|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills how many institutions have been overpaid by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in each of the last 10 years; and by how much in each case. 
Mr. Lammy: Overpayments can be identified for a variety of reasons following an audit of an institutions records. There is then a process of mitigation to determine the extent of any repayment. In addition there are ongoing adjustments to grant throughout the year to reflect student recruitment against indicative plans. As a result the information requested is not readily available. It is held across a disparate set of paper and electronic records and would take a considerable amount of time and resource to assemble. This information is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.
I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 27 January 2009, Official Report, column 372W. The enforcement provisions in the Tribunals, Court and Enforcement Act 2007 are far reaching reforms. The provisions have recently undergone a comprehensive reassessment by Ministers to ensure that they remain
appropriate even under this difficult financial climate. This assessment has now been concluded and a statement will be made shortly.
Maria Eagle: The number of persons aged 18 and over proceeded against at magistrates courts for offences relating to child abuse from 2003 to 2007 in England and Wales is shown in the following table. As there is no specific offence of child abuse statistics are provided only where the age of the victim can be identified as a child from the description of the offence. Furthermore the term child abuse describes harm caused to a child arising from emotional. physical, sexual abuse or neglect caused by a parent or carer. A number of other offences such as offences against the person including physical assault may frequently be used by the police to charge offenders.
These data are on the principal offence basis. The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one 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 aged 18 and over proceeded against at all courts for offences relating to child abuse in England and Wales, 2004-07( 1, 2, 3, 4)|
|(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.|
(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.
(3) Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 S.5 came into force on 21 March 2005.
(4) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force on 1 May 2004.
OCJRE and A: Office for Criminal Justice ReformEvidence and Analysis Unit
Mr. Hanson: Local probation areas promote the work they do locally with offenders serving community sentences and in particular in the case of Community Payback. Nationally, the Ministry of Justice is also working with the cross Government National Crime and Justice Group on developing communications that will include messages about Community Payback in local areas. Plans will be announced shortly.
The Government are committed to increased public visibility and involvement in Community Payback so that local communities are aware of both offenders being punished and the work that they undertake. A forthcoming Green Paper will outline how the Government intend to give the public more opportunities to propose work for offenders in local areas by for example, expanding the citizens panels, which are currently being piloted in six areas.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) complaints and (b) items of correspondence have been received by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in relation to historical sex abuse investigations in the UK in each year since 2001. 
Maria Eagle: Since 2001, there has been one complaint made to the Commission in relation to a care home sexual abuse case. This complaint, made in 2001, was by an applicant who had applied unsuccessfully to the Commission for his case to be reviewed in 1999 and who was dissatisfied with the way in which the Commission determined his case. The complaint, which was not upheld, was investigated by the Commissions complaint manager in accordance with the Commissions formal complaints procedure.
|Number of applications|
It has not been possible in the time available to calculate the exact figure, or identify the year in which a particular item of correspondence has been received.
The Commission estimates that, since 2001, it has received 1,940 items of correspondence in relation to the 39 cases of this nature.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent changes the Criminal Cases Review Commission has made to the way in which it (a) assesses cases and (b) determines which cases are (i) eligible and (ii) ineligible for review. 
Maria Eagle: There have been no changes in the way in which the Commission assesses cases. Every case is assessed independently and on its own merits. The Commission reviews applications to decide whether there is a real possibility that the relevant appeal court will quash a conviction or amend a sentence.
There has also been no change in the way in which the Commission assesses which cases are eligible for review. The conditions for eligibility for review are set down in sections 9-12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. As a consequence, the only substantive ground on which the Commission can refuse to accept an application to review a case is where the applicant has not been convicted of a criminal offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
There are other criteria that normally have to be met before an application is accepted such as that the applicant needs to have exhausted the normal appeal processes before applying to the CCRC. However, Section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act provides that, in exceptional circumstances, conditions other than the requirement to have a relevant conviction can be waived.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 20 January 2009, Official Report, column 1332W, on dangerous dogs: convictions, how many of the offences for which persons were found guilty fell under (a) section 1 and (b) section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. 
Maria Eagle: Data showing the number of persons found guilty of offences under sections 1 and 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in England and Wales from 1997 to 2007 (latest available) are shown in the following table.
|Number of persons found guilty at all courts of offences under sections 1 and 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England and Wales, 1997 to 2007( 1,) ( 2)|
|1997||1998||1999||( 3) 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.
(3) Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.
Office for Criminal Justice Reform-Evidence and analysis unit.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|