| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Apr 2009 : Column 1252W—continued
Care Proceedings
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many care orders have been (a) sought and (b) granted in each month in 2009 to date. [269873]
Bridget Prentice: The following table shows the number of care orders applied for, and the number of care orders made, in January and February 2009 in England and Wales. Figures for March 2009 are not yet available, as the centrally-held data are not yet complete.
The figures relate to the number of applications and orders counted by child. This means that if an application or order relates to two children then it will be counted twice. The figures cover the family proceedings courts and county courts, but exclude the small proportion of cases dealt with in the High Court (in 2007 the High Court received 3.1 per cent. of all care order applications in England and Wales, and made 3.4 per cent. of all care orders).
Research undertaken on behalf of the Ministry of Justice has identified that some cases transferred from a family proceedings court (FPC) to a county court have been incorrectly identified as new applications made to the county court. This may therefore inflate the number of reported applications.
| Number of care orders applied for, and number of care orders made, in county courts and family proceedings courts in England and Wales during January and February 2009 | ||
| Applications made | Orders made | |
| Note: These figures are provisional, subject to updates made on the FamilyMan database. Source: This information is taken from the HMCS FamilyMan database and manual returns sent in by FPCs. High court activity is not counted | ||
Corruption
Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people were convicted of offences relating to bribery in each of the last 10 calendar years. [270957]
Maria Eagle:
Information showing the number of persons found guilty at all courts for offences relating to bribery in England and Wales from 1998 to 2007 (latest
available) is shown in the following table. Data for 2008 will be available in the autumn of 2009.
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.
Damages
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what reason the publication of the Government's response to the consultation on the law on damages is not taking place in accordance with the originally planned timetable; when he plans to publish the response; and if he will make a statement. [271063]
Bridget Prentice: The consultation on the law on damages closed on 27 July 2007. The consultation paper considered proposals put forward in a series of Law Commission reports and consequently covered a number of distinct and complex issues. There were 103 responses, many very detailed, that required careful consideration. This work has taken longer than planned, partly because of the scale or the response and the inherent complexity. The Government do, however, intend to publish a response paper outlining the way forward as soon as possible.
Debt Collection
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people were given custodial sentences in magistrates courts as a consequence of defaulting on council tax payments in England and Wales in each year between 1998 and 2008. [271065]
Maria Eagle: Available information on those received into prison establishments by way of enforcement proceedings for community charge/council tax, from 1998 to 2007 (latest available) is shown in the table. Data for 2008 will be available later this year.
| Receptions into prison for non-payment of the community charge/council tax England and Wales, 1998 to 2007 | |
| Number of persons | |
This information can be found in the following Ministry of Justice website:
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people who defaulted on their debts in 2008-09 (a) would and (b) would not otherwise have been affected by the provisions of enforcement restriction orders. [271066]
Bridget Prentice: The enforcement restriction order (ERO) is intended only for those with short-term problems, the court must be satisfied that there are realistic prospects of recovery, which will allow normal commitments to be met within six months, before an order can be made. This decision can only be made on a case by case basis taking into account the circumstances of each individual case.
It is not possible to say what effect the ERO provisions would have had on those who defaulted on their debts in 2008-09 without knowing their individual circumstances. The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information.
Departmental ICT
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average server capacity utilisation by each division of his Department and its predecessor was in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [269595]
Maria Eagle:
There are more than 1,900 servers distributed across the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and National Offender Management Service (NOMS) IT estates. There are many different elements to server capacity utilisation and the information we have provided below is for server capacity utilisation as it relates to disc space. Figures are provided from November 2007
(the earliest data point after award of the new MOJ HQ and HMCS IT contracts) and for regular intervals thereafter.
| Average server capacity utilisation | |||
| Percentage | |||
| 1 November 2007 | 26 September 2008 | 6 April 2009 | |
On the NOMS estate (including HMPS), there are over 600 servers hosting a variety of services. Depending on the server and service provided, a number of capacities are measured, with alerts raised if these exceed per-defined thresholds. Detailed information for NOMS (including HMPS) is not held centrally, so cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
Driving Offences: Insurance
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average fine imposed for driving without insurance was (a) in each of the last 11 years and (b) in the most recent period for which figures are available. [270358]
Maria Eagle: The average fine imposed at magistrates courts and at the Crown court for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks in England and Wales for the years 1997 to 2007 (latest available) are shown in the following table.
Data for 2008 will be available in the autumn of 2009.
| Average fine imposed at the magistrates court and the Crown court for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks( 1) , England and Wales, 1997 to 2007( 2, 3) | |||||||||||
| 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003( 4) | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| (1) An offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.143(2). (2) It is known that for some police force areas, the reporting of court proceedings in particular those relating to summary motoring offences may be less than complete. (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 limitations are taken into account when those data are used. (4) As from 1 June 2003, ‘driving a motor vehicle while uninsured against third party risks’ became a fixed penalty offence. Source: Office for Criminal Justice Reform, Evidence and Analysis Unit. | |||||||||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |