|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
13 Sep 2010 : Column 858Wcontinued
Richard Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of the annual costs of the Gloucestershire Probation Service was attributable to estate management services provided by the National Offender Management Service in each of the last five years. 
Mr Blunt: The following figures have been provided by Gloucestershire Probation Trust:
Estate charge per audited accounts accommodation, maintenance and utilities
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there were of landlords for failing to maintain their property under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System in respect of (i) excess cold and dampness, (ii) leaking roofs, (iii) dangerous or unstable structures, (iv) of dangerous electrical installations, (v) general disrepair issues, (vi) overcrowding and (vi) fire hazards in the latest period for which figures are available; 
(2) how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions of landlords in each local authority area for an offence of (i) tenant harassment and (ii) illegal eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 there were in each year since 2004; 
(3) how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions of landlords in each local authority area for failing to arrange an annual gas safety check or issuing a copy certificate under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 there were in each year since 2004; 
(4) how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions of landlords in each local authority area for failing to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas and electricity have taken place under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in each year since 2004; 
(5) how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there were of landlords in each local authority area for failure to comply with an enforcement notice under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 in each year since its introduction; 
(6) how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions of landlords there were in each local authority area for failing to obtain a house in multiple occupation licence under the 2004 Housing Act 2004 in each year since its introduction; 
(7) how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there were of landlords in each local authority area for an offence of failing to protect tenants' deposits in an approved scheme under the 2004 Housing Act in each year since its introduction. 
Mr Blunt: The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for the unlawful eviction of an occupier and the unlawful harassment of an occupier under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 in England and Wales from 2004 to 2008 (latest available) is given in the following tables. Figures are provided by police force area as the Ministry of Justice court proceedings database does not hold details of offences by authority area. Data for 2009 are planned for publication on 21 October 2010.
Court proceedings data held centrally in an aggregated format do not separately identify individual offences
under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Similarly it is not possible to separately identify specified offences under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, and the Housing Act 2004.
Information under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 is not collated centrally by the Ministry of Justice.
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for selected offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, England and Wales, by force( 1) , 2004 to 2008( 2,3,4)|
|Unlawful eviction of occupier||Proceeded against||Found guilty|
|Unlawful harassment of occupier||Proceeded against||Found guilty|
|'-' = nil|
(1) Where a police force area is not listed in the above table, assume nil data.
(2) Excludes convictions for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) (a) how many and (b) what proportion of juveniles remanded in custody were subsequently (i) acquitted and (ii) given a non-custodial sentence in (A) magistrates and (B) Crown courts in each year since 2008; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) (a) how many and (b) what proportion of children (i) subject to court-ordered secure remand and (ii) otherwise remanded in custody were freed on bail prior to trial in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Blunt: The estimated number and proportion of juveniles remanded in custody who were subsequently acquitted or given a non-custodial sentence in England and Wales in 2008 (latest available) is shown in the table. Court data for 2009 are due to be published on 21 October 2010.
It is not possible to derive the remand status of defendants at the stages of proceedings specified in the question from information held by the Ministry of Justice on its court proceedings database.
|Estimated number and proportion of juveniles( 1) remanded in custody( 2) who were subsequently acquitted, received a non-custodial sentence( 3) or a custodial sentence at magistrates courts and the Crown court, England and Wales, 2008( 4, 5)|
|Number of juveniles||Percentage of juveniles( 6)|
|(1) Defined as being aged 10-17 at the date of appearance in court.|
(2) Includes those remanded in custody at any stage of proceedings at magistrates and Crown courts who may also have been given bail at some stage of those proceedings.
(3) Magistrates courts figures exclude those committed for trial or sentence at the Crown court. Non-custodial sentences include discharges, fines, community sentences and a number of other sentences that do not involve incarceration. Acquitted includes proceedings discontinued, discharged, withdrawn and dismissed.
(4) Excludes remands/bail data relating to Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008.
(5) Indicates that the data are provisional and subject to change.
(6) Percentages here represent the proportions of all juveniles who were remanded in custody, excluding those where the outcome resulted in committal for trial or sentence by magistrates courts to the Crown court.
1. 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.
