| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 Jun 2008 : Column 890W—continued
—continuedEquality
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will take steps to establish a strategy to tackle age discrimination and promote age equality in the provision of goods and services (a) by the Department and (b) within the sectors for which he has policy responsibility; and if he will make a statement. [210457]
Mr. Wills: There is currently no statutory requirement to ensure age equality in the provision of goods and services. However, Ministry of Justice equality impact assessment procedures include a requirement to consider age-related issues as part of the policy development process. This covers initiatives within the MOJ and its agencies.
The Government have considered the case for prohibiting age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services as part of their consultation paper on proposals for the Equality Bill, “A Framework for Fairness”. The Government will publish their response to the consultation shortly.
Morning Star
Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many copies of the Morning Star (a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies procures on subscription each week; and at what cost. [210904]
Mr. Wills: The Ministry of Justice receives two copies of the Morning Star every day (Monday to Friday) at a cost of £6 per week.
Her Majesty's Court Service, The Land Registry, the Boundary Commission for England, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the Office of the Public Guardian, Boundary Commission for Wales, the Tribunals Service, the Legal Service Commission and the National Archives do not receive any copies of the Morning Star on subscription.
National Identity: Public Participation
Nick Herbert: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 21 November 2007, Official Report, column 975W, on politics and government, what the final cost was of the consultation on a Statement of Values held in Leicester on 10 December 2007. [210627]
Mr. Straw: The final cost of the of the “Governance of Britain” event held in Leicester on 10 December 2007 was £36,963.50.
Nick Herbert: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) Ministers, (b) officials, (c) representatives of local authorities, (d) invited members of the public and (e) non-invited members of the public attended the consultation event on a Statement of Values in Leicester on 10 December 2007. [210629]
Mr. Straw: A total of 120 people (excluding Ministers and officials) attended the event in Leicester on 10 December 2007. They included:
(a) The Minister of State and me;
(b) 19 Officials who acted as table facilitators and note takers;
(c) 21 representatives of local authorities, including both elected members and officials;
(d) 110 invited members of the public attended as full delegates at the event;
(e) In addition, approximately 10 non-invited members of the public attended the public Q and A session.
In addition, 20 young people attended a question and answer session with me earlier in the day.
Nick Herbert: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost was of producing the YouTube video of the consultation event on a Statement of Values held in Leicester on 10 December 2007. [210631]
Mr. Straw: No external costs were incurred in producing the YouTube video of the “Governance of Britain” event held in Leicester on 10 December 2007. The filming, editing and uploading of the video were carried out by an in-house film crew and the Ministry of Justice’s internal communications team.
Official Secrets Act 1989: Prosecutions
Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for an offence under section 8 of the Official Secrets Act 1989 there have been since the Act came into force. [211493]
Maria Eagle: Since the Official Secrets Act 1989 came into force on 1 March 1990, no prosecutions and convictions have been counted by the Ministry of Justice under section 8 of the Act.
The court proceedings data held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
Powers of Attorney
Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what estimate he has made of the average time between first receipt of notice of registration of a lasting power of attorney by the Office of the Public Guardian and the point at which the lasting power of attorney becomes usable in the latest period for which figures are available; [210354]
(2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the time taken to process lasting powers of attorney on the wellbeing of elderly people in England. [210355]
Bridget Prentice: Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) were introduced by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and came into force in October 2007. As of 11 June 2008 the average time taken from receipt of an application to registration by the Office of the Public Guardian was 12 weeks. This time is currently three weeks longer than the OPG's targets in this area. The overall time includes a statutory six-week waiting period during which objections to registration can be made to the Public Guardian and which represents a valuable safeguard against the potential abuse of vulnerable people.
No immediate assessment has been made concerning the effects of the time taken to process and register an LPA. LPAs are not designed for immediate use but as a method for people to plan ahead for a time when they may lack capacity. The OPG will be making an assessment of how the new legislation is operating from October 2008 once the Act has been in operation for a full year. A key element of this review will be an evaluation of how well lasting powers of attorney are meeting people's needs and the impact of the new forms, practices and procedures on the people they are intended to support.
