|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice what research she has (a) initiated and (b) evaluated on the effectiveness of funding provided for Hampshire Family Mediation as a result of the restructuring of legal aid; and if she will make a statement. 
The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has researched the impact upon mediation services of its proposals for a revised mediation remuneration structure,
which aligns the for profit (FP) and not for profit (NfP) sectors onto the same fee scheme. The partial regulatory impact assessment concluded that 70 per cent. of the 200 mediation service providers will gain financially under the proposals. In common with other mediation providers, Hampshire Family Mediation (HFM) will no longer receive the fixed annual payment in addition to fees for work done, provided for the last three years, under the transitional NfP contracting arrangements. Under the new arrangements, HFM will be paid through new increased fixed fees, which will apply equally to both FP and NfP providers.
The LSCs proposals to revise the family fee structure will remove the financial disincentives for solicitors to make referrals to mediation, which has historically been alleged by the mediation profession to be an obstacle to increasing mediation referrals. The new family fee schemes for solicitors should encourage more and earlier referrals to mediation providers.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice how many and what percentage of prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme were subsequently recalled in each year since the scheme's introduction. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 4 June 2007, Official Report, columns 219-20W, on how many and what percentage of prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme breached the rules of their curfew and were recalled to prison in each year since 1999.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice how many and what percentage of prisoners were released (a) one month, (b) two months, (c) three months, (d) four months, (e) five months and (f) six months or more before their automatic release date as part of the Home Detention Curfew scheme in each year since the schemes introduction. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Information on the numbers of prisoners by their respective times spent on the scheme from all prison establishments in England and Wales in each year since 1999 can be found in the following table. The maximum period under which a prisoner may be released early under the Home Detention Curfew scheme is 135 days. Prisoners are not released for longer than that period. Therefore no prisoner has been released on HDC five or six months before the end of their sentence.
|HDC releases by time on tag under Home Detention Curfew, 1999-2006( 1)|
|Total( 2)||Less than or equal to 1 month||Greater than 1 month to less than or equal to 2 months||Greater than 2 months to less than or equal to 3 months||Greater than 3 months to less than or equal to 4 months||Greater than 4 months to less than or equal to 4.5 months|
|(1) 2006 figures are provisional and subject to change.|
These statistics are based on information recorded on the central prison IT system on 4 June 2007. Further updates and amendments may be made to records on this system resulting in revised figures.
These figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.
(2) The total includes those cases where changes to a prisoners status, such as a recall or a new sentence, have disrupted the flow of data within the information system. For these cases it is not possible to attribute a definitive time on tag.
Ms Abbott: To ask the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice how many legal aid cases were funded in Greater London under (a) the criminal and (b) the civil legal aid scheme in the latest 12 month period for which figures are available, broken down by (i) type of case and (ii) borough. 
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice what work has been carried out for her Department or its predecessor since 2004 by (a) Deborah Mattinson and (b) Opinion Leader Research. 
Bridget Prentice: No payments have been made directly to Deborah Mattinson. OCJR and NOMS (now part of the Ministry of JusticeMoJ) have not made any payments to OLR since becoming MoJ on 9 May. There have been four items contracted from Opinion Leader Research since 2004. Details of these, along with payments made to date, are as follows:
|Specific OLR involvement||2004||2005||2006||2007|
Judicial diversity research report: findings of a consultation with barristers, solicitors and judge. Research contractInterviews with women and BME solicitors and barristers to determine barriers to applying for judicial posts (published)
The CNA for each prison in Kent, excluding Dover, which holds immigration detainees, and the population for each prison, as at 4 June 2007, is set out in the following table. The total population figure includes temporary approved absences.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|