It is known that in some police force areas, information on remand decisions is not always readily available to those coding court proceedings returns. In certain cases, the return may be mistakenly coded as if no remand had taken place. For magistrates court proceedings, the number of remands and more importantly, the number which are in custody, are believed to be under-recorded in total. As the breakdown of remands into bail and custody cases for a number of forces is not accurate for a number of forces, estimates have to be made to provide national figures.
2. Some percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Justice Statistics Analytical Services.
Richard Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the reoffending rates for (a) short-term and (b) long-term prisoners released from Gloucester Prison were in each of the last three years. 
The Ministry of Justice is undertaking a programme of work to investigate whether meaningful
data on the reoffending of former prisoners from individual institutions can be produced. It is our intention to publish some findings from this work on 4 November 2010 in a new publication which will include a range of data and analysis on reoffending which is not covered by the existing published statistics.
Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment has been made of the effect of (a) community pay-back schemes and (b) other restorative justice programming on re-offending rates. 
Mr Blunt: The information requested is set out as follows.
The high-visibility community payback scheme did not commence until December 2008, therefore reoffending rates for the period covered by the scheme will not be available until data for the 2009 cohort are published in March 2011.
Reoffending rates are available for those who commenced both community and suspended sentence orders with a requirement for unpaid work only. The reoffending rate for those who commenced a community order with an unpaid work requirement between 1 January and 31 March 2008 was 25.3%, while the reoffending rate for those who commenced a suspended sentence order with an unpaid work requirement over the same period was 17.5%. These are the latest available data.
These figures do not make an assessment of the effectiveness of unpaid work schemes; differences between the rates may be due to differences in offender characteristics rather than simply the effectiveness of unpaid work in reducing the likelihood of reoffending.
Further information on adult reoffending is available at:
There is mixed evidence from published sources on the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing reoffending. A Home Office/Ministry of Justice evaluation found a fall in the likelihood of reconviction over a two year period but, because of the small sample size, this was not statistically significant. There was no impact on the severity of reconvictions. The study did find a statistically significant reduction in the frequency of subsequent reoffending (when using a meta-analysis technique).
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he plans to publish his Department's consultation on the sentencing frameworks for adult and young offenders and the range of penalties available in the criminal justice system. 
The Ministry of Justice is conducting a full assessment of sentencing to ensure that it is effective in deterring crime, protecting the public, punishing offenders and reducing reoffending. We are looking in detail at the sentencing frameworks for adult and young offenders,
as well as the full range of penalties available in the criminal justice system. We will consult on our proposals as part of a Green Paper on rehabilitation, to be published in November.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent discussions he and his officials have had on short-term sentencing policy and the use of community penalties. 
Mr Blunt: The Ministry of Justice is conducting a full assessment of sentencing to ensure that it is effective in deterring crime, protecting the public, punishing offenders and reducing re-offending. We are looking in detail at the sentencing frameworks for adult and young offenders, as well as the full range of penalties available in the criminal justice system. My officials and I have regular discussions as part of this work. We will consult on our proposals as part of a Green Paper on rehabilitation, to be published in November 2010.
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his estimate is of the number of people who have served custodial sentences for (a) sexual offences and (b) sexual offences with children living in Witham constituency; what steps have been taken to prevent such people re-offending; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Blunt: It is not possible to give figures for the numbers of prisoners who have been discharged from prisons in England and Wales after serving custodial sentences for sexual offences and whose domicile addresses are in the Witham constituency.
The available information on the number of releases from prison establishments is published within Chapter 9 of the Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin "Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009" available from the Library of the House and also available free at the following website address:
All offenders, including sexual offenders, who are sentenced to 12 months or more in prison, will be subject to a post custodial licence which is supervised by the probation service.
A licence contains standard conditions and, depending on the risk posed by the offender, may include additional conditions. An offender manager (probation officer) will supervise the offender to ensure that he/she complies with his or her licence conditions and, where there is evidence of increased risk to the public, will recall the offender to custody.
Sajid Javid: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many employment tribunal cases have been brought in each year since 1990, broken down by the reason for the claim; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Djanogly: The following table lists the number of cases brought (i.e. lodged, accepted and issued) by employment tribunals throughout Great Britain for the period 1990-2010.
The Tribunals Service has published annual reports that break down the main heads of jurisdiction included in the cases brought since 1999-2000. The most recent annual report (for 2009-10) can be found online at:
Previous annual reports from 1999-2000 are available at:
Further breakdown could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.
The following table also lists the total number of jurisdictional claims brought in each relevant year. An employment tribunal case brought can contain a number of grounds, known as jurisdictional claims. In any individual proceedings, the tribunal has to decide upon the merits of the case made under each jurisdiction, for example, unfair dismissal or sex discrimination. The total number of jurisdictions covered by each case gives a truer measure of work load than the global number of cases. The full breakdown of the annual jurisdictional mixes is shown under table 1 in each of the annual reports published.
|Total receipts and jurisdictional claims accepted by ET since 1990|
|Total receipts||Total jurisdictional claims|
Heidi Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many appeals against failed incapacity benefit and employment support allowance claims were heard by the Tribunals Service in each year since 2006; and what the total cost to the public purse of such appeals was in each of those years. 
Mr Djanogly: The number of employment and support allowance (ESA) and incapacity benefit appeals heard by the first-tier tribunal-social security and child support in each year from 2006 were as follows:
|(1) ESA was introduced on 27 October 2008.( 2 )Year to date from 1 April 2010 to 31 July 2010|
The Tribunals Service does not apportion costs at a level which would allow the precise cost of the individual case types to be reported. However, using a broad brush hearing clearance unit cost (including the Tribunals Service overheads) for all social security and child support cases, the estimated cost of the incapacity benefit and ESA hearings for each year are:
|Cost (£ million)|
Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department and its predecessors spent on wine in each year since 1997. 
Mr Blunt: All expenditure on food and drink is in line with the Ministry's internal Finance Policy Manual and Gifts and Hospitality Policy, which set out mandatory guidance for all staff regarding the use of public funds. Both are consistent with the Treasury guidance on "Managing Public Money" at:
and the Treasury handbook on "Propriety and Regularity" at:
The Ministry's policy on in-house hospitality prohibits the supply of any alcohol to Ministry of Justice personnel who are paid from departmental funds. When providing hospitality to external parties, discretion can be exercised, for example, wine may be provided with a meal provided that expenditure is modest and appropriate to the circumstances.
Expenditure on alcohol is not specifically identified within the Ministry's accounting systems as it forms part of a wider 'entertainment and hospitality' classification. To identify specific amounts relating to alcohol of any form would involve examining every individual transaction within this wider category, which would incur disproportionate cost.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is provided to UK Border Agency staff on responding to constituency cases raised by regional list members of the (a) Scottish Parliament, (b) National Assembly for Wales and (c) Northern Ireland Assembly. 
Damian Green: The UK Border Agency's policy is not to provide information on individual cases to Members of devolved legislatures, as immigration is a matter reserved for the Westminster Parliament. This policy is now under review. However, until a decision is taken on whether to change it, the previous policy remains in force.
The UK Border Agency will provide full responses to Members of devolved legislatures where they write on matters of policy or on non-case specific subjects.
Shabana Mahmood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum made before 5 March 2007 by residents of (a) Birmingham, Ladywood constituency, (b) Birmingham City Council area and (c) England have yet to be determined; and what proportion of these she expects to have been resolved by 31 August 2011. 
Damian Green: The UK Border Agency is unable to accurately report on the outstanding asylum cases being dealt with by the case resolution directorate (CRD) in the areas specified. As reported in July 2010 to the Home Affairs Select Committee, 50% of the concluded cases were data errors and required no further action. In addition, due to the age of some cases, addresses on file are subsequently found to have changed. Therefore, any such report would be unable to accurately represent CRD cases with outstanding applications.
The agency will be reporting on its current performance in clearing the backlog in the autumn. I am confident CRD are on track to clear the backlog of older asylum cases by summer 2011 or earlier.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements her Department has put in place for the transfer or disposal of assets belonging to (a) failed asylum seekers and (b) illegal immigrants on deportation. 
Damian Green: UK Border Agency officials have the same arrangements in place for failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to secure or dispose of their possessions.
