Previous Section Index Home Page


SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Crown Prosecution Service

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Solicitor-General (1) what steps have been taken by each CPS authority to progress the Glidewell recommendations for reorganising

24 Jun 2002 : Column 654W

its work into functional units collocated with police units; and where and when this collocation has been achieved; [60223]

The Solicitor-General: It has been assumed that the question regarding the pace of progress refers to the establishment of criminal justice units and trial units.

All chief crown prosecutors and chief constables have submitted joint plans detailing their strategy to implement the Glidewell recommendations. These plans were reviewed by a joint CPS/police working group to ensure that they followed the agreed model for joint administration. The model aims to reduce duplication and delay; focus freed up resources towards the more serious casework; and improve the service to victims and witnesses. CPS areas and their police partners regularly review their plans, actively seeking opportunities to maximise use of the combined police/CPS buildings and provide regular updates to the centre as and when their plans have progressed.

All CPS areas not yet collocated have reorganised their front line operations into discrete units to deal separately with Crown court and magistrates court work, in order to deliver at least some of the benefits envisaged by Glidewell.

As at 31 March 2002, there were 42 collocated criminal justice units established in 20 areas and 54 trial units in 32 areas. The schedule shows the location and date of establishment of these units.

The pace with which areas have progressed the Glidewell recommendations has largely been influenced by the availability of either suitable CPS or police buildings.

Criminal justice units

Area/locationDate established
Avon and Somerset
BristolJune 2000
TauntonJune 2000
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
HuntingdonJanuary 2002
ParksideDecember 2001
Thorpe WoodJanuary 2002
Cheshire
CreweMarch 2001
Cleveland
MiddlesbroughOctober 2000
HartlepoolFebruary 2002
Cumbria
Derbyshire
Devon and Cornwall
Dorset
Durham
Dyfed Powys
Essex
ColchesterSeptember 2000
HarlowDecember 2000
SouthendNovember 2000
LalndonMarch 2001
Gloucestershire
GloucesterApril 2001
Greater Manchester
Gwent
Hampshire
BasingstokeJune 2001
AldershotMarch 2001
Isle of WightOctober 2000
PortsmouthApril 2001
PortswoodJuly 2001
Hertfordshire
St. AlbansApril 2001
WatfordApril 2001
HertfordJanuary 2002
Humberside
GrimsbyApril 2001
ScunthorpeApril 2001
HullJune 2001
Kent
FolkestoneJanuary 2001
MaidstoneJanuary 2001
CanterburyJuly 2001
ChathamJuly 2001
Lancashire
PrestonMarch 2001
Leicestershire
Lincolnshire
SkegnessJune 2001
Merseyside
Metropolitan and City
BishopsgateSeptember 2001
Norfolk
Northamptonshire
Weston FavellOctober 2001
Northumbria
North Wales
CaenarfonApril 2001
Colwyn BayJanuary 2002
North Yorkshire
Nottinghamshire
South Wales
RumneyJanuary 2002
South Yorkshire
BarnsleyMay 2000
DoncasterNovember 2001
Staffordshire
Suffolk
Surrey
Sussex
Thames Valley
Warwickshire
West Mercia
West Midlands
Brierly HillMarch 2001
HalesowenMarch 2001
West BromichNovember 2001
West Yorkshire
HalifaxOctober 2000
Wiltshire


24 Jun 2002 : Column 656W

Trial units

Area/locationDate established
Avon and Somerset
BristolJune 2000
Bedfordshire
LutonOctober 1999
Cambridgeshire
HuntingdonJanuary 2002
Cheshire
ChesterMarch 2001
WarringtonMarch 2001
Cleveland
MiddlesbroughOctober 2000
Cumbria
Derbyshire
DerbyOctober 2000
Devon and Cornwall
ExeterDecember 2000
PlymouthDecember 2000
TruroDecember 2001
Dorset
Durham
DurhamMarch 2001
Dyfed Powys
CarmathanMarch 2002
Essex
ChelmsfordMarch 2001
Gloucestershire
GloucesterOctober 2001
Greater Manchester
Gwent
NewportJanuary 2001
Hampshire
Isle of WightOctober 2000
EastleighApril 2001
PortsmouthApril 2001
Hertfordshire
St. AlbansJanuary 2002
Humberside
GrimsbyApril 2001
HullMarch 2001
Kent
MaidstoneJanuary 2001
CanterburyJanuary 2001
Lancashire
PrestonMay 2001
BurnleyMay 2001
Leicestershire
Lincolnshire
LincolnJanuary 2001
Merseyside
LiverpoolDecember 2000
CrosbyDecember 2000
Metropolitan and City
Old BaileyFebruary 2001
Harrow/IsleworthMarch 2002
SnarsbrookMarch 2002
Southwark/MiddlesexMarch 2002
ILCC/YouthMarch 2002
Blackfrairs/WoolwichMarch 2002
Wood GreenMarch 2002
KingstonMarch 2002
CroydonMarch 2002
Norfolk
NorwichJune 2001
Northamptonshire
Northumbria
NewcastleJune 2001
North Wales
WrexhamMarch 2001
Colwyn BayJanuary 2002
North Yorkshire
Nottinghamshire
NottinghamMay 2000
South Wales
South Yorkshire
SheffieldDecember 2001
Staffordshire
StaffordOctober 2000
Newcastle under LymeOctober 2000
Suffolk
IpswichApril 2000
Surrey
GuildfordApril 2000
Sussex
Thames Valley
Abindon, Reading and AylesburyApril 2001
Warwickshire
West Mercia
West Midlands
BirminghamJanuary 2001
CoventryApril 2001
WolverhamptonJanuary 2001
West Yorkshire
LeedsOctober 2000
BradfordOctober 2000
Wiltshire
WiltshireSeptember 1999

24 Jun 2002 : Column 657W

TRANSPORT

Committee Mandates

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Technical Adaptation Committee on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical physical and biological agents at work is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55230]

Mr. Jamieson: I have been asked to reply.

No committee with the name given and covering chemical, physical and biological agents is known to exist.

PPP Contracts

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what improvements in frequency of tube services will be delivered in each of the first seven years of the PPP contracts for each of the three consortia; [56216]

24 Jun 2002 : Column 658W

Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 14 May 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

The modernisation plans for London Underground require contractors to meet performance specifications. The contracts do not specify the details of each individual project. Instead, the performance regime has been designed to deliver faster, more reliable and more pleasant journeys for passengers, as quickly as possible.

The specifications include demanding targets for improvements in Journey Time Capability (JTC), an outcome measure which reflects passengers' experiences of a range of factors affecting how quickly they can travel through the underground system.

Improvements in JTC through line upgrades, as specified in the current contracts, are as follows:


To meet these specifications, the contractors will need to deliver substantial improvements across the entire system infrastructure, including works to increase frequency and capacity, and the introduction of new trains. In addition, on all lines contractors will be incentivised to improve availability scores, which measure infrastructure reliability. This will help London Underground to deliver service improvements, such as increased train frequency, irrespective of the timing of line upgrades.

The contracts directly specify improvements to trains on all lines, which must be delivered by the dates are as listed:


24 Jun 2002 : Column 659W

All dates listed (except *) refer to contract years (ie 2005 ends on 31 March 2006). These are the latest dates by which improvements must be delivered. In practice, the infrastructure companies will need to start work on the upgrades many years in advance to meet these dates. Therefore many improvements will be delivered well before the contractual end-dates. The exact details of how the private sector companies intend to meet their contractual obligations are matters for the companies concerned.


Next Section Index Home Page