Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees of his Department attended Civil Service Live in (a) 2008, (b) 2009 and (c) 2010; and what estimate he has made of the (i) employee working hours taken up by and (ii) cost to his Department of such attendance in each such year. 
The Scotland Office shares an information technology system (SCOTS) with the Scottish Government, who are responsible for the development, administration and maintenance of the system, including the provision of hardware and software. The Scotland Office and Office of the Advocate-General are charged
a share of the costs based on the number of our workstations provided. The costs are highlighted in the following table:
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he had with each ministerial colleague between 30 May and 22 June 2010; and what matters were discussed at each such meeting. 
|Electricity||Water||Gas (heating)||Telephone services|
|(1) Part year.|
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations he met between 30 May and 22 June 2010 to discuss the (a) state of the economy in Scotland and (b) effects on Scotland of the June 2010 Budget. 
Michael Moore: In the run-up to the Budget on 22 June I had numerous discussions with a wide range of organisations on the state of the Scottish economy and during this time I received many representations with regard to the forthcoming Budget.
Mr Frank Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with Scottish Executive Ministers and ministerial colleagues on the date for the coming into force of the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010. 
Michael Moore: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport made a written ministerial statement on 8 July 2010, Official Report, column 14WS, in which he explained the reasons why the Government have decided to defer the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship transfers) Regulations 2010 coming into force pending their review. He also wrote to the Scottish Government, to all interested MPs and relevant industry and environmental bodies to advise them of the contents of the Statement.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met trades union representatives of employees at (a) Rosyth and (b) Clyde shipyards to discuss the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. 
Michael Moore: I recognise the importance of the shipbuilding industry to Scotland's economy. I will meet Babcock management and union representatives in Rosyth later this month. It is also my intention to visit BVT of the Clyde in the near future.
Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when and by what means he informed (a) the First Minister, (b) the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, (c) the Electoral Commission in Scotland and (d) electoral returning officers in Scotland of the Government's proposals to hold a referendum on the alternative vote system on 5 May 2011; 
(2) what consultation he plans to undertake with (a) the Scottish Executive, (b) the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, (c) the Electoral Commission in Scotland, (d) electoral registration officers in Scotland and (e) the public in Scotland on holding of a referendum on the alternative vote system on 5 May 2011. 
Michael Moore: It was right that Parliament was informed of our intentions first and therefore following the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on 5 July, I wrote to the First Minister, the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, other party leaders, and the Scottish Parliament's independent MSP, informing them that we will be holding a referendum on the alternative vote system on 5 May 2011. Holding it on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections will reduce the cost to the taxpayer and make it more convenient for voters.
The Deputy Prime Minister has held discussions with the Electoral Commission on a number of matters relating to the referendum, including around the timing. In due course, I will be discussing the arrangements for the referendum in Scotland with the Electoral Commission in Scotland and Scottish electoral administrators, among others.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British (a) civilian and (b) military personnel are involved with (i) the training of Afghan police and (ii) other work involving the Afghan police. 
Dr Fox: Developing the Afghan National Police (ANP) is an essential part of the counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan, and the UK contribution to developing the ANP is part of a wider international effort. Ultimately, building the capacity of the ANP will allow the Afghan Government to take responsibility for security and allow us to bring UK troops home.
Around 175 UK military personnel provide support to the development of the ANP in three main ways: through embedding staff officers in NATO Training Mission Afghanistan (NTM-A) Headquarters; by providing trainers and support to NTM-A training institutions; and, through the training and partnering of deployed ANP in Helmand province. In addition to this, large numbers of UK military work with the ANP on a day to day basis as a consequence of embedded partnering.
Mr Robathan: Counselling, advice and support services are an important area, and such support can be valuable to bereaved families. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has been working with the national bereavement charity CRUSE and the Department of Health to provide bespoke counselling services for armed forces families, but we recognise that such counselling is not necessarily best provided by the MOD. We aim to signpost the most appropriate counselling services for armed forces families which are often provided by non-military bereavement specialists. The three services have funding mechanisms in place to allow families to access the most appropriate counselling services once a need has been identified.
