(1) Nil return
|Adfero Newsmanager (media management/ monitoring)
|Adfero Newsmanager (clippings)
|Cision (media management)
|Cision (clippings and media monitoring)
|Legal Services Commission
|Judicial Communications Office
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost was of overtime payments to staff in (a) his Department, (b) HM Prison Service and (c) other agencies for which he is responsible in each of the last 10 years. 
Mr. Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which recruitment agencies (a) his Department and (b) its agencies have used in the last three years; and how much was paid to each of these recruitment agencies in each year. 
Mr. Wills: The civil service recruitment website, which was launched in December 2002, is the site of first choice for central Government recruitment. This site is extensively used by the MOJ. There is no cost associated with this facility.
The MOJ utilises the central framework of recruitment agency services owned by the Cabinet Office. This framework provides access to the most effective recruitment agencies and provides value for money through a single government wide contract. Below the SCS level the Ministry does not hold this information centrally. Therefore, it is not possible to collate this without incurring disproportionate costs.
2008 data relate to all campaigns invoiced to data
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many attempted murders there were at HMP Whitemoor which did not result in a prisoner being charged by the police in each of the last three years. 
Mr. Hanson: Any assault incident may be referred to the police for investigation and consideration as to whether any criminal charges are appropriate. Where the conclusion of the police and Crown Prosecution Service is that an assault does not justify any criminal proceedings, a disciplinary charge under prison rules for the offence of assault would be considered. There is no separate offence under prison discipline rules of attempted murder. Prisons record information on assaults on the national offender management service incident reporting system, which is held centrally and includes an indication of whether an assault is categorised as a serious assault.
Mr. Wills: While Land Registrys filing operation is carefully maintained, no data are available that detail the number of documents (or pages) stored. However it is estimated that the figure is in excess of 120 million (with an estimated number of pages of 735 million).
Bridget Prentice: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Straw) does not hold any information on the amount of funds held by law firms client accounts nationally.
Mr. Wills: The Ministry of Justice has policy rather than operational responsibility for data protection and the Data Protection Act. As such, it is not for the Ministry of Justice to undertake a privacy impact assessment (PIA) on the Clubscan system. The system was developed by a private company and it is for that company to decide whether to complete a PIA.
The Information Commissioner in his role as the independent regulator for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 has inspected installations of working Clubscan systems and has had discussions with manufacturers to ensure that the scanners comply with the law.
Mr. Hanson: In a written ministerial statement on Wednesday 29 October 2008, Official Report, column 33WS, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families and I announced our intention of publishing the report prepared by Peter Smallridge and Andrew Williamson on the use of restraint in juvenile secure settings, together with the Government's response, by 15 December.
Hywel Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prosecutions were brought for offences committed contrary to the Security Industry Act 2001 in each region in each year since the Act came into force; and how many of these prosecutions were successful in each year. 
Data showing the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, in England and Wales, broken down
by region from 2004 to 2006 are in the following table. Data for 2007 will be available at the end of November 2008.
The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, in England and Wales, broken down by region, 2004( 1) to 2006( 2,3)
|(1) Licensing under the Private Security Industry Act commenced, on a phased basis, in 2004; as a result there are no data from 2001 to 2003. (2) These data are on the principal offence basis. (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 courts and police forces. 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.