|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
James Purnell: There are currently 19 national DAB digital radio stations. A second national commercial multiplex, awarded by Ofcom to 4 Digital Group, is planned to launch in 2008 with a further eight services. We do not hold figures on the total number of national stations available on other digital platforms.
James Purnell: There are no plans for any staff to be seconded formally to the Digital Radio Working Group. Current plans are for around 1.5 members of staff (full time equivalent) to provide support to the group, although this may change as the work of the group develops.
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many local authorities have applied for funding from his Department to help fund local leisure facilities in each of the last five years. 
In the last five years, we have held three bidding rounds for PFI Credits under which local authorities could apply for funding in the form of PFI Credits. A table showing the number of applications we received, for each of the bidding rounds, for local leisure facilities are as follows:
|Number of applications|
Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish a comparison of average costs for licensed premises incurred under (a) the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 in the first year after the Act came into force and (b) the provisions of the Licensing Act 1964 in the 12 months before the Licensing Act 2003 came into force. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: It is not possible to calculate a meaningful average total cost of the licensing regime for each licensed premises as the costs of compliance with licence conditions are not recorded and will be specific to each individual premises. In addition, not all temporary event notices are given by licensed premises and not all personal licences costs are incurred by licensed premises.
However, a recent exercise to calculate the administrative burdens of the Licensing Act 2003 using the standard cost model method of measurement has estimated that the 2003 Act imposes an annual administrative burden of approximately £86 million per year. The estimated total cost of the old licensing
regimes was approximately £183 million per year. This included the costs of the Licensing Act 1964, but also the costs of the other relevant regimes including those relating to the licensing of public entertainment and late night refreshment. The administrative burdens do not include the cost of transition, nor licence fees nor compliance with licence conditions.
Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his most recent estimate is of the cost of obtaining and maintaining a liquor licence under the Licensing Act 2003; what differences there are between this estimate and the estimate contained in the regulatory impact assessment presented with the Bill; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The regulatory impact assessment which accompanied the Licensing Bill estimated that the annual compliance cost of a licence to sell alcohol under the new regime would be between £130-£5,760.
We have not sought to quantify the costs of the new regime on the same basis. However, our recent exercise to look at administrative costs under the new regime suggests that the system imposes a total annual burden of £86 million. This represents a savings of £97 million in administrative burdens over the old regimes. The administrative burdens do not include the cost of transition, nor licence fees nor compliance with licence conditions.
Mr. Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment he has made of the likely effect the London 2012 Olympic Games will have on levels of participation in physical activity; and over what period. 
James Purnell: As set out in my speech to the Schools and Sports Partnerships conference on 28 November 2007, we believe that the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games will inspire a generation to take up sport.
The Governments aim is to get two million more people to be more active in sport and physical activity by 2012. This equates to a 1 per cent. per annum increase across sport and physical activity; equal to what the countries with the greatest success in increasing participation have achieved.
Ben Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) whether the recommendations made in the Office of Fair Tradings report on Ticket Agents in the UK, that advertising should indicate where tickets can be purchased at face value, have been implemented; 
(2) what his policy is on whether the Committee of Advertising Practice should amend its guidance so all non-broadcast event advertising is required to include the face value of the ticket, while indicating that additional fees may apply and could vary depending upon the sales channel and ticket seller used, in accordance with recommendations made in the Office of Fair Tradings report on Ticket Agents in the UK. 
Margaret Hodge [holding answer 10 December 2007]: Following the 2005 recommendations published by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) amended its guidance but did not require ticket face value and fees to be advertised. OFT complaint data from earlier this year suggest that this is not a particular problem for consumers. More recently, as a result of the implementation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the OFT has been working with the ASA Committee of Advertising Practice on reforms to its code of practice on non-broadcast media. The OFT views it as prudent to see the effect of the reformed code on advertising behaviour in the ticketing market before considering if further action is required.
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what representations he has received on making local authorities cover the cost of reinstatement of gravestones after they have been deemed unsafe through topple testing. 
