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the average length of time taken to bring suspects before a court in cases of (a) assault and (b) other crimes; what steps she is taking to reduce these times; and if she will make a statement. 
The table sets out the average time taken between the recorded date on which a defendant commits an offence to the date on which the defendants case is first considered by a magistrates court, for the last six years. Figures have also been provided for the average time taken between:
(a) the first listing of a case to completion of that case in the magistrates court
(b) the overall period from offence to completion of a criminal case in the magistrates court.
The Government established the Criminal Justice Simple Speedy Summary Justice (CJSSS) programme to improve the speed and effectiveness with which cases proceed through the criminal courts. A key part of this programme aims to improve the way cases proceed in the magistrates courts. Following successful tests (with evidence of more offenders pleading guilty at an early stage, fewer hearings and the majority of trials for contested cases being set within 6-10 weeks), national implementation is firmly under way throughout England and Wales. CJSSS is now running in at least one site in each of the 36 local criminal justice areas and fully implemented in all magistrates courts in 11 of those areas. Implementation is expected to be completed in all but a handful of magistrates courts by December 2007. Once fully implemented these changes should deliver a step change in the publics experience of the justice system, improving the speed and effectiveness of magistrates courts.
|Average time taken between date of offence to first listing and first listing to completion for all defendants (adult and youth) in completed criminal cases in magistrates courtsEngland and Wales, 2001 to 2006|
|Average number of days from offence to first listing||Margin of error (+/- days)||Average number of days from first listing to completion in magistrates court||Margin of error (+/- days)||Average number of days from offence to completion in magistrates court||Margin of error (+/- days)||Sample size (number of defendants)|
|(1) Includes common assault, assault on a constable, offences against Public Order and Education Act offences.|
1. Results are based on proceedings in one sample week in March and September. The Time Intervals Survey (TIS) is a sample survey that produces estimates of the average time taken between stages of proceedings for defendants in completed criminal cases in magistrates courts. More information on TIS is available on the Ministry of Justice website.
2. The margin of error is a measure of the precision of a result based on a sample survey. Timeliness in magistrates courts is measured using data from a sample of the total number of defendants. The sample provides one estimate of the average time taken and different samples would produce different average times. The true value is likely to fall within the range of the sample result +/- the margin of error.
3. First listing refers to the first listed hearing of the case in the magistrates court.
4. It is not totally clear which assault cases are being referred to in the question. Information on broad offence group is collected in TIS although not at a level that would make it possible to provide estimates for defendants proceeded against for assault crimes separately. The offence classifications are as follows: burglary, criminal damage, drunken driving, drug offences, driving without due care, fraud and forgery, failing to stop, indictable motoring offences, other summary motoring offences, robbery, sexual offences, summary non-motoring offences, theft and handling stolen goods, violence against the person, other indictable offences (excluding motoring offences). Information is not available in TIS at individual offence level. Assault offences are classified in several different offence groups.
In addition to timeliness of all criminal cases, timeliness figures have been provided for one of the offence groups (summary non-motoring offences) as it was thought this might be helpful. The summary non-motoring offences group includes the offences common assault, and assault on a constable, which were thought to be the most relevant offences to answer this question. Please note that in addition to the assault offences, the summary non-motoring offence group also includes a wide variety of other offences such as offences against Public Order and Education Act offences. In addition, certain other forms of assault (e.g. sexual assaults and assault with intent to rob) are counted in other offence groups and will not be included in the table.
5. Results have been provided for all years since 2001. It is not possible to provide consistent data for earlier years owing to methodological changes.
Time Intervals Survey, Ministry of Justice
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent change there has been in the level of recorded crimes in (a) Chorley and (b) Lancashire, broken down by type of crime. 
|Recorded crime by offence group and percentage change. 2005-06 to 2006-07|
|Chorley CDRP||Lancashire police force area|
|Offence group||Offences recorded 2005-06||Offences recorded 2006-07||Percentage change 2005-06 to 2006-07||Offences recorded 2005-06||Offences recorded 2006-07||Percentage change 2005-06 to 2006-07|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|