Where people have their removal enforced there is guidance in the public domain on the handling of belongings which can be found on the UK Border Agency website in chapter 45 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance at:
Although this specific guidance relates to families, individuals are treated in line with this guidance.
If someone is arrested in their home a minimum of 30 minutes will be allowed for an individual or a family to pack their belongings dependant on a dynamic risk assessment. If someone is arrested outside their home the local immigration team will liaise with the departure port regarding arrangements for baggage delivery.
Individuals are advised of the need to make contact with someone to take responsibility for their belongings and will be provided access to telephones at the removal centre to make these arrangements. Further guidance can be found on the UK Border Agency website in the Detention Services Order 09-2008 at:
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public order offences were reported in relation to the removal of (a) failed asylum seekers and (b) illegal immigrants during deportations in each of the last 12 months. 
Damian Green: Public order offences, including those committed during a removal operation, fall under the jurisdiction of the police force within the area the offence was committed. Such data would be recorded at a local level by the police and is therefore not routinely available to the UK Border Agency.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many no-notice removals of failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants have been undertaken by the UK Border Agency in each of the last 12 months. 
Damian Green: The UK Border Agency policy is to give at least 72 hours notice of removal. However, in exceptional circumstances where the removal could not be managed in any other way, we have invoked a policy of giving a reduced period of notice. Although the notice period may have been less than 72 hours, some notice was always given. This policy of giving less than 72 hours notice was quashed by the High Court on 16 July 2010, and has not been in use since the granting of an interim injunction on 21 May 2010. The policy is now the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Over the last 12 months, reduced notice of removal applied as follows:
|Number of times reduced notice applied||Number of times removal proceeded|
|(1) One removal had the reduced notice period applied in December 2009 and was removed in January 2010.|
(2 )No planned removals proceeded with less than the standard notification period following the granting of an injunction at 14.00 on 21 May 2010.
(3) The rise in numbers for April and May is due to the coming into effect of new exceptions categories. The majority of these (nine in April 2010 and 12 in May 2010) were exceptions under the consent provision where the person being removed provided their written consent to a reduced notice period.
James Wharton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason her Department introduced the Azure card system for payments to those awaiting asylum application determinations. 
Damian Green: Failed asylum seekers who are destitute and unable to leave the UK immediately due to circumstances beyond their control, can request the provision of support under section 4 of the 1999 Act.
Those in receipt of section 4 support are provided with accommodation and subsistence payments to the value of £35.39 per week. Until November 2009, the section 4 subsistence payment (then £35 per week) was provided by means of supermarket vouchers administered by UK Border Agency accommodation providers.
The voucher system was open to abuse and fraud and there was evidence that vouchers were often traded for cash at reduced levels. The vouchers also presented poor value for money to the user with restricted retail outlets. The Azure pre-paid payment card was introduced in a phased roll out between November 2009 and February 2010 to tackle this.
James Wharton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated annual administrative cost is of the Azure card system used for payments to those awaiting asylum application determinations. 
Damian Green: The Azure payment card is administered for UK Border Agency by Sodexo Ltd. The payment card was introduced in November 2009 and has therefore been in operation for only 10 months. The payment card scheme has been designed to be self-financing.
The current forecasted annual running cost for the Azure payment card scheme is £353,000. However, fees generated by the commercial contracts Sodexo has negotiated with the various retailers, together with efficiency savings from UK Border Agency, will recoup the annual running costs.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether provision is made to ensure that persons receiving payments via the Azure card system are able to access small amounts of cash
for items of expenditure for which the card is not suitable, with particular reference to bus tickets and other small purchases. 
Damian Green: Subsistence payments via the Azure prepayment card are to be used to buy food and essential toiletries. There is no minimum limit on the cost of items that can be purchased with the Azure prepayment card as long as the supported person has sufficient funds on the card to pay for their intended purchase.
The UK Border Agency endeavours to ensure with accommodation providers contracted to provide asylum support accommodation, that the distance to shops that accept the Azure prepayment card is not more than three miles from the supported person's accommodation. If the distance is further, or if a supported person is unable to walk a distance of up to three miles by reason of a physical impediment or for some other medical reason, the accommodation provider may make alternative transport arrangements, deliveries, or arrange for the supported person to be moved closer to the local supermarket.
