| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
30 Oct 2007 : Column 1138W—continued
Maria Eagle:
The National Audit Office measures spending performance against plans by comparing outturns against final provision following supplementary estimates—rather than against plans at the start of the year—as plans can change during the year for a number of reasons, such as machinery of government and classification changes. The definitive figures for final provision and provisional outturn are published each year in the “Public Expenditure Outturns White Paper”.
Changes to plans arising in-year are published in “Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses”, as are differences between provisional and final outturns.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what departmental budget items have been reclassified, under consolidated budgeting guidance, following comprehensive spending review 2007 decisions; and what the (a) former and (b) new (i) classification and (ii) sum budgeted is in each case. [160417]
Maria Eagle: Following the creation of the Ministry of Justice, the initial 2007-08 administration baseline was £720 million. In keeping with the sentiment expressed in the Treasury budgeting guidance that all items directly associated with direct frontline delivery of a service are classified as programme costs, analysis was conducted and resulted in a reclassification of £261 million of costs.
| £ million | |||
| Previous administration budget | HMT agreed reclassification | Revised CSR administration budget | |
| (1) The Ministry of Justice Group includes Northern Ireland Court Service, The National Archives, Scotland Office, Wales Office and the Electoral Commission. | |||
The business areas affected by reclassification of expenditure from administration to programme costs were e-Delivery group, HMCS, Tribunals Service, Public Guardianship Office and Official Solicitor and Public Trustee.
Details of all classification changes in resource and capital budgets made since publication of the consolidated budgeting guidance 2007 will be published after Budget 2008 in chapter 3 of “Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2008”.
Departments: Retirement
Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many employees in (a) his Department and (b) each (i) executive agency and (ii) non-departmental public body funded by his Department applied to continue to work beyond state retirement age in the latest year or part thereof for which figures are available; and how many of those applications were successful. [161284]
Maria Eagle: The Ministry of Justice has delegated employment terms and conditions under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992, and as a consequence, does not have a retirement age policy. Applications to work past the state retirement age are dealt with at a local business level and considered on an individual basis. As a consequence, information on the number of applications and the number of successful applications for working beyond state retirement age is not held centrally and to collate this would incur disproportionate costs. However, the numbers of staff (headcount) “actually working” above state retirement age are available as at 30 September 2007 and have been compiled as follows:
(a) The total number of staff above state retirement age, employed by the Ministry of Justice (former Department for Constitutional Affairs) as at 30 September 2007, taken from the Ministry of Justices’ internal human resource systems are as follows:
| Ministry of Justice head quarters | Number of staff above 65 (state retirement age) |
|
Formerly Department for Constitutional Affairs HQ (excl. agencies) | |
(b) (i) The total number of staff above state retirement age, employed by the Ministry of Justice Agencies (former DCA and its agencies) as at 30 September 2007, taken from the Ministry of Justices’ internal human resource systems are as follows:
| Ministry of Justices' Agencies | Number of staff above 65 (state retirement age) |
(b) (ii) The information requested is not available for non-departmental public bodies as the data is not held centrally and to collate this information would incur disproportionate costs.
Deportation: Appeals
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many foreign national prisoners successfully appealed against deportation in each of the last five years; and how many have so appealed in 2007-08. [161584]
Mr. Byrne: I have been asked to reply.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
Deportation: Judicial Review
Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many persons had their removal delayed by applications for judicial review in each of the last three years; and what proportion of cases before the Appeal Court they comprised. [161582]
Mr. Byrne: I have been asked to reply.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
Freedom of Information: Compensation
Mr. Boswell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what information he holds on which Government Departments have a policy of making compensation payments to people making requests to them under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 when the deadlines for providing information set out in that Act are not complied with. [161523]
Mr. Wills: There is no provision in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for compensation payments to be made and the Ministry of Justice has no knowledge or information about Government Departments having a policy to do so.