None, other than my hon. Friend's correspondence on the matter which has recently been
passed to me. However, I understand that some local authorities have decided, at their discretion, to incur the costs of making gravestones safe.
Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many and what percentage of crimes committed in Suffolk resulted in (a) a caution, (b) a fixed penalty notice and (c) a conviction in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Hanson: Information on the number of crimes recorded, cautions and penalty notices for disorder (PNDs) issued and convictions at all courts in Suffolk in each of the last five financial years is provided in the following table. Data are provided on a notifiable offence basis, i.e. offences notified to the Home Office.
It is not possible to track individual crimes through the criminal justice system to conclusion by way of a caution, PND or conviction. This is because crimes and offences brought to justice are counted and recorded differently. A crime and a resulting conviction may occur in different years, or in some instances one recorded crime may result in more than one person being convicted, or one person being convicted of more than one offence.
|Number of recorded crimes, convictions, cautions or penalty notices for disorder issued in Suffolk police force area, 2002-03 to 2006-07|
|Financial year||Recorded crimes||Penalty notices for disorder( 1)||Cautions( 2)||Convictions|
|(1 )Piloted in 2002 and introduced nationally in 2004. Notifiable PNDs relate to offences under Public Order Act 1986 Section 5; Theft and Criminal Damage.|
(2) Includes reprimands and final warnings for juveniles.
(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 police forces and 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.
(4 )PND, cautions and convictions data for 2006-07 are provisional.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what Departmental budget items have been reclassified under the Consolidated Budgeting Guidance, following the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review 2007; and what the (a) former and (b) new (i) classification and (ii) sum budgeted is in each case. 
Mr. Hurd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what obligation is placed on sentencing judges to consider the possibility of assessment for ADHD and related conditions and a subsequent rehabilitation package as part of the sentencing process. 
Maria Eagle: There is no statutory obligation for the court to consider an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) assessment upon sentencing. Nor is there a statutory obligation for a subsequent rehabilitation package as part of the sentencing process.
However, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a court to consider a pre-sentence report (PSR) prior to sentencing. The purpose of the pre-sentence report is to assist the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender. There is a general obligation on the part of the court to determine the most appropriate sentence for the offence and the offender. The purpose of sentencing includes rehabilitation which the court may provide through supervision and treatment as needed.
In the case of young offenders, youth offender teams work closely with their child and adolescent mental health services colleagues to ensure that issues such as ADHD and related conditions are identified during the court process.
|(1 )The figure for April 2003 reflects the fact that in April 2002, 28 finance team members and 14 court enforcement officers transferred from the Magistrates court to the area collection and enforcement centre.|
The figures in brackets give the estimated comparable staff numbers if the 42 had remained with the Magistrates court.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) police cells and (b) custody suites in each London borough were occupied by serving prisoners who had been given a custodial sentence at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Hanson: Prisoners held in police cells under Operation Safeguard are primarily adult male prisoners remanded in custody by the courts. Figures for the number of occasions convicted or remanded prisoners are held in police cells under Operation Safeguard are not held separately.
The operational protocol is that prisoners are held for one night. If prisoners are held in a police cell under Operation Safeguard on a Friday night they will remain in police custody until Monday morning or Tuesday if it is a bank holiday.
The Metropolitan police allocate places for Operation Safeguard across London boroughs each day from a central command suite. The number and location of places available is varied daily according to operational pressures.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many (a) males and (b) females were (i) prosecuted and (ii) convicted of an offence under Section 61 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, in each year since the Section came into force, broken down by police force area; 
(2) how many (a) males and (b) females have been (i) prosecuted and (ii) convicted of an offence under provisions in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in each year since it came into force, broken down by relevant section. 
Mr. Straw: Data showing the number of males and females proceeded against and found guilty in England and Wales, by police force area, under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 from 2000 to 2006 is in the table. My Department is unable to separate data for Section 61, as the data are not collected to that level of detail.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|