A supported person in receipt of support under section 4 support may also be eligible for additional services and facilities under the Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Services or Facilities) Regulations 2007. The additional services and facilities available include the power to arrange for the supply of facilities for travel to receive health care treatment and to register a birth. If a supported person has an exceptional specific need for facilities to travel for purposes that do not fall within the aforementioned qualifying journeys, this can be arranged if the supported person demonstrates that his/her need is sufficiently exceptional to warrant a grant. Application forms for additional services and facilities are available on the UK Border Agency website.
Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iranian asylum seekers have had their claims (a) granted and (b) refused since 2000. 
Damian Green: The accompanying table shows the number of initial decisions broken down by grants of asylum, grants of Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR), Humanitarian Protection (HP) and Discretionary Leave (DL) and refusals between 2000 and June 2010. Figures only include initial decisions on asylum applications and exclude all subsequent decisions.
Information on asylum is published annually and quarterly in the Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom bulletin which is available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at:
|Initial decisions( 1,2 ) on asylum applications, excluding dependants, nationals of Iran, January 2000 to June 2010|
|Period||2000||2001||2002||2003||2004||2005||2006||2007||2008||2009( 3)||January to June 2010( 3)|
Granted exceptional leave, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave
Refusals of asylum, exceptional leave, humanitarian protection and discretionary leave
|(1) Figures rounded to the nearest five and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding.|
(2) Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.
(3) Provisional figures.
Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed Iranian asylum seekers have been returned to Iran since 2000. 
Damian Green: The table shows the number of removals and voluntary departures to Iran of asylum cases for Iranian nationals from January 2004 to June 2010. Destination data have only been collated since 2004; data for earlier years are not available.
The Home Office publishes statistics on the number of persons removed or departed voluntarily from the UK on a quarterly and annual basis, which are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics website at:
|Removals and voluntary departures( 1,2,3) to Iran of asylum cases, for Iranian nationals, January 2004 to June 2010|
|Number of departures( 4,5)|
|2004||2005||2006||2007||2008||2009( 6)||2010( 6) (January to June)|
|(1) Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.|
(2) Includes enforced removals, persons departing voluntarily after notifying the UK Border Agency of their intention to leave prior to their departure, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the international Organization for Migration and since January 2005 persons who it has been established left the UK without informing the immigration authorities.
(3) Figures include dependants.
(4) Removals and voluntary departures recorded on the system as at the dates on which the data extracts were taken.
(5) Destination as recorded on source database.
(6) Provisional figures. Figures will under record due to data cleansing and data matching exercises that take place after the extracts are taken.
Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she made of the performance of Raytheon prior to the termination of its contract to deliver the e-Borders programme. 
Damian Green: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was provided with extensive briefings on the Programme, including the performance of Raytheon, as well as the outcome of an independent review by the Office of Government Commerce.
I would like to refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement made on 22 July 2010, Official Report, columns 44-45WS, regarding the termination of the e-Borders contract. This explained that the way the existing programme was developing gave rise to serious concern. Progress had been extremely disappointing. While some elements had been delivered, there was a succession of missed milestones coupled with issues of quality. Delivery of the next critical parts of the programme was already running at least 12 months late and on top of this there remained risks of further delays. Since July 2009 the supplier had been in breach of contract and, despite extensive negotiations, no agreement had been reached about a remedial plan.
The supplier's performance had not been compliant with their contractual obligations and there was no confidence in their ability to address this situation.
The Home Secretary took into account the importance of the Programme for National Security and therefore gave very careful consideration, in consultation with other senior ministerial colleagues, before taking the decision to terminate the contract.
David T. C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many consultants were employed on her Department's eBorders programme in (a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08 and (c) 2008-09; what costs were incurred in employing such consultants in each year; and what the equivalent expenditure has been in 2010-11 to date. 
Damian Green: The following table provides the numbers and costs of consultants and independent contractors employed by the e-Borders Programme since 2006:
The consultancy expenditure during 2010-11 for the first three months (April to June) has been £2,984,450.
