|Activity on 1 November in the year of leaving school
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 17 October 2007, Official Report, column 1153W, on approved premises: re-offenders, on what basis the effectiveness of approved premises (bail or probation hostels) is measured. 
An annual audit is conducted in every approved premises against a set of national performance improvement standards. The audit is scored using prescribed criteria, and approved premises managers are required to produce action plans in relation to any area of work where there is scope for further improvement. The second round of performance improvement audits has recently been completed, and the scores are currently being validated by the NOMS Performance Improvement Unit.
Additionally, each approved premises is required to submit to the NOMS Public Protection Unit a monthly return (known as the H1) containing performance data and relevant management information. The H1 returns capture data about occupancy levels, departures, drug testing and the profile of the resident group.
HM Inspectorate of Probation is presently undertaking a thematic inspection of approved premises. The field work will be completed by the end of 2007, with the final report to be published during the early part of 2008.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent representations he has received on the ability of people to defend their property with reasonable force against burglary; and if he will make a statement. 
Maria Eagle: Since 9 May 2007, my Department has received 18 pieces of correspondence on the subject of self-defence. 13 of those were received in October. Of these, four specifically mentioned property. There were four pieces of correspondence on other topics, which mentioned self-defence.
Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will bring forward legislative proposals to provide compensation to people who have experienced asbestos-related diseases, including pleural plaque, and their families. 
Bridget Prentice: It is already possible for people suffering from a range of asbestos-related diseases to claim compensation under the common law of negligence where they have suffered damage. In its judgment of 17 October in the case of Rothwell v. Chemical & Insulating Co. Ltd. the House of Lords held that pleural plaques do not constitute actionable or compensatable damage. The House of Lords considered the issues very thoroughly on the basis of all the evidence put before them and reached a unanimous decision. Having considered the judgment very carefully, the Government have decided that it would not be appropriate to legislate on the issue.
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many contact orders were made in each year since 1997; in how many of these cases contact was taking place (a) one, (b) two and (c) three or more years after the contact order was made; and if he will make a statement. 
Bridget Prentice: The number of contact orders made in both public and private law in each year from 2000 is in the following table. Figures for 2006 will be published in the Judicial Statistics report, planned for release in late November. Data for earlier years are not available. It is not possible to identify from court records what contact takes place after a final order has been made and the court does not routinely review contact orders after the proceedings have ended.
Provisions in the Children and Adoption Act 2006 enable the court when making a family assistance order to require the CAFCASS officer or a Welsh family proceedings officer, appointed to work with the family, to report on such matters in relation to any contact order in force as the court may direct. These provisions, which also extend the maximum duration of a family assistance order to 12 months, were implemented on 1 October 2007.
Other provisions in the Children and Adoption Act 2006, when enacted, will enable the court to require a CAFCASS officer or a Welsh family proceedings officer to monitor contact for a period of up to 12 months in appropriate cases.
The Ministry of Justice has carried out research Making Contact Happen or Making Contact work: The process and outcomes of in-court conciliation. The report was published in March 2006 and can be found at http://www.dca.gov.uk/research/2006/03_2006.pdf The aim of the research was to identify the overall effectiveness of in-court conciliation in contact cases as well as the relative success of the three contrasting models of conciliation.
Between six and nine months after a contact order was made, a fifth of agreements had not worked at all, most agreements were intact or had been extended, most cases were closed with low relitigation rates, many more children were having increased contact and more parents were satisfied with the quality and quantity of contact.
|Number of contact orders made