---

27 Oct 2008 : Column 752W—continued

Table 2: landlord possession claims issued in the county courts of Hampshire in the year to June 2008, broken down by count and month
	Aldershot and Farnham		Basingstoke		Portsmouth		Southampton		Winchester
	Claims issued	Orders made( 1)	Claims issued	Orders made( 1)	Claims issued	Orders made( 1)	Claims issued	Orders made( 1)	Claims issued	Orders made( 1)
2007
July	32	60	56	24	128	69	98	58	15	6
August	56	30	46	30	174	66	98	64	19	12
October	41	34	46	25	126	87	84	65	3	4
September	41	30	42	50	122	54	134	79	16	8
November	45	26	32	29	136	78	87	83	8	10
December	28	17	31	21	103	72	92	52	10	7
2008
January	89	52	39	34	149	75	97	85	6	7
February	49	47	47	32	119	72	87	106	15	7
March	61	48	17	18	119	84	89	77	16	11
April	46	54	36	29	87	78	118	96	8	13
May	39	36	47	20	90	57	82	80	5	3
June	38	47	47	37	93	85	103	78	13	7
(1) Includes outright and suspended orders, the later being where the court grants the claimant possession but suspends the operation of the order. Provided the defendant complies with the terms of suspension, which usually requires the defendant to pay the current mortgage instalments plus some of the accrued arrears, the possession order cannot be enforced. Notes: 1. Landlord possession data include all types of landlord whether local authority, housing associations or private. 2. The court, following a judicial hearing, may grant an order for possession immediately. This entitles the claimant to apply for a warrant to have the defendant evicted. However, even where a warrant for possession is issued, the parties can still negotiate a compromise to prevent eviction. 3. Although orders made will be less than claims issued overall, in a given month it is possible for the former figure to exceed the latter as a result of time lags in the process (typically around eight weeks from claim issue to order). Source: Ministry of Justice

Shoplifting: Sentencing

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he plans to respond to the results of the consultation on the sentencing guidelines for shoplifting; what recent representations he has received on the sentencing guidelines for shoplifting; and if he will make a statement. [228982]

Mr. Straw: The Government responded in June this year to the independent Sentencing Guidelines Council’s
27 Oct 2008 : Column 753W
consultation guideline on sentencing for the offences of theft and burglary (non-dwelling). I am advised that MOJ has received no representations on the consultation sentencing guideline for the offence of theft from a shop.

Television: Licensing

Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many proceedings for television licence evasion were brought in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many cases resulted in (a) a fine and (b) imprisonment in each year. [230862]

Mr. Hanson: The number of proceedings brought to court in each financial year since April 2002 for non-payment of a television licence is shown in the following table.

April to March each year	Number of proceedings brought to court
2002-03	4,893
2003-04	4,903
2004-05	5,471
2005-06	5,006
2006-07	6,532
Note: Data sourced from TV Licensing authorities.

In calendar year 2007, of 5,901 people prosecuted for non-payment of a television licence, 4,464 received fines. None were imprisoned. The corresponding information for the years prior to 2007 is not available.

Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 7 July, how many of the fines levied in the period between 2002 and 2006 have been paid (a) in part and (b) in whole; and in respect of how many cases enforcement action for non-payment has been taken. [230853]

Maria Eagle: Information on paid, part paid and unpaid fines from television licence convictions is not collected centrally.

It is therefore not possible to establish the total of unpaid television licence fines or the number of television licence cases that have resulted in enforcement action.

The information collected by my Department identifies the number of television licence convictions ordered to be paid and the number and amounts of court fines issued for such offences within each region.

The overall payment rate for all financial penalties in the financial year to September 2008 is 87 per cent. The payment rate excluding the value of administrative cancellations for the same period is 75 per cent.

Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 7 July, what the (a) average fine imposed and (b) average period of imprisonment served was in each year between 2002 and 2006. [230858]

Maria Eagle: The information requested is shown in the following tables:

27 Oct 2008 : Column 754W

Average fine amount for off ences relating to t elevision l icence evasion( 1) , 2002-06
£
Region	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
North East	109.6	115.4	103.1	104.9	123.5
North West	106.9	102.2	109.2	115.3	122.3
Yorkshire and Humberside	90.6	104.2	101.5	112.5	121.4
East Midlands	141.0	137.0	134.8	131.9	139.9
West Midlands	131.3	136.2	141.0	152.4	158.8
East of England	116.6	113.5	117.5	109.2	116.3
London	100.7	106.7	110.4	130.3	133.8
South East	112.9	123.4	130.2	126.4	137.0
South West	120.3	115.6	111.4	117.4	126.1
Wales	97.6	108.6	101.1	105.4	117.6
Total England and Wales	110.5	114.7	115.5	121.8	129.4
(1) The TV licensing provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 were replaced by new provisions in the Communications Act 2003 which came into effect on 1 April 2004. Notes: 1. These data are on the principle offence basis. 2. These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. 3. When answering previous parliamentary questions on this subject issues with data from certain police force areas were highlighted, however, this will only affect the numbers sentenced; average fine amounts will still be representative. Source: OMS Analytical services.

---