The periods covered saw the programme move from procurement of the strategic solution and provision of the Semaphore pilot system to the more complex activity to assure the design and delivery of the strategic solution. The fall in consultant and contractor headcount during this time did not deliver an equivalent reduction in cost since there was an associated change in the mix and type of consultancy support provided, along with a need to use more hours from individual consultants because of the pressures on the programme and the requirement for their specialist knowledge.
Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment was made of the UK Border Agency's e-Borders senior management team's experience of managing large and complex IT programmes. 
Damian Green: Senior managers brought on to the e-Borders Programme underwent an application process that assessed a range of their skills and competencies, including project and programme management skills and experience of managing large and complex IT programmes. The senior management team has also had the benefit of professional advice and assistance throughout the programme from specialist consultants including Partnerships UK, KPMG and Deloitte Consulting.
Mr Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she plans to bring forward proposals to prohibit the sale of cannabis seeds. 
James Brokenshire: The unauthorised cultivation of cannabis seeds and any subsequent supply and possession of cannabis is unlawful. There are no current plans to prohibit the sale of cannabis seeds.
The National Policing Improvement Agency and the Association for Chief Police Officers in England and Wales and Northern Ireland "Practice Advice on Tackling Commercial Cultivation and Headshops" guidance document gives advice in relation to action to tackle the sale and promotion of cannabis cultivation equipment, including cannabis seeds. The guidance can be found at:
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Cheshire Police Authority spent on each area-based edition of the Your Policing 2010 newspaper. 
Nick Herbert: This is a matter for Cheshire police authority. The Home Office does not hold data on these figures, and therefore is unable to provide this information.
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of invoices from suppliers her Department paid within 10 days of receipt in July and August 2010. 
Nick Herbert: The Home Office's performance information for paying suppliers within 10 day of receipt of a compliant invoice in July and August 2010 is:
|Home Office-invoices paid within 10 days|
Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much office space per employee her Department occupied in each year since 1997. 
Nick Herbert: My Department's office space per employee data for the last thee years excluding executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies, is as follows:
|(1 )Provisional subject to validation.|
In April 2008 annual benchmarking of the Government estate started with the results published in the State of the Estate reports on the OGC website. This information was not recorded prior to April 2008. The provisional data for 2009-10 compiled in July is provided.
Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much her Department spent on vacant properties in each year since 1997. 
Nick Herbert: From available records expenditure on vacant property held by the Department, exclusive of agencies and non-departmental public bodies, for the last five full financial years was:
Records are not available before 2005-06 and would incur disproportionate cost to obtain. Vacant property is space capable of disposal by sale or re-letting.
Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 7 July 2010, Official Report, columns 25-28W, on departmental public expenditure, if she will break down by cost category the proposed savings from her Department's proposed expenditure on security and counter-terrorism. 
Nick Herbert: The Home Office contributed £367 million in 2010-11 as part of the £6 billion in year cross government savings, of which £24 million were savings from the Department's security and counter terrorism budgets.
I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 19 July 2010, Official Report, columns 25-28W in which it was noted that, £10 million came from reductions to policing counter terrorism grants, and a further £14 million were savings from the security and counter terrorism budgets. The following details are the breakdown of the £14 million savings into cost categories.
The planned savings breakdown is as follows:
£8 million savings from reduced spend on contractors and contingent labour which includes consultancy costs;
£3 million from austerity measures and procurement savings.
These savings come directly from the overhead costs of the organisation and include savings from travel, conferences, and refreshments; and
£3 million programme savings, involving a mix of efficiency savings and further prioritisation.
Kris Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research projects commissioned by her Department in (a) 2009 and (b) 2010 have not had their results published. 
Nick Herbert: The following list shows the social research commissioned externally in 2009 and 2010 that has not yet been published. These projects were all commissioned prior to May 2010. Many projects are still in progress; others are being quality assured and peer reviewed prior to being published in the Home Office Research Series.
The Department is reviewing its research programme to ensure it matches the priorities of the coalition Government, including what new research is required.
We plan to publish this research when it is complete in line with the Government's commitments to transparency in regard to making available information collected by Government except in the case where the Home Office Chief Scientific Advisor decides not to publish in a Home Office series on the grounds of
"1. inadequate scientific quality following external peer review or
2. on public interest grounds for example security concerns, where an unclassified summary document may be published with a classified version available where it is appropriate to do so, or
3. for operational reasons where, in some cases, the Department may decide to publish only a summary of research and allow the more detailed research to be made available separately by, for instance allowing the contractors to publish.(1)".
