|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
29 Oct 2008 : Column 1048Wcontinued
Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) repossession notices were served and (b) ejection orders were granted by the courts in each year since 1985. 
Bridget Prentice: The following table shows the number of notices of issue served for repossession and the number of suspended and outright ejection orders made in the county courts of England and Wales in each year since 1987, the earliest year for which these statistics are available.
For future reference, court level statistics on mortgage and landlord repossession actions from 1987 to 2007 can be viewed on the Ministry of Justice website at:
These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts, since not all the orders will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession. The figures for properties taken into possession are available from the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
|Possession actions in the county courts of England and Wales since 1987|
|Mortgage( 1)||Landlord (standard procedure)( 2, 3)||Landlord (accelerated procedure)( 2, 4)|
|Claims||Orders( 5, 6)||Claims||Orders( 5, 6)||Claims||Orders( 5, 6)|
|(1) Mortgage data includes all types of lenders.|
(2) Landlord data includes all types of landlords.
(3) For 1987 to 1989, these standard procedure actions involved only social landlords.
(4) Accelerated procedure actions are not available prior to 1999. This procedure is used by landlords in relation to assured shorthold tenancies, when the fixed period of tenancy has come to an end. It enables orders to be made by the court solely on the basis of written evidence and without calling the parties to a hearing.
(5) Orders include suspended orders and orders made.
(6) 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.
Ministry of Justice.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will provide guidance to sentencers on the appropriate use of sentences of imprisonment for public protection for offenders with mental health problems; and if he will ensure that such offenders who need treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 are provided with hospital orders. 
Maria Eagle: Sentencing is an independent function and judges and magistrates are responsible for making decisions in individual cases, which are governed by the statutory framework laid down by Parliament. Responsibility for issuing sentencing guidelines rests with the Sentencing Guidelines Council, not the Government. The council was set up under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and is an independent body chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. The Council's guide for sentencers and practitioners on dangerous offenders makes it clear that if the conditions for a hospital order are satisfied, the court may make such an order, even if the criteria for passing a sentence of imprisonment (or custody) for life, imprisonment (or detention) for public protection or an extended sentence are met.
In March 2008, the Department issued guidance to the courts on the sentencing options available for mentally disordered offenders following the changes made to the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Mental Health Act 2007. The 2007 Act reflects the continuation of the Government's policy that mentally disordered people who commit offences should receive specialist mental health treatment rather than being punished, wherever that can safely be achieved.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to progress with a further review of alcohol labelling before the review of the first stage is complete; 
(2) what reviews there have been of the independent market survey conducted by the Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association undertaken as part of his Departments review of alcohol labelling; and if he will make a statement; 
(3) if he will discuss with industry partners in the voluntary alcohol labelling agreement whether (a) the pictorial representation of pregnant women and (b) the reproduction of the logo drinkaware.co.uk on labels of alcoholic products have the same effect on consumers as an advisory message in text form; and if he will make a statement; 
(4) for what reason the responsible drinking messages disseminated by the drinks industry under the terms of the voluntary alcohol labelling agreement do not include the word please; what assessment he has made of the potential change in the effect of such messages of framing them in more courteous terms; and if he will make a statement. 
Dawn Primarolo: The Department will commission independent second-stage monitoring of implementation of the voluntary agreement with the alcohol industry to include unit and health information on alcoholic drinks labels towards the end of 2008.
The Department commissioned a re-analysis by Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association of its initial survey data in the light of new alcohol industry data on market share. We await industry confirmation that these data are not commercially confidential before we can confirm publicly the outcome of the re-analysis.
We wish to consider constructively possible inclusion of additional wording within sensible drinking messages as complying with the terms of the voluntary agreement with industry, even where these were not suggested as part of the original agreement. We will conclude this consideration shortly.
The voluntary agreement already makes clear that a pictogram in prescribed form is an acceptable alternative to wording about drinking before and during pregnancy.
Inclusion of a logo in place of part of the wording of the web address drinkaware.co.uk did not form part of the voluntary agreement. The Department is sceptical that this logo has wide consumer recognition, but is open to discussing any evidence to the contrary.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for implementing his decisions following the consultation on the alcohol strategy. 
Dawn Primarolo: We will announce our decisions later in the year.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures will be followed to analyse responses to his Departments public consultation on the alcohol strategy; 
(2) when his Departments analysis of responses to its public consultation on the alcohol strategy will be complete. 
Dawn Primarolo: The public consultation on alcohol, Safe. Sensible. Social - Consultation on further action, is being carried out under the Cabinet Office code of practice on consultations. This code also sets out criteria for how the analysis should be conducted.
A summary of the responses will be published within three months at the end of the consultation period, which means that the responses will be published by 14 January 2009.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that the outcome of his Departments consultation on alcohol strategy (a) does not have a disproportionate effect on small retailers and (b) is consistent in its treatment of all sectors of the alcohol retail market. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|