|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what guidance his Department provides to local authorities on ensuring that lack of out-of-hours service for burials or cremations does not prevent prompt burials or cremations required for religious purposes, with particular reference to periods of closure of services; and if he will make a statement. 
Bridget Prentice: Guidance published in 2006 encouraged burial ground managers to explore the local demand for out-of-hours working, especially where required for religious reasons, and to ensure that every effort was made to deal with individual applications.
We have not issued similar guidance to cremation authorities but understand from their representative bodies that authorities will provide for religious and cultural requirements wherever possible. Each authority should have local arrangements in place to cater for the needs of their particular community. We will, however, consult the representative bodies and members of our faith forum on whether it would be helpful to issue general guidance on this issue.
Bridget Prentice: Our assessment is that the new court fees have had no effect on local authorities fulfilling their statutory obligations to protect children at risk. There was a reduction in the number of applications for care orders issued by local authorities following introduction of the new statutory guidance to local authorities and Public Law Outline introduced on 1 April 2008, a month before the new fees were implemented. Since the initial drop in April and May 08, volumes have been increasing. We will continue to monitor the number of applications being issued.
Mark Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department has considered legalising the process of promession for the disposal of human remains; and if he will make a statement. 
Bridget Prentice: We are aware that there is some interest in the disposal of bodies by promession, as an alternative to cremation. The process does not involve the burning of human remains, however, so falls outside the Cremation Act 1902. Making it lawful would thus need either a new Act or an amendment to the 1902 Act. There are no plans to amend the law at present.
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent assessment he has made of the effects of the use by bailiffs of powers under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004; and if he will make a statement. 
The report provides details on the execution rate of warrants, training undertaken by contractor staff and any complaints received by the contractor on action taken by their staff. A component of the report requires contractors to provide the number of warrants where search and entry was used under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
Additionally, a complaints section of the report records any complaints received by the contractor from defaulters on the use of forced entry. Specific entries include alleged damage to property, threats of violence and actual violence. The use of search and entry and its application would be detailed in these sections of the report.
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he plans to release the redacted parts of magistrates court guidance to bailiffs on procedures for breaking in to properties as a last resort. 
Bridget Prentice: The Information Commissioner agreed with the proposed redactions when the guidance was first released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on 9 December 2008 and the Government have no plans to release the redacted parts.
Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the answer to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East of 6 October 2008, Official Report, column 169W, on departmental databases, which policy areas the ACORN data have been used to inform. 
Mr. Malik: ACORN data have been used by Ministry of Justice staff in analysis related to the means testing of criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts, and to the potential recovery of some criminal defence costs from defendants in the Crown court.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many bonuses were awarded to senior civil servants working at his Department and its agencies in (a) 2007 and (b) 2008; and how much was spent on such bonuses in each of those years. 
For members of the senior civil service, bonuses have been allocated by the Departmental Pay Committees in accordance with guidelines issued by Cabinet Office each year following Senior Salaries Review Body recommendations. Within the overall policy agreed across Government, Ministers are not involved in anyway in the determination of bonuses to individual civil servants.
As pay determination is retrospective, 2008 was the first year in which the Ministry of Justice paid awards to SCS staff following the creation of the Ministry in 2007. In 2008, 159 bonuses were paid to members of the senior civil service in the Ministry of Justice at a total cost of £1,648,000.
In 2007, pay determination was undertaken by the Departments that existed prior to the creation of the Ministry. For the former Department of Constitutional Affairs, 116 bonuses were paid to members of the senior civil service at a cost of £866,500. Staff from the Home Office who transferred to the Ministry of Justice upon its creation in May 2007 will be included in the answer provided by the Home Office.
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what use (a) his Department and (b) service providers under contract to his Department make of (i) 0844 and 0845 telephone numbers and (ii) revenue-sharing telephone numbers for calls from members of the public; for which services such numbers are used; what prefixes are used for revenue-sharing numbers; how much revenue has accrued from revenue-sharing numbers in each of the last five years; what consideration his Department has given to introducing 03-prefixed telephone numbers for calls to all such services; and if he will make a statement. 
