| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Jan 2009 : Column 1328W—continued
Children: Ethnic Groups
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many children in (a) Vale of York constituency and (b) England were of (i) white, (ii) Pakistani or Bangladeshi and (iii) black non-Caribbean ethnicity in the latest period for which figures are available. [247610]
Kevin Brennan: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated January 2009:
As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on how many children in (a) the Vale of York and (b) England were of (i) white, (ii) Pakistani or Bangladeshi and (iii) black non-Caribbean ethnicity in the latest period for which figures are available. (247610)
The information that is available is given in the table attached. The figures in the table are estimates from the Annual Population Survey (APS) for the twelve month period July 2007 to June 2008.
As with any sample survey, estimates from the APS are subject to sampling error and a margin of uncertainty.
| Number of children living within Vale of York parliamentary constituency and England by ethnic grouping and age band. Annual Population Survey, July 2007 to June 2008 | |||
| Thousands | |||
| 0-15 | 16-17 | 18-19 | |
| (1) Sample size too small for reliable estimate. Notes: 1. As with any sample survey, estimates from the Annual Population Survey are subject to sampling error and a margin of uncertainty. 2. Estimates are weighted to the population estimates published by ONS in 2007. Source: Annual Population Survey. | |||
Elderly
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people over (a) 60 and (b) 80 years of age there were in (i) North Yorkshire and (ii) England in each year since 2005. [247599]
Kevin Brennan: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated January 2009:
As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question on how many people over (a) 60 and (b) 80 years of age there were in (i) North Yorkshire and (ii) England in each year since 2005. (247599)
The table below shows the estimated mid-year resident population of people over 60 and 80 years of age in North Yorkshire and England for 2006 and 2007. The latest population estimates available are for mid-2007.
| Mid-year population estimates, 2006 and 2007 | ||
| Thousand | ||
| Age-group | ||
| Over 60 | Over 80 | |
| Source: Office for National Statistics. | ||
Justice
Animal Welfare: Convictions
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people have been convicted of crimes involving cruelty to animals in each year since 1997. [248357]
Maria Eagle: Data showing the number of persons found guilty at all courts for offences involving animal cruelty, in England and Wales from 1997 to 2007 (Latest available) are in the following table.
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 persons found guilty at all courts of animal cruelty offences( 1) , England and Wales, 1997 to 2007( 2,)( )( 3) | |
| Number | |
| (1) The offences of animal cruelty are covered by the following acts; The Protection of Animals Act 1911, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Performing Animals (Regulations) Act 1926, Protection of Animals Act 1934, Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949, Pet Animals Act 1951, Cockfighting Act 1952, Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954, Animal Health Act 1981, Slaughterhouses Act 1974, Abandonment of Animals Act 1960, Animal and Animal Products (Imports Export) Regulations 1998, Animals (Cruel Poisons ) Act 1962, Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963, Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970, Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967, Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, Badgers Act 1973, Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006. (2) 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. (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. | |
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proposals he has to ensure security of personal data under legislative proposals for increased data sharing in the Coroners and Justice Bill. [247966]
Mr. Wills: All Government Departments must comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) when sharing personal data and must also meet the mandatory requirements on holding personal information, as set out in the Cabinet Office's Data Handling Review.
Under the power contained in Part 8 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, the Government proposes that all information-sharing orders must be necessary to achieve a specified purpose, proportionate and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the rights of the individual to privacy. Ministers who wish to make an information-sharing order will need to prepare a privacy impact assessment; invite representations from any person affected by it and take these representations into account; and give the Information Commissioner the opportunity to report independently on the proposal. Any information-sharing order will be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament.
In addition to the Information Commissioner’s current powers to assess a data controller's compliance under the DPA, the Coroners and Justice Bill also proposes to create a new compulsory assessment for public bodies.
Coroners: Armed Forces
Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many applications for legal aid have been made in order to secure legal representation at the inquest into the deaths of armed forces personnel since January 2003; and how many such applications have been granted. [247783]
Mr. Malik: Applications for exceptional funding are made to the Legal Services Commission (LSC), the independent body which administers the legal aid scheme, in the first instance. Exceptional funding legal aid can be granted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) on the recommendation of the LSC for representation at inquests, if the exceptional funding criteria are met.
The LSC does not break down the number of applications it receives for representation at inquests by category of inquest.
The MoJ has received applications relating to 16 military inquests since January 2003 and has granted funding for all 16 inquests.
Courts: Per Capita Costs
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average cost per prisoner per night of housing a prisoner in a court cell was in each of the last 12 months. [248008]
Mr. Straw: NOMS paid contractors standby and activation costs to staff court cells in eight courts in England and Wales in February 2008 only. The average payment to contractors was £158 per night for each court cell that was available for use. The cost does not include marginal costs such as medical care or utilities and cannot be broken down by month.
Dangerous Dogs: Convictions
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people have been convicted of offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in each year since 1997. [247682]
Maria Eagle: Data showing the number of persons found guilty of offences under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act in England and Wales from 1997 to 2007 (latest available) are in the following table.
| Number of persons found guilty at all courts of offences under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, England and Wales, 1997 to 2007( 1,2) | |||||||||||
| 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| (1) 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. (2) 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. | |||||||||||
Dangerous Driving: Convictions
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people have been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving in each year since 1997. [247683]
Maria Eagle: Data on the number of persons found guilty at all courts for causing death by dangerous driving from 1997 to 2007 (latest available) are given in the following table.
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.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |