|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Bruce George: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was given directly to (a) the local authority and voluntary organisations and (b) the police in Walsall by his Department to aid in crime reduction and crime prevention in each year since 1997. 
30 Apr 2001 : Column: 537W
|Initiative||Grant recipient||Local authority, voluntary sector or police||Financial year||Amount (£)|
|CCTV Challenge||Walsall metropolitan borough council||Local authority||1996-97||52,400|
|CCTV Challenge||Walsall metropolitan borough council||Local authority||1997-98||105,400|
|Youth Justice Board Development Fund||Walsall metropolitan borough council||Local authority||1999-2000||55,648|
|Drug Arrest Referrals||West Midlands police authority(30)||Police||1999-2000||5,000|
|Youth Justice Board Development Fund||Walsall metropolitan borough council||Local authority||2000-01||16,464|
|Reducing Burglary||Walsall metropolitan borough council||Local authority||2000-01||61,407|
|CCTV||Walsall metropolitan borough council||Local authority||2000-01||309,629|
|Neighbourhood Wardens||Walsall Housing Regeneration Agency||Voluntary sector||2000-01||41,003|
(30) Grant is paid to police authority who then transfer it to Walsall health authority
30 Apr 2001 : Column: 537W
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001 (a) departmental and (b) non- departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. 
Mr. Straw: I have two departmental special advisers, one of whom made one official visit abroad between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001. The visit was a fact-finding programme to the United States of America to discuss law and order issues with policy advisers and practitioners. The visit was made in accordance with the Civil Service Management Code. My second special adviser was in the United States of America at the same time and attended parts of the programme but his visit was not supported by public funds.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers, patrol officers and community beat officers there were in West Sussex in 1997; and how many there are today. 
Mr. Charles Clarke: The information in the table has been provided by the Chief Constable of the Sussex police. I understand that of the five divisions that police the county of West Sussex two of them also police parts of the County of East Sussex, the number of officers available to police West Sussex will therefore vary from week to week.
I am also told that because of changes to computer systems in December 1999 the force is unable to provide historical information about the distribution of officers between the divisions of the Sussex police. However, the force has been able to provide an estimate for 1997, which is based on the current distribution of police officers to divisions, and these are in the table.
|31 March 1997||31 March 2001|
|Total number of police officers||916||883|
|Response (patrol) officers||456||442|
|Community beat officers||181||174|
30 Apr 2001 : Column: 538W
by Lord Birt in out-of-pocket expenses in respect of his role as a Government adviser on crime; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Straw: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 17 November 2000, Official Report, column 801W. Lord Birt has not claimed out-of-pocket expenses since then.
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the (a) average sentence for people imprisoned for Housing Benefit fraud and (b) average length of time served by people imprisoned for Housing Benefit fraud was in each of the last five years. 
Tony Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. 
The Data Protection Act 1998 requires the Information Commissioner to vacate office on completing the year of service in which he/she attains the age of 65. This requirement is reflected in advertisements.
No mention is made of any age limit in the advertisement, but in the information pack sent to applicants (other than members of the judiciary) it states that candidates should be aged 70 or less on completion of the fixed term of three years.
30 Apr 2001 : Column: 539W
Criminal Cases Review Commission and Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel
The information pack states that applicants are likely to be over 40 and should be under 70 at the time of appointment. However, these limits are applied flexibly and are not mentioned in the advertisement.
In most circumstances, an age limit of 70 is applied to lay members in line with the designated retirement age of the chairman and deputy chairman, who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. These posts are not advertised.
The Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the Surveillance Commissioner are required to retire at 75 and must therefore be under 72 years on appointment for a fixed term of three years. These posts are not advertised. Assistant Surveillance Commissioners are required to retire at 72 and must therefore be under 69 years at the start of their three-year appointments. This limit is not mentioned in the advertisement. These limits are applied flexibly on an administrative basis.
The Chairmen of the Misuse of Drugs Advisory Body and Appeals Tribunal are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and are subject to a normal retirement age of 70, although this can be relaxed at the Lord Chancellor's discretion.
Chairmen are subject to a normal retirement age of 70, or 72 for those who were appointed prior to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. Members are appointed for five years from their retirement from the police service.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the figures (a) nationally and (b) for each probation area for the number and proportion of cases under supervision by the Probation Service where breach action was taken in accordance with national standards in 2000-01. 
Mr. Boateng [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The figures for compliance with the national standard on breach are provided by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation audit of probation areas and are shown in the table. This gives the results of the most recent audit. The audit covers supervision of probation orders, community service orders (as community punishment orders and community rehabilitation orders were at the time) and licence cases only. The national totals show that breach action was taken in 65 per cent. of cases in accordance with national standards; in a further 5 per cent. of cases, management authorisation not to breach was given, also in line with national standards.
|Hereford and Worcestershire||14||73.7|
|Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire||26||56.5|
30 Apr 2001 : Column: 540W
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|