Information Commissioner: Complaints
Mr. Sanders:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many complaints were made by members of the
public to the Information Commissioner in each year for which figures are available; and how many of those complaints resulted in the Information Commissioner issuing an enforcement notice. [161813]
Mr. Wills: The following table shows how many complaints were made by members of the public to the Information Commissioner in each year and how many of those complaints resulted in the Information Commissioner issuing an enforcement notice.
| Data Protection Act | Freedom of Information | |||
| Complaints( 1) | Enforcements( 2) | Complaints | Enforcements | |
| (1) The Data Protection figures represent all complaints which include requests for the Commissioner to assess the way that information was processed and where advice and assistance is provided. Allegations of breaches of the Telecommunications Regulations (PECR) are not technically requests for assessment but are also included in these figures. (2) Enforcements under the Data Protection Act are not an automatic consequence of a complaint, and are relatively rare. Other options exercised by the Commissioner include preliminary enforcement notices and undertakings. A single enforcement notice can relate to hundreds of complaints. This is particularly the case with complaints under PECR. (3) Given the timescales for compliance and internal reviews, the ICO received its first FoI complaints at the end of the 2004-05 financial year. These were therefore included in the next annual figures. (4) An enforcement notice under the freedom of Information Act is a legal order the Information Commissioner can make to require a public authority to address its failure to comply with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act. In practice, this is most likely to be used where there is systemic or repeated non-compliance. | ||||
Members: Correspondence
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he expects to answer the letter to him dated 19 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. Daly. [161832]
Mr. Hanson: I apologise for the delay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Straw) will write to the right hon. Member shortly.
National Identity
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proposals for a national motto have been made to him. [161820]
Mr. Wills: My Department has received a number of suggestions for a national motto and I welcome the interest this debate has generated, in the context of the wider debate about what it means to be British and part of British society. We will shortly be announcing a wide range of measures to take discussion forward on the content and format of a British statement of values and the purposes for which it should be used.
Parole: Foreigners
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many foreign nationals were released from prison on end of custody licence between (a) 29 June and 5 July, (b) 6 July and 31 July, (c) 1 August and 31 August and (d) 1 September and 30 September 2007; [161822]
(2) how many foreign nationals were released from prison on end of custody licence (a) between 29 June and 5 July, (b) 6 July and 31 July, (c) 1 August and 31 August and (d) 1 September and 30 September 2007. [161818]
Mr. Hanson: Foreign national prisoners who are liable to deportation at the end of their sentence are not eligible for release under the end of custody licence scheme. The following table shows the numbers of foreign national prisoners who did not meet the criteria for deportation and so were released as part of the ECL scheme since the end of June 2007:
| FNPs released | |
| Period | FNP releases on ECL |
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Pentonville Prison: Disciplinary Proceedings
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many disciplinary hearings have been heard at HM prison Pentonville for those staff who were suspended under corruption investigations; what the (a) date and (b) outcome was of each hearing; how many remain outstanding and for what reasons in each case; and if he will make a statement; [161514]
(2) what measures are in place to ensure that uniformed prison staff do not work excessive hours in carrying out bedwatch duties; and if he will make a statement. [161520]
Mr. Hanson: It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
Pentonville Prison: Governing Bodies
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many years' experience the previous governing governor of HM prison Pentonville had as a governing governor before taking up the post as governing governor of the establishment; whether this was a managed move; who was responsible for authorising the move; which skills were defined as necessary to fill the role; and if he will make a statement; [161515]
(2) what training in professional standards the previous governing governor of HM prison Pentonville had before taking up post as head of professional standards issues at HM prison service; and if he will make a statement; [161516]
(3) for what reason the previous governor of HM prison Pentonville was transferred to the professional standards unit; whether this was a managed move; who was responsible for authorising the move; what skills were defined by that person as necessary to fill the role; and if he will make a statement. [161565]
Mr. Hanson: Prior to his appointment as governor of Pentonville prison, Mr. Deighton held a previous appointment as governor of Exeter prison from 1 November 1999 until 29 December 2001. He transferred to Pentonville, as governor, following a period as a team leader with HM inspectorate of prisons. His appointment to Pentonville was managed, partly to facilitate his return to operational duties on completion of a three-year tour of duty with the inspectorate. He transferred as head of the professional standards unit earlier this year.
In line with the published policy of HM prison service, all operational senior manager appointments require the approval of the relevant director and the deputy director general of the service as chair of the succession planning committee. This applies both to managed appointments and those filled through selection following an internal advertisement.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |