|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Wills: As a result of the establishment of the Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2007, we are currently in the process of revising our diversity targets for all under-represented groups, which will include setting targets for our staff with disabilities.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many of each category of fixed penalty notices were (a) issued and (b) paid in each month since their introduction in each police force area; 
Maria Eagle: The most recent available information on motoring fixed penalty notices as well as data on penalty notices for disorder (PNDS) covering the years 2004 to 2006 have been provided in my earlier answer of 18 December 2007, Official Report, column 1288W.
Additionally, data on the number of fixed penalty notices issued for environmental offences are available
from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) via the following web link:
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the recent report of the Independent Monitoring Board on Gloucester Prison; and what the implications of its recommendations are for the future of the prison. 
Maria Eagle: I am very grateful to the Independent Monitoring Board for the work they do on behalf of Gloucester prison. The report is thorough and generally very positive; highlighting several areas of recognised good practice and acknowledging Gloucesters achievements in gaining level 4 status and receiving the most improved prison award in 2007. I will formally respond to the report shortly.
Gloucester continues to perform well in key areas, despite the physical constraints of Victorian buildings and a town centre location, and I have no reason to suppose that it will not continue to do so. The governor and staff are committed to maintaining and improving upon this performance, providing the best possible opportunities for prisoners to address their offending behaviour in a supportive and safe environment.
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how much his Department and its predecessors paid to JP Morgan in each year since 1997; and what the purpose of each payment was; 
Since 1 April 2005, there have been no payments made by the former DCA to either JP Morgan or Zurich Financial Services.
Data prior to 1 April 2005 may be obtained only at disproportionate costs.
Since 1 April 2005, there have been no payments made by HMCS to either JP Morgan or Zurich Financial Services.
Data prior to 1 April 2005 may be obtained only at disproportionate costs.
Since the launch of the Tribunals Service in April 2006, there have been no payments made to either JP Morgan or Zurich Financial Services within the Executive agency.
The PGO/OPG paid £68,823.09 to JP Morgan Fleming Asset Management in 2001. Payment was in respect of consulting on investment matters. No other payments have been made to JP Morgan by the OPG.
There have been no payments made by PGO to Zurich Financial Services.
The OCJR only have expenditure data starting from 1 April 2004. Since that date, there have been no payments made by OCJR to either JP Morgan or Zurich Financial Services.
NOMS are only able to provide this information at disproportionate costs, as it would require first identifying payments to these suppliers (which could not be done if it was through a broker), and then looking up the invoice to try and identify the purpose.
There have been no payments made by HMPS to JP Morgan.
HMPS paid Zurich Financial Services £5,000 in January 2005 and £3,000 in November 2007. Both payments were in respect of insurance services.
Mr. Straw: Since October 2006, the Government have used police cells in significant numbers to help manage pressure in the prison population. The Governments policy, however, is that juveniles should only be held overnight in police cells in the most exceptional circumstances. Our records indicate that since October 2006, no juveniles have been held overnight in police cells in Tamworth or in the rest of Staffordshire. Data prior to this cannot be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many injuries sustained by juvenile and young adult offenders held in (a) young offender institutions and (b) secure children's homes during restrictive physical interventions required hospital treatment in each year since 2000; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Hanson: Young adults are not placed in secure children's homes. The Youth Justice Board has been collecting restraint data against common definitions across the secure estate since April 2007. The following table shows the requested information for the period 1 April 2007 to 31 January 2008 in relation to under-18 young offender institutions and secure children's homes. Information on injuries to young adults in senior young offender institutions is not collected centrally.
|Establishment type||Injuries needing hospital treatment|
Data supplied by the Youth Justice Board from administrative computer systems
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what targets his Department has set to improve the educational outcomes of children in care; and if he will make a statement. 
60 per cent. of LAC to obtain level 4 at key stage 2 in English by 2011;
55 per cent. of LAC to obtain level 4 at key stage 2 in maths by 2011; and
20 per cent. of LAC at key stage 4 to obtain five GSCEs graded A*-C (or equivalent), by 2011.
Not enough progress has been made on improving the educational achievement of LAC. They often face a wide range of barriers to learning that most children do not experience. However, we are determined to do more and improving the education of LAC is a top priority. It is key to improving their life chances and a successful transition to adulthood.
We have set out our intentions in Care Matters: Time for Change and the implementation plan Care Matters: Time to deliver for children in care published by the Government with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Children's Services, on Wednesday 26 March 2008.
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many (a) children and (b) asylum-seeking children went missing from local authority care in each of the last five years. 
The estimated set-up cost of ContactPoint is £224 million (most of which is expected to be incurred by the end of the financial year 2009-10). This includes: the costs of adapting existing systems that will supply data to ContactPoint and the costs of ensuring that data are accurate; adapting the day-to-day systems used by practitioners so they can access ContactPoint from them; and the costs of introducing robust arrangements to ensure proper security, and effective ContactPoint user training.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what (a) linkages and (b) cross checks are proposed between data records of individuals on (i) the ContactPoint database and (ii) other Government databases. 
basic identifying information: name, address, gender, date of birth and a unique identifying number;
contact details for the childs parent or carer;
contact details for services involved with the child: as a minimum school and GP practice, but also other services where appropriate; and
the facility for practitioners to indicate to others if they are a lead professional, and have undertaken a common assessment, in relation to a child.
There are no links in a child record to any other family members apart from the parent/carer details above. For safeguarding purposes, practitioners can make use of a facility in ContactPoint to search for previous and current co-residing children from a child record. In limited circumstances, details revealing the whereabouts of a child/young person and/or their parent/carer can be shielded. The decisions to shield will be taken case by case, based on the level of threat posed if information about their whereabouts was to be revealed.
To ensure ContactPoint records are as accurate and up-to-date as possible, ContactPoint will cross-check, match and remove duplication of fragments of data received from a range of local and national data sources. These national data sources include a number of government departments, namely the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Department of Health and Office for National Statistics. This is a one way process. No data will be supplied to another system from ContactPoint nor will users be able to access any other systems via ContactPoint.
To support the Data Protection Act 1998, there will be mechanisms in place to notify data sources where discrepancies occur between differently sourced fragments. In doing so, the contents of ContactPoint records will not be shared with data sources.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|