The Land Registry use fourteen 0844 telephone numbers for public access to their services. The Land Registry no longer operate revenue sharing numbers and since February 2008 customers are charged only the local call rate from land lines for using the 0844 numbers. However, calls from mobile phones may cost more as the Department cannot control charges levied by individual service providers to their customers.
|(1) This is a rebate figure from previous service providers which has been paid into this year's financial accounts.|
In addition, the Department, and its service providers, but excluding Land Registry, operate forty-nine 0845 numbers to provide a range of services to the public, including customer service enquiries and IT online support. Eighteen of these numbers, which are used by Her Majesty's Courts Service Bulk Payment Centre, have generated some revenue. At the time the numbers were introduced, calls from anywhere in the UK were charged at a local rate, making it no more expensive for people to access the service using the 0845 rather than the exchange number. The Centre now publish alternative numbers on their web pages giving customers a choice, as depending on the enquirer's call plan, 0845 may not now be the cheapest option. Details of income generated from these 0845 numbers is available for the last four years, and is as follows:
Revenue sharing 0870 numbers have also been used for recruitment campaigns. However, it has been decided that these numbers will no longer be included in campaign advertising, and they are expected to be discontinued shortly when a new system is introduced. The income generated from these numbers, since their introduction in February 2004, is £25,503.69. There is no annual breakdown available.
03 prefix telephone numbers are charged in the same fashion as 01 and 02 prefix numbers, but the call receiver does not receive revenue sharing. The Department, and its service providers, are considering switching to 03 prefix numbers.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many (a) males and (b) females aged (i) 17 to 24, (ii) 25 to 30, (iii) 31 to 35, (iv) 36 to 40 and (v) over 40 years old were (A) prosecuted and (B) convicted for stopping in a box junction in (1) the Essex Police area, (2) the Metropolitan Police area and (3) England and Wales in each of the last three years; 
(2) how much revenue has been raised from penalties issued for stopping in a box junction in (a) the Essex Police area, (b) the Metropolitan Police area and (c) England and Wales in each of the last three years. 
Maria Eagle: The offence of contravening a box junction, under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, can be dealt with by way of court proceedings or the issuing of a fixed penalty notice.
Centrally collected data held on the Ministry of Justice court proceedings database, and by the Home Office on fixed penalty notices (FPNs), do not separately identify the number of prosecutions, convictions, or FPNs issued for the offence of contravening a box junction from other offences of neglect of traffic directions.
Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the answer of 14 July 2008, Official Report, column 60W, on economic and monetary union, what the timetable for his Departments updating of its euro changeover plan is. 
Plans for the former Home Office activities (prisons and probation services; Office for Criminal Justice Reform), which transferred to the newly created Ministry of Justice in 2007, were included in the Home Office Plan.
Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many times the Information Commissioner's Office (a) has been requested to intervene and (b) has taken further action when a data controller has not met the 40-day deadline on a subject access request in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; 
(4) what representations he has received from members of the public who have been affected by a data controller's inability to meet the 40-day deadline for a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. 
Mr. Wills: The following table shows the number of requests received by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to intervene in connection with complaints about subject access requests that had allegedly not been completed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). It is not possible to separate out those cases where the reason for the request to intervene was as a direct result of failure to comply with the 40-day timescale for response.
|Month||Number of requests to intervene (subject access)|
If a data controller does not meet the 40-day deadline, the ICO can serve an Enforcement Notice under section 40 of the DPA. An Enforcement Notice requires a data controller to take the action specified in that notice to ensure full compliance with the DPA. Non-compliance with an Enforcement Notice is a criminal offence.
Common advice offered may include providing better training for employees; devoting greater resource to a data controller's DPA responsibilities; and contacting the ICO for advice earlier in the process if there is uncertainty about how to respond to a request concerning the DPA.
The ICO also produces and maintains good practice guidance on compliance with subject access requests. These good practice guidance notes are available on the ICOs website and via its customer service help-line.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|