Some research commissioned in 2009 and 2010 will not be published on security grounds and is not included in the list.
1 This was included in the Home Office response to the Government Office for Science: Science review of the Home Office and Ministry of Justice issued on 12 June 2008.
Social research commissioned by the Home Office in (a) 2009 and (b) 2010 that has not yet been published:
(a) Social research projects commissioned in 2009 by the Home Office
An Evaluation of phase two Alcohol Arrest Referral Schemes
Annual evaluation of projects under three European Commission funds for 2008-09, (i) An Evaluation of the Deaf Third Country
Nationals Integration Project, (ii) An Evaluation of the Gateway Protection Programme, (iii) Evaluation of the Transnational Project between Ireland and the UK on the Resettlement of Refugees
British Crime Survey Methodology Review 2009
Crime costs of a quality-adjusted life year (two projects)
Development of DNA Interpretation Standards
Early Leavers from the Police Force
Engaged Communities research
Evaluation of Serious Organised Crime Task Force Programme
Exploring public perceptions of confidence in the police and their local partners
Feasibility study on surveying victims of sexual offences about satisfaction with the CJS
Investigating the impact of demographic change on the Home Office
Identifying police force surveys to measure public confidence in the police and local agencies
Khat: social harms and legislation-a literature review
Perceptions of social harms associated with khat use
Links between homicide and organised crime: an exploratory study
Neighbourhood Policing-Exemplar Sites
Offending and drug use interventions-creating a drug data warehouse
Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) on partnership working and its impact on reducing crime and anti social behaviour
Resource to Quality Assure the Analysis of a Criminal Network (ERGM)
Review of the delivery of the YCAP in intensive areas
A review of the research evidence on organised crime
Survey of Entry Clearance Officers & Managers
Teaching methods that help build resilience to violent extremism
The cost of terrorism in Northern Ireland
The factors involved in the movement away from violent extremism and promising practices from youth gangs and religious cults
The migrant survey: a feasibility study
Understanding vulnerability and resilience in individuals to the influence of violent extremism
Visa Decision Research, including Survey of Entry Clearance Officers and Managers and case-file analysis
(b) Social research projects commissioned in 2010 by the Home Office
An update of a Systematic Review on the effects of alcohol price on alcohol-related crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour
Partnership Peer Support Program (PPSS) Evaluation
Al-Qaeda influenced radicalisation-an approach using Situational Action Theory
Crimes future work
REA on rehab & re-integration of drug-using offenders
A Rapid Evidence Assessment: What works in reducing alcohol related crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour in the night-time economy and in public spaced
Marriage and associated chain migration to the UK
Economic impacts of alcohol pricing policy options in the UK
Airside Workers Identity Card Evaluation
Evaluation of Neighbourhood Agreements
Valuing the security/privacy/inconvenience trade off
Rapid Evidence Assessment on third sector organisations and their contribution to tackling crime
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many external training courses were attended by staff of her Department in the last 12 months; and what the cost to the public purse was of each such course. 
Nick Herbert: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Andrew Percy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European Union citizens of each nationality were deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. 
Damian Green: The following table shows the number of removals and voluntary departures for European Union nationals from 2005 to 2009.
The Home Office publishes statistics on the number of persons removed or departed voluntarily from the UK on a quarterly and annual basis, which are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics website at:
|Removals and voluntary departures( 1, 2, 3 ) for nationals of the European Union( 4) , 2005-09|
|Number of departures( 5)|
|1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 (with - = 0, * = 1 or 2). (2) Includes enforced removals, persons departing voluntarily after notifying the UK Border Agency of their intention to leave prior to their departure, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organization for Migration and persons who it has been established left the UK without informing the immigration authorities. (3) Figures include dependants. (4) Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU on 1 January 2007. (5) Removals and voluntary departures recorded on the system as at the dates on which the data extracts were taken.( 6) Provisional figures. Figures will under record due to data cleansing and data matching exercises that take place after the extracts are taken.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|