Mr Robathan: There are considerable resources available to support service families at the level of the Royal Navy Ship, Army Regiment or Royal Air Force station. These resources are usually co-ordinated by a dedicated unit welfare officer who is able to assess what sort of support is required and then make bespoke arrangements for appropriate provision, accessing relevant service, local authority or charitable sector specialists where necessary. The resources include:
Professional social workers;
Station and unit community groups including HIVE information centres;
Families Welfare Grant money to support of families of deployed personnel;
Confidential support lines;
Dedicated support groups for the bereaved (SSAFA-Forces Help).
We are also committed to rebuilding the military covenant and have identified a number of areas that will
allow us to do so. These measures are listed in our Programme for Government that was published on 22 May.
Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much funding his Department provided for rehabilitation of injured service personnel in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England in the last 12 months. 
Mr Robathan: The Defence Medical Services manage an extensive armed forces rehabilitation network which meets a wide range of requirements, including treatment for operational casualties. The network includes primary care rehabilitation facilities and 13 Regional Rehabilitation Units (RRUs) across the UK (plus two in Germany). There is one RRU in Northern Ireland (Aldergrove) and one in Scotland (Edinburgh); the other 11 are at locations convenient for centres of major military population across England. In addition, we have the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court in Surrey, where seriously wounded servicemen and women are normally treated following the completion of their secondary care.
Funding for the treatment of wounded personnel has been, and will continue to be, made available to match clinical requirements, including surges in casualty numbers. Our future budgetary plans assume a continuing need for additional investment in facilities and staff at Headley Court, whose annual running costs in 2009-10 were some £20 million. Responsibility for the individual management of the primary care facilities is shared between the single Service Commands, with oversight from the Joint Medical Command. Owing to the number of different internal budgets to which costs would be attributable, any detailed analysis of local rehabilitation expenditure would therefore incur disproportionate costs. Likewise, the RRUs operate as lodger units within different military facilities, with a range of funding arrangements, and comprehensive financial data is not readily available.
Where an individual requires specialist rehabilitation services or equipment that can best be provided by a non-MOD organisation (such as some aspects of neurological rehabilitation and specialised prosthetics) this will be arranged at additional cost. In the financial
year 2009-10, about £3.4 million was spent on such services by the Joint Medical Command.
Mr Robathan: The coalition Government place a high priority on the welfare of service personnel and their families. In the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will prioritise the needs and accommodation of defence personnel and their families.
We will continue to ensure that accommodation is maintained to a high standard and improved where possible, including the construction of new or refurbishment of existing accommodation in the UK and elsewhere.
Mr Robathan: This information is not held in the format requested, however details of those recruited through the Armed Forces Careers Office (AFCO) in Belfast, the Army Career Information Offices (ACIO) in Coleraine, Enniskillen, Portadown, and from the Royal Navy's Officer Career Liaison Centre, give an indication of Northern Ireland recruitment into the armed forces in the following table.
Please note however that this information will not provide a comprehensive picture of individuals recruited from Northern Ireland as it does not include those recruited through AFCOs elsewhere or through other means, such as the internet. In addition, Army Officer figures are not provided as these Officers tend to be recruited through a wider variety of means and any information provided would not be meaningful in this context.
|AFCO Belfast||ACIO Coleraine||ACIO Enniskillen||ACIO Portadown||Officer Careers Liaison Centre|
Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what counselling and advice facilities are available for military personnel during and immediately after service to reduce the chances of their entering the criminal justice system. 
Mr Robathan: We do not provide counselling and advice facilities for military personnel during and immediately after service specifically to reduce their chances of entering the criminal justice system.
All personnel are entitled to receive some form of resettlement provision. This ranges from a comprehensive package of re-training; employment advice; free of charge access to career transition workshops; and access to career advisers. Those who serve less than four years receive a mandatory resettlement brief and a one-to-one
resettlement interview within their unit before they discharge. These cover advice on accessing re-employment services such as Jobcentre Plus, advice on housing, the assistance available from ex-service welfare organisations and information about preserved pensions and compensation rights. If, as part of this process, an individual is deemed to be vulnerable to social exclusion then some specialist support is also provided by Service resettlement advisers.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what property has been recorded as (a) lost and (b) stolen from the Department in the last 12 months; and what estimate has been made of the cost of the replacement of that property. 
Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many veterans' lapel badges have been issued to former members of the armed forces resident in (a) the West Midlands, (b) Dudley borough and (c) Dudley North constituency. 
Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the running costs, excluding asset depreciation, of the Red Arrows were in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how much the Royal Air Force received in (a) sponsorship, (b) appearance fees and (c) other payments in respect of the Red Arrows in that period. 
I undertook to write to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question on 29 June, (Official Report, column 483W) about the running costs, excluding depreciation, of the Red Arrows for the last 12 month period for which figures are available and how much the Royal Air Force received in (a) sponsorship (b) appearance fees and (c) other payments in respect of the Red Arrows.
The running costs (excluding asset depreciation and receipts) for the Red Arrows for financial year 2009-2010 were £9.35 million.
Over the same period, in respect of the Red Arrows, the RAF received items to the equivalent value of some £85,000 in sponsorship, £425,000 in appearance fees and £14,000 in merchandising Royalties.
Mr Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many convictions for offences relating to (a) financial, (b) physical and (c) sexual abuse, where the offender was not a family member but working in a voluntary capacity with the victim there were between 1995 and 2005. 
Mr Blunt: The Court Proceedings Database holds information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. These data include information on the age of the defendant, their gender, the police force area and court where proceedings took place as well as the specific offence and statute for the offence. Other than where specified in the statute information held centrally does not identify a defendant's employment status or whether the defendant was working in a voluntary capacity.
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2010, Official Report, columns 614-5W, on Gary Critchley, whether Gary Critchley's detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 has increased the time he has been required to serve in prison under the life sentence he received for murder. 
Mr Blunt: As I advised in my reply of 1 July, Mr Critchley is serving a life sentence for murder. His detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 does not change the position that, as a mandatory life sentence prisoner, his re-release on licence is a matter for the Parole Board. The board will not consider his case while his detention in hospital for treatment remains necessary. He can be remitted to prison at any time if his responsible clinician advises that his detention in hospital is no longer necessary. Alternatively, he has the right to have his case reviewed once a year by the independent First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health). A finding by the tribunal that his detention in hospital for treatment was no longer necessary would establish his right to review by the Parole Board.
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2010, Official Report, columns 614-5W, on Gary Critchley, whether Gary Critchley's detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 is related to his conviction for murder. 
Mr Critchley is serving a mandatory life sentence following his conviction for murder in May 1981. His transfer to hospital was directed by the Secretary of State in March 2010 under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which applies to convicted serving prisoners. But the transfer was directed on the basis of medical evidence that he was mentally disordered to an
extent which justified his detention in hospital for medical treatment and that appropriate medical treatment was available for him.
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2010, Official Report, columns 614-5W, on Gary Critchley, under which section of the Mental Health Act 1983 Gary Critchley is being detained; when his detention under this section of the Act commenced; and what the dates are of any previous detention of Mr Critchley under the Mental Health Act 1983 since the date of his conviction for murder. 
Mr Blunt: Mr Critchley is detained in hospital under sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983. His transfer to hospital was directed by the Secretary of State by a warrant dated 8 March 2010. Mr Critchley was admitted to hospital on 17 March 2010. There is no record in the Department of his having previously been detained under the Mental Health Act.
Thomas Docherty: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will meet representatives of the Government of each Crown Dependency to discuss his Department's role in their administration before 1 September 2010. 
Mr Djanogly: My noble Friend the Minister of State for Justice (Lord McNally) is the responsible Minister for the day to day relationship between the UK and the Crown Dependencies, is meeting the Chief Minister of Guernsey on 13 July and the Chief Minister of the Isle of Man on 19 July.
My noble Friend has also written to the Government of each Crown Dependency so that arrangements can be made for future meetings and visits. All meetings and visits will cover a broad range of business.
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Government are committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and its obligations under that convention. This includes the obligation to implement adverse judgments against the United Kingdom. The Government will set out more detail on this subject when they respond to the report "Enhancing Parliament's role in relation to human rights judgments", the Fifteenth Report of last Session of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what recent representations he has received on the imprisonment of Michael Binnington at Edmunds Hill Prison; and if he will make a statement; 
Michael Binnington and Luke Atkinson were transferred from a prison in Cyprus to one in the United Kingdom in order serve their prison sentence here. Transfer took place in accordance with the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. I am satisfied that their detention here is both lawful and appropriate. No further review of the case is planned.
Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of his programme of closure of magistrates courts on the average time taken for cases before magistrates courts to be completed. 
Mr Djanogly: No estimate has been made of the effect on average case completion times of the court estate proposals. Following the public consultation, should a decision be taken to close a court, the work that would have been heard at that court will be transferred to a nearby court with sufficient capacity to hear that work. I do not, therefore, anticipate there being any significant impact on average case completion times. However, my Department will monitor this as part of any post-implementation assessment of the programme.
Courtroom utilisation, which is the time a courtroom is used against the hours that a courtroom is available for use, currently averages 64% across the magistrates courts. The Government's aim is to increase utilisation of courtroom time to at least 80%. It is estimated that the proposals we are consulting on would result in a national utilisation rate in the magistrates courts of around 80%.
Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the closure of magistrates courts under his recently announced programme on the number of people employed in magistrates courts. 
Mr Djanogly: The proposals on the court estate are currently out to public consultation and until responses to the consultation have been considered in full, no decision on court closures will be taken. As it is not known whether and which courts will close, no assessment has been made of the effect on staffing numbers. Implementation planning will only occur once decisions have been taken and staff redeployment will form part of that planning. My Department will continue to discuss the proposals with staff and with the trade unions.
Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements in identifying and assessing sex offenders who commit sexual crimes against children overseas. 
Mr Blunt: Following identification, offenders who reside in England and Wales and who commit crimes against children overseas are brought into the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). These offenders may be identified by:
a notification from the country where they have been convicted of sexual offences against children; or
inquiries made by the United Kingdom Central Authority (UKCA); or
a self declaration by the offender on return to the UK.
Once an offender has been identified as having committed a relevant offence abroad, a certified copy of conviction will be obtained from the court of the country where the offence took place. Police will complete a Notification Order (NO) and place this before the magistrates court which will sanction the correct period for which the offender will be subject to the notification requirements, in accordance with section 97 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
name, address, date of birth and national insurance number;
a set of fingerprints;
photographs of face and any other identifying features such as tattoos;
give details that will allow accurate risk assessment to be carried out (who they live with, or if they have access to children);
notification of foreign travel; and
any changes to the name or address within three days of the change.
Becoming subject to the notification requirements brings the offender into MAPPA. Within MAPPA, information about the offender will be shared between relevant agencies in order to assess and then manage the risk presented by the offender. It is in the interests of public protection that the relevant agencies are required to work together within a statutory framework to assess and manage the risks presented by offenders who have committed sexual offences against children, either overseas or in the United Kingdom.
Where it is considered necessary to protect children from the risk of future sexual harm, the police may apply to the court for a Foreign Travel Order (FTO) Where granted by the court, this order prevents offenders with convictions for sexual offences against children from travelling abroad. The penalty for breach of a FTO is up to five years' imprisonment.
Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many persons were sentenced for offences related to dealing in (a) ketamine and (b) other class C drugs in each of the last three years; what proportion of such persons given a custodial sentence served (i) the whole sentence, (ii) more than half the sentence and (iii) less than half the sentence; and what assessment he has made of the effect of sentencing policy on trends in dealing in such substances. 
Sentencing is a matter for the courts, taking account of the circumstances of each case. The maximum penalty for dealing in class C drugs is 14 years' imprisonment and the sentences imposed show that the courts have sufficient powers to deal with this offence. All sentences are served in full.
|Offenders sentenced for dealing( 1) in ketamine and other class C drugs( 2) , 2006-08|
|Lengths of custodial sentences handed down for dealing( 1) in ketamine and other class C drugs( 2) , 2006-08|
|(1 )Includes supply or offering to supply and possession with intent to supply.|
(2) Includes GHB, anabolic steroids and cannabis (where classified by the sentencing court as a class C offence).
These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems.
Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
These data have been taken from the Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings database. These data are presented on the principal offence basis. Where an offender has been sentenced for more than one offence the principal offence is the one for which the heaviest sentence was imposed.
Where the same sentence has been imposed for two or more offences the principal offence is the one for which the statutory maximum is most severe.
Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April. July, and August 2008.
Justice Statistics-Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice
Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department is taking to have Sark recognised as an independent state by the United Nations; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Djanogly: The total number of fine accounts outstanding in Staffordshire as at 31 March 2010 was 23,525. These accounts had a total value outstanding of £11,214,527. Within the 2009-10 financial year £6,663,844 was collected in financial penalties in the Staffordshire area.
Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many fines of what total monetary value were written off by HM Courts Service in Staffordshire in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09 and (c) 2009-10. 
|Total imposed||Administratively cancelled||Legally cancelled||Total cancelled|
HMCS systems do not identify the number of accounts that have been written off only the value. The number of accounts could be provided only at disproportionate cost as this would require a manual search of all fine accounts for the past three years to identify how many had been written off.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what his most recent estimate is of the change in the number of people employed in the arts sector since the beginning of the recession. 
Angie Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will estimate the average cost per household, including vehicle ownership, of upgrading radio equipment in preparation for the proposed changeover from analogue to digital radio in (a) the UK, (b) London and (c) Ealing Central and Acton constituency. 
On 8 July I announced the Digital Radio Action Plan, which outlines the information the Government will need in order to make a well-informed decision on whether to proceed with a radio switchover. A key aspect of the plan will include a detailed impact assessment of the proposed costs, including household and vehicle conversion, and benefits of a digital radio switchover programme.
Mr Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what the terms of reference are of the Shott review of local media ownership rules; and how much will be spent on the review. 
Mr Vaizey: Nicholas Shott has been asked to set out how the Government can maximise the potential for local television to emerge in the UK and have a clear view of the value for delivering local TV from the point of potential investors.
the conditions necessary to make local television commercially viable;
the scope of revenue opportunities from advertising or other sources;
which barriers should be reformed/removed to nurture a new generation of profitable local media companies; and
how existing industry players might help achieve this.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 21 June 2010, Official Report, columns 16-17W, on music, what the 14 community music rehearsal spaces
are; how much funding his Department plans to allocate to them; and over what period that funding will be allocated. 
Mr Vaizey: The spaces included in this scheme will be in Liverpool, Bristol (two spaces), Cornwall, Manchester, North and West Norfolk, Washington, Hastings, Coventry, Nottingham, Birmingham (two spaces), and Rotherham.
Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at which airports in the UK body scanners are used; what plans he has for their use in the future at those and other airports; and if he will make a statement. 
A public consultation on a code of practice for the use of security scanners at UK airports was launched on 29 March, and the closing date has been extended to 19 July to give plenty of time for all interested parties to respond. We will consider all the responses to the consultation carefully before making decisions about how security scanners should be deployed in future.
Norman Baker: The Department for Transport routinely carries out a range of analysis on various scenarios relating to transport expenditure, including that on concessionary fares. The Department is not projecting a reduction in the number of trips that individual concessionaries make with their national bus passes.
Mrs Villiers [holding answer 17 June 2010]: The Government's key priority at present is to tackle the budget deficit. In his written ministerial statement to the House on 10 June 2010, Official Report, column 35WS, "Transport: Local Authority Major Schemes", the Secretary of State for Transport made clear that the Department for Transport will not be in a position to identify which major investments might be supported, including the Coventry-Nuneaton project, until the Government's spending review is concluded in the autumn.
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much (a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on office refurbishment in each year since 1997. 
Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the expenditure by his Department and its predecessors on (a) organising and (b) attending conferences in each year since 1997. 
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much (a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on televisions in each year since 1997. 
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much (a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on legal advice in each year since 1997. 
Norman Baker: The Department for Transport was formed in May 2002 and comprises seven agencies as well as sponsoring 10 Executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies. It would not be possible to obtain the information required without incurring a disproportionate cost
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much (a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on employee away days in each year since 1997. 
|Department for Transport spend on works of art since 2005|
|(1) These are unlimited prints.|
In his written ministerial statement on 10 June 2010, Official Report, column 35WS, regarding
local authority major schemes, the Secretary of State for Transport made it clear that the Department will not be able to identify those major investments that can be supported until the conclusion of the Government's spending review in the autumn.
Mr Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will bring forward proposals to reduce passenger fares through changes to franchise agreements with train operating companies; 
Mrs Villiers: The Government have pledged to put fairness at the heart of their approach to rail fares. The level of rail fares will be considered as part of the overall spending review that the Government are conducting. The Rail Value for Money Study, jointly sponsored by the Office of Rail Regulation (being carried out by Sir Roy McNulty), and the Association of Train Operating Companies' review of fares are expected to provide valuable input going forward in the medium term.
Mike Penning: The Department for Transport has received no representations relating to the urban speed limit. All speed limits are kept under constant review to ensure they remain appropriate. There are no current plans to change the default urban 30 mph speed limit. To do so would have significant resource implications and place additional burdens on local authorities. Local authorities already have the power to implement 20 mph limits and zones where they decide it is appropriate.
Mr David Jones: The Wales Office was established in July 1999. Records show that the Wales Office has spent the following amounts on external legal advice, all of which has come from the Treasury Solicitor.
Mr David Jones: I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) on 13 July 2010, Official Report, column 624W.
Dr Francis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if she will hold discussions with the Linamar Corporation over the proposed closure of its plant at Fabian Way near Swansea; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr David Jones: The Secretary of State has already spoken with management at Linamar and with the hon. Member himself to express concern at the proposed closure of the factory and to ensure that continued updates are given to my office.
Jobcentre Plus will also offer a Rapid Response Service to the workers at Linamar to ensure they receive all the help and support that they need. I understand as well that Careers Wales have already visited the plant to make workers there aware of ReAct funding.
Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been returned to the Exchequer in payments via the housing revenue account subsidy scheme by local authorities in Wales in each financial year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. 
Alan Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions she has had with the UK Statistics Authority on the accuracy of results from the British Crime Survey; and what the outcomes of those discussions were; 
Mrs May [holding answer 12 July 2010]: I met with Sir Michael Scholar, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, on Wednesday 7 July to discuss the recommendations contained within the authority's recent report, 'Overcoming Barriers to Trust in Crime Statistics'.
We had a wide-ranging discussion about crime statistics and I am considering the recommendations in the UK Statistics Authority report including those relevant to the British Crime Survey. The Home Office will respond to the recommendations in due course.
Mrs May [holding answer 12 July 2010]: The Government support neighbourhood policing and are committed to ensuring that all communities receive a high quality policing service that meets local priorities.
The programme set out by the coalition explains our approach to policing, replacing bureaucratic accountability with democratic authority and ensuring police forces are better able to deal with the crime and antisocial behaviour that blights people's lives. This includes:
directly elected individuals to make the police more accountable
reducing bureaucracy that hinders the police, and introducing better technology
publishing crime maps showing the public what is happening on their streets, and
regular beat meetings allowing residents to hold the police to account.
The Government take attacks on the Jewish community very seriously. As part of the 2010 Victims Fund the Community Security Trust secured
funding to improve the reporting of anti-Semitic attacks in London and Manchester. This will build on the successful project it ran in North London which was welcomed by the Jewish Community. The Association of Chief Police Officers National Community Tension Team coordinates a national operation to ensure security and reassure Jewish communities during high holy days.
Mr Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prevented from taking up posts involving contact with vulnerable persons as a result of information disclosed in a Criminal Records Bureau check in each of the last 10 years; and how many of those were (a) volunteers and (b) applying for a paid position. 
Lynne Featherstone: Independent research carried out between 2004 and 2009 demonstrates that the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is continuing to make a difference to the protection of children and the vulnerable.
Ultimately it is for the employer to decide, after full pre-employment checks in addition to a CRB check and making a balanced judgment on the basis of all the information available to them, as to whether an individual job applicant is suitable for a particular position. The CRB is not advised of the outcome of the recruiting decision and neither the CRB nor the Home Office has any influence over this decision.
From the results of the independent research it is estimated that around 130,000 unsuitable people have been prevented from gaining access to children or the vulnerable, as a direct result of CRB checks in the past six years:
20,000 in 2004 (out of 2.6 million checks)
25,000 in 2005 (out of 2.7 million checks)
15,000 in 2006 (out of 3.2 million checks)
20,000 in 2007 (out of 3.3 million checks)
18,000 in 2008 (out of 3.7 million checks)
33,000 in 2009 (out of 4.2 million checks).
Yvette Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether equality impact assessments will be used in determining the areas of her Department's budget in respect of which spending will be reduced. 
Mrs May [holding answer 13 July 2010]: My Department will ensure the relevant equality considerations are taken into account when assessing policy options in the context of its departmental savings, in compliance with our obligations under the gender, race and disability duties set out in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many illegal migrants identified in the last 12 months, who initially entered the UK through the student visa system, had attained qualifications to the equivalent of National Qualifications Framework level 3 and above; 
(2) how many illegal migrants identified in the last 12 months had initially entered the UK through the student visa system and had as their country of origin (a) Japan, (b) South Korea, (c) Taiwan, (d) Saudi Arabia, (e) Brazil, (f) Mexico, (g) Turkey and (h) Colombia; 
(3) what proportion of illegal migrants entered the UK (a) without any initial visa, (b) through the visitor visa system and (c) through the student visa system in each year since 2005; and what the country of origin of each was. 
