Mr Watson: To ask the Attorney-General which Ministers in the Law Officers' Departments have been issued with (a) a BlackBerry, (b) an iPhone, (c) another make of mobile telephone and (d) a personal digital assistant supplied by the Department. 
Mr Blunt: The Ministry of Justice does not hold centrally details of the relationship between an offender and the victim other than where the offence is specified separately in law. I can therefore provide details on the number of defendants who were proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for 'abandoning a child under two years', England and Wales 2004 to 2008 (latest available), which are shown in the table as follows.
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for abandoning a child under two years( 1) , England and Wales 2004 to 2008( 2,3,4,5)|
|(1) Offence under the Offences against the Person Act 1961, sec27.|
(2) The figures given in the table on court proceedings 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 it 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.
(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July, and August 2008.
(5) The numbers found guilty may exceed those proceeded against as it may be the case that the proceedings in the magistrates court took place in the preceding year to the defendant being found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year, or the defendant was found guilty for a different offence to the original offence proceeded against.
Justice Statistics Analytical Services in the Ministry of Justice
Mr Khalid Mahmood: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for West Bromwich East of 10 June 2010, Official Report, column 211W, on departmental mobile phones, what the (a) purchase cost of the handset, (b) network provider, (c) type of tariff and (d) name of the supplier is of each BlackBerry device issued to Ministers in his Department. 
Mr Djanogly: The BlackBerrys issued to Ministers in the Ministry of Justice each (a) have a purchase cost of £50, (b) are on a network provided by Vodafone, (c) are on the Vodafone BlackBerry Voice and Data tariff, and (d) are supplied by Vodafone.
Sir Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he has received recent representations from Crown Dependency (a) Governments and (b) legislatures advocating a transfer of departmental responsibility for such dependencies from his Department to another Government department. 
Mr Blunt: The victim surcharge was introduced on 1 April 2007. Between 2007-08 to 2009-10 the victim surcharge raised £21,079,310. It produced approximately £3.8 million in 2007-08, £8.1 million in 2008-09 and £9.2 million for 2009-10.
Mr Blunt: At the end of March 2010 the NOMS Equalities Group submitted a draft of the Prison Service Instruction (PSI) on the care and management of transsexual prisoners for legal advice. The NOMS Equalities Group is currently working through the advice provided. A final draft will be ready for ministerial approval after the summer recess and will be made publicly available as soon as possible thereafter.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what reasons ring-fencing of funding for independent third sector rape crisis organisations has been removed following the combination of separate funding streams from his Department and the Government Equalities Office for 2010-11. 
Mr Blunt: The Ministry of Justice has, for the last four years, allocated £1.25 million per annum to voluntary sector organisations supporting victims of sexual violence. This is funded through the Victim Surcharge, which is a £15 levy on all fines imposed by the courts following a criminal conviction. It is a condition of the Ministry of Justice's financial settlement that the income from the surcharge must be used to provide non-financial support to victims of crime and their families.
For the current financial year only, the previous Secretary of State for Justice agreed with the then Minister for Women to combine this funding from the Ministry of Justice with £1 million from the Government Equalities Office, creating a single fund for organisations that support victims of sexual violence. All other arrangements for the funding, including any ring-fencing, remain unchanged. This one-off combined fund was created to provide a more joined-up approach to the sector, to simplify the application process for organisations bidding for money and to deliver better value for money overall.
Mr Djanogly: Paul Gray, chair of the board of trustees of RMJ, wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice on 14 June to inform him that having taken professional advice he had convened a special meeting of the board on 15 June. He informed my right hon. and learned Friend at that meeting they would be obliged to sign formal papers to place the charity into administration.
Rachel Reeves: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department is taking to ensure the prompt payment of legal aid to Refugee Migrant Justice by the Legal Services Commission. 
Mr Djanogly: As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, RMJ is now in administration. Where any provider ceases to have a legal aid contract for whatever reason, the LSC will make an assessment of any potential financial issues in the individual circumstances. This will include payments on account made, claims to be billed and whether for example the provider will be continuing to conclude cases for existing clients. It may transpire that RMJ owes money to the LSC.
Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) senior executive officers and staff at Grade 7 and (b) higher executive officers there were in the UK Border Agency (i) in 1997 and (ii) on the latest date for which figures are available. 
Damian Green [holding answer 17 June 2010]: The number of (a) senior executive offices and staff at Grade 7 and (b) higher executive officers in the UK Border Agency and its predecessor the Border and Immigration Agency is set out in the following table. Data are only available from the present United Kingdom Border Agency personnel system (ADELPHI) back to 2005. 1997 figures for the grades covered have been obtained from the archive of the previous personnel system PIMMS, and are illustrative.
Following machinery of government changes today's UK Border Agency has a wider function than its predecessors. It now includes UK Visas (from Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and HMRC Detection. Because of these changes the 2005 and 2010 figures are not directly comparable.
|Immigration Directorate( 1) (31 March 1997)||Border and Immigration Agency (31 March 2005)||United Kingdom Border Agency( 2) (31 May 2010)|
|(1) In 1997 the immigration function was carried out by a Home Office directorate rather than a Home Office agency, these figures will therefore undercount other Home Office staff in these grades earning out functions on behalf of the directorate, which would now be carried out within the agency. These staff can not be distinguished in archived data except at disproportionate cost.|
(2)( )Machinery of government changes have included UK Visas (formerly F and CO) and Detection formerly (HMRC) within these figures. The 2005 Border and Immigration Agency figures do not include these functions. The UK visa grade material included in this total was supplied by International Group support and is at 1 April 2010.
( 3) All figures are rounded active FTE. Grades shown include specialist equivalents.
Mr Iain Wright:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what properties the UK Border Agency leases overseas; whether those buildings are
shared with other Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies; and whether she plans to cancel the leases on those properties. 
Damian Green: The overwhelming majority of property occupied by the UK Border Agency overseas is linked to the processing of visa applications. None of these buildings are leased by the UKBA; they are all leased and managed by the FCO, as part of a package of support services provided to the FCO for which a central charge is made. It is common practice for office accommodation to be shared with the FCO, where this represents the best use of the available office space. Over the last three years the UKBA have rationalised their footprint overseas by concentrating work into a reduced number of decision-making posts. They are currently investigating how further, similar savings can be made.
The remainder of UKBA overseas property is linked to the operation of the juxtaposed control. The UK Border Agency rents residential and business properties on the continent for use by officials who operate from ports, terminals and office sites. These properties are not shared with other bodies and there are no plans to cease operation of these immigration controls.
James Brokenshire: Domestic violence is unacceptable. I will be discussing the specific issue of the implementation of Section 9 with colleagues across Government as we develop our broader approach to tackling violence against women and will report in due course.
Lindsay Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the National Drug Strategy in reducing the number of people dependent on illegal drugs. 
A number of improvements have been made to the drug treatment system over the last decade such as access to treatment and a reduction in the numbers of individuals dropping out, building on the expert view that drug misusers should spend at least 12 weeks in treatment to derive some benefit.
The latest data show that, in 2008-09, 210,815 adults were in contact with treatment services. Of those, 194,572 (92%) were effectively engaged for 12 weeks or more, or if leaving before 12 weeks did so free of dependency. In 2008-09, 24,970 completed treatment free of dependency. The Home Office Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study has shown that for every £1 spent on drug treatment, an estimated £2.50 worth of benefits were obtained.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|