|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
reimbursement of a young persons railcard for employees under the age of 24.
reimbursement of standard public transport fares for new entrants under the age of 21 taking up an initial appointment who have to live away from home because of their workplace.
three free journeys by public transport to the parental home each year for single employees under 21, who are appointed or transferred from a post where they lived with their parents to a post beyond reasonable travelling distance and who live in lodgings.
In addition, all prisons in England and Wales have travel plans. Each plan covers issues such as staff travel to and from work, car parking on site, car sharing, the use of fleet vehicles and official travelling by staff. While the format of the plans was standardised, the actual plans reflected the different circumstances at each site. Local authorities are now placing increasing emphasis on reducing travel impacts and ask to see copies of prisons travel plans when considering planning applications for new houseblocks or other major work at existing prisons.
The main London headquarters buildings of the National Offender Management Service and the prison service also have a travel plan. This covers staff travel to work, visitors to Headquarters buildings and delivery and contractors vehicles and aims to ensure that staff use, wherever, possible, environmentally friendly methods of travelling to work in order to minimise the impact of their travelling arrangements on the environment.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what training and guidance will be provided for the courts and other organisations on section 1 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. 
Section 1 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 was implemented on 1 July 2007. This inserts a new section 42A into the Family Law Act 1996 that makes the breach of a family non-molestation order a criminal offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Comprehensive training and guidance has been given to court staff and the judiciary. My Department worked with the police, CPS and other agencies preparing training and guidance tailored to their procedures and requirements. Ministry of Justice officials also have spoken at domestic violence events and conferences. My Department has also updated our guidance for court
users Domestic ViolenceA Guide to Civil Remedies and Criminal Sanctions which outlines the range of options available to victims of domestic violence. This is now available in English, Welsh and eight other languages.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what advice has been given to the chairmen of employment tribunals on (a) the awarding of costs and (b) the calculation of costs to be awarded to the successful party; and if he will make a statement. 
Bridget Prentice: The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedures) Regulations 2004 provide a power for employment tribunal chairmen to order the payment in respect of the costs incurred by another party in bringing or defending an employment tribunal claim. They currently limit any award to a maximum of 10,000.
Employment tribunal chairmen are independent members of the judiciary and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to give guidance on when they should use these powers or on the level of award made.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the likely effect of the introduction of fixed fees for family work on the number of family cases represented in financial year 2007-08. 
Maria Eagle: The final family fee schemes, published on 22 June by the Legal Services Commission, and due to be implemented on 1 October, were accompanied by a full regulatory impact assessment. No cuts are being made to family legal aid as a result of the introduction of new fee schemes, and the LSC is not expecting a drop in the number of clients helped in 2007-08, or in future years, as a result of the new fee schemes.
Nearly 800,000 people were helped with civil and family legal help (excluding asylum and immigration) in 2006-07, compared with 595,000 in 2004-05, and the LSC aims to increase this by a further 50,000 in 2007-08.
Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what discussions he has had with the Bar Council on increasing the number of judicial appointments from people with state educational backgrounds. 
None yet, but Ministers and I hope to meet the Bar Council in due course. The Judicial Appointments Commission, a non-departmental public body, has, since its launch in April 2006, responsibility for the selection of judges for
appointment to courts and tribunals. One of its statutory duties is to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection for appointment. In line with this obligation, the commission has had discussions with the Bar Council about how best to attract greater numbers of eligible candidates from under represented groups generally.
Promoting judicial service, widening the range of people eligible for judicial office and encouraging a broader range of applicants all form part of the judicial diversity strategy, for which the Ministry of Justice, Judicial Appointments Commission and judiciary are jointly responsible.
Maria Eagle: Jamaica, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, and Iraq represent the top five countries in terms of the number of their nationals held in prison here with which the United Kingdom does not yet have a prisoner transfer agreement in place.
A limited prisoner transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and Jamaica was signed on 26 June 2007. It will not come into force until both countries have completed their respective domestic constitutional procedures. Negotiations with Nigeria are ongoing. We are pressing the Nigerians authorities to conclude the negotiations as quickly as possible. An agreement with Pakistan has been concluded and will be signed shortly. The agreement is subject to ratification and will not come into effect until both countries have completed their domestic ratification procedures. Because of the domestic situation in both Somalia and Iraq no negotiations on a prisoner transfer agreement are likely in the near future.
|Releases between January and June 2007 on home detention curfew and parole|
|Home detention curfew||Parole|
|(1) Data not yet available|
Mr. Hanson: As at 5 July, the Ministry of Justice had been notified of 30 out of 1,701 offenders (1.76 per cent.) released under the end of custody licence as having been subsequently recalled to custody from that licence.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the impact of the prisoner early release programme upon (a) the ability of the prison service to meet individual prisoner's resettlement needs, (b) prisoner rehabilitation, (c) recidivism and (d) the ability of the probation service to meet the needs of individuals. 
Mr. Hanson: Prisoners released on the end of custody licence are subject to normal sentence planning and resettlement activities, including offending behaviour programmes and interventions, undertaken by offenders across the prison estate from the start of sentence. On release, they are eligible to receive subsistence payments and housing costs to meet essential needs in lieu of benefits during the licence period.
The ECL will be monitored closely. Information on it, including prisoners notified to the National Offender Management Service as having re-offended during the period on ECL, will be placed in the Library on a monthly basis. Additional funding has been made available to probation services for ECL and the level of resources needed will be kept under review.
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners have been transported to hospital from (a) all prisons and (b) high security prisons in each of the last five years; and at what cost. 
Maria Eagle: Transport of prisoners to hospital from all prison, including high security prisons, are arranged by establishments and records of such moves and costs are not held centrally and could be collated from each establishment only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Hanson: The Government have given a broad welcome to the report. The 43 recommendations which it makes are wide-ranging and propose action by a number of different Government Departments and organisations. We are carefully exploring the recommendations with all the Departments and agencies concerned and will develop a detailed response by late autumn.
Nick Herbert: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners are on indeterminate sentences for public protection with tariffs of (a) less than three years, (b) between three and five years, (c) between five and 10 years and (d) more than 10 years. 
Mr. Hanson: Figures relating to the lengths of tariffs on prisoners serving indeterminate sentences in all prison establishments in England and Wales as at the end of March 2006 can be found in the following table:
|Number of IPPs by length of tariff|
Nick Herbert: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many prisoners on indeterminate sentences for public protection have been released after serving more than their minimum tariff; and in how many of those cases the assessment of their danger to the public was carried out (a) before and (b) after completion of their minimum tariff; 
(2) how many prisoners on indeterminate sentences for public protection have been released since 2004; and how many had served (a) less than one year, (b) between one and two years, (c) between two and three years and (d) more than three years; 
Mr. Hanson: No prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence may be considered for release until they have completed their tariffthat is, the period of imprisonment considered necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. The Parole Board may direct a tariff-expired indeterminate sentence prisoner's release only if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.
As at 16 July 2007, seven prisoners serving indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) have been released on the direction of the Parole Board. Six of these offenders were released after the tariff period had expired. In each of these cases, the Parole Board hearing to assess the offenders risk of harm took place after the relevant tariff expiry date. In the seventh case, the prisoner was released before tariff-expiry on compassionate grounds due to ill health and has since died.
|Time served||Number of cases|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|