James Brokenshire: The data requested are gathered and reported in accordance with the period of a football season rather than calendar year. The following table provides the number of football banning orders imposed during each football season since 2005-06. Football banning order and football-related arrest statistics for 2009-10 season will be published later this year.
|Football banning orders issued|
Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the written ministerial statement of 22 February 2007, Official Report, column 61WS, on the Forensic Science Service, when the Forensic Science Service plans to report to her Department on the use of low copy number DNA. 
James Brokenshire: The Forensic Science Service has conducted its own independently led investigation into the circumstances of its use, between December 1999 and September 2005 of low copy number DNA. The report, by Mark Addison, was completed in May 2007. In April 2008, the Home Office sponsored its own review, led by Professor Brian Caddy, into the Science of Low Template DNA Analysis. Lastly the written ministerial statement of 22 February 2007, Official Report, column 61WS, announced a review by the Association of Chief Police Officers into the cases in which the low copy DNA technique, used by the Forensic Science Service, had been employed.
My predecessor asked the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Forensic Science Service to work together to produce a composite report. Discussions on some details are in their concluding stages, after which the report will be formally presented to the Department, and will be laid in the Libraries of the Houses.
Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions she has had with the Forensic Science Service on their past use of low copy number DNA; and if she will make a statement. 
Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what (a) representations she has received and (b) research she has commissioned on the use of low copy number DNA by the Forensic Science Service; and if she will make a statement. 
James Brokenshire: Information provided by the Ministry of Justice on the number of persons found guilty for "Making counterfeit coin or note" under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 14, England and Wales 1997 to 2008 (latest available) can be viewed in the table.
|N umber of persons convicted at all courts for offences relating to counterfeiting coins in England and Wales, 1997 to 2008( 1,)( )( 2,)( )( 3,)( )( 4)|
|(1) The figures given in the table 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. (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) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July, and August 2008. (4) Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 S.14 Offence description: "Making counterfeit coin or note". Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice.|
James Brokenshire: Figures published by the UK Cards Association in March this year show that credit card fraud fell by 28% to £404.3 million in 2009 from £609.9 million in 2008. The Home Office will continue to work with our partners in the industry and law enforcement who work in the field of technical improvements and intelligence gathering that are crucial to helping prevent credit card fraud.
Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she expects to reach a decision on the application for indefinite leave to remain submitted by Mrs Majeedan Begum from Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. 
Dr Wollaston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which health organisations her Department plans to consult on the proposals on the cost of alcohol to be included in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. 
James Brokenshire: The Home Office plans to consult with the following health organisations on the proposals on the cost of alcohol planned to be included in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill: the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the British Medical Association, Alcohol Concern, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Alcohol Health Alliance, the British Liver Trust, and local/regional representatives of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities.
Dr Wollaston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the scope of the consultation on the proposals on the cost of alcohol to be included in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. 
James Brokenshire: The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Health have ongoing discussions on policy development and specifically the alcohol proposals to be included in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. Officials from both Departments continue to work together to develop and take forward these new measures.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions of (a) men and (b) women in each age group under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 there have been in each
police force area in each of the last five years; how many of those prosecutions related to anti-Semitic material; and if she will make a statement. 
The number of defendants proceeded against for offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, by gender, age group and police force area, England and Wales 2004 to 2008 (latest available) can
be viewed in the following table. The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold information that identifies the circumstances of an offence unless the offence is separately specified in law; therefore it is not possible to identify those cases involving the dissemination of anti-Semitic material. Court proceedings data for 2009 are planned for publication on 21 October 2010.
|Number of defendants proceeded against under the Malicious Communications Act, by gender, age group, and police force area, England and Wales 2004 to 2008( 1,2,3)|
|Police force area||Age group||Male||Female||Male||Female||Male||Female||Male||Female||Male||Female|
|(1) The figures given in the table 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.|
(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) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July, and August 2008.
Justice Statistics Analytical Services in the Ministry of Justice
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|