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) whether application fees for powers of attorney to the Office of the Public Guardian are payable if (a) the target time for reply is not reached and (b) the target time for reply is not reached and the person for whom the applicant applies subsequently dies before reply; [211752]
(2) what the target time is for processing applications for powers of attorney by the Office of the Public Guardian; [211753]
(3) how many applications for powers of attorney were not replied to in the target time by the Office of the Public Guardian in each of the last five years. [211980]
Bridget Prentice: The current fee regulations for both Lasting Powers of Attorney and Enduring Powers of Attorney require a fee to be paid upon an application to register the power with the Office of the Public Guardian. No refund is automatically payable either if the target for registering the power is missed, or if the target is missed and the person who lacks capacity, or the applicant, dies before it is registered.
If an applicant, or the person who lacks capacity, feels that they have suffered significant worry, distress or financial loss as a result of an unreasonable delay then they may be entitled to financial redress.
The Office of the Public Guardian's business plan outlines the targets that have been agreed with the Ministry of Justice. For Lasting Powers of Attorney, these targets, together with the statutory waiting period, give a maximum expected end-to-end processing time of nine weeks. This includes two weeks to process and check the application, a six-week statutory waiting period during which objections to registration can be made, and a further week to notify parties of registration. For Enduring Powers of Attorney the maximum expected end-to-end processing time is six weeks, which includes a five-week statutory waiting period followed by a week to notify parties of registration.
Since 2003 the Public Guardianship Office, and from October the Office of the Public Guardian would have met this timescale for Enduring Powers of Attorney in virtually all cases (between 99-100 per cent.) except in 1996 when 96.3 per cent. of cases met those timescales.
Since October 2007 the OPG has seen increasingly large numbers of applications to register powers of attorney, which has led to delays in the process for Lasting Powers of Attorney. For example, in both April and May this year total applications to register both types of powers of attorney were approximately three times as many as for the same period last year.
This has meant that Lasting Power of Attorney applications are currently taking an average of 12 weeks to process—three weeks longer than we would expect. I regret the delays which are due to the increased volumes of business. Additional resources have already been put into place to address this. The Office of the Public Guardian expects to see delays reduced over the coming weeks so that service standards can begin to be brought back within targets.
Prisons
Peter Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) from which local authorities his Department sought information on potential locations for Titan prisons; [210448]
(2) whether he plans to build Titan prisons on sites in (a) public ownership, (b) private ownership or (c) both; and if he will make a statement; [210449]
(3) what account he plans to take of the proximity of existing prisons when deciding where to locate new Titan prisons; and if he will make a statement. [210450]
Mr. Hanson: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) sought information on the availability, within its statutory area of authority, of sites which meet our criteria and might be suitable and available for the construction of a Titan prison as defined by the Carter report and announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Straw) on 5 December 2007, Official Report, column 821, from all public authorities in the West Midlands, London/Essex and the North West.
NOMS set out its site requirements which are:
Minimum site of 50 acres
Preferably brownfield sites, regular in shape, level and not overlooked
Ideally no restrictions such as listed buildings; rights of way across the site; other third party rights, etc.
Good access from the Public Highway
Ideally all mains services connections already exist
Additionally, NOMS pointed out some of the benefits of a Titan prison which are:
Significant, permanent job creation for 1,500 jobs across the skills range
Economic benefits to a location of c.£36 million per annum
Funding confirmed for these major regeneration projects
NOMS went on to invite public authorities to meet and discuss whether they were able to provide details of suitable sites within their area.
The Ministry of Justice will seek to acquire land that meets the Titan prison criteria, whether in private or in public ownership.
Proximity to existing prisons is not considered within the site search criteria and is not a factor for determining Titan prison sites.
Probation Service: Pay
Mr. David Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what reason Probation Service staff have not received their contractual pay increments in 2008. [211099]
Maria Eagle: Probation staff have a contractual right to pay progression from 1 April 2008, but the amount of that progression has to be negotiated as part of the annual pay settlement. Discussions relating to this settlement are currently taking place between the probation employers and the trade unions. It is hoped that a settlement will be reached as soon as possible.
Racial Violence
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will break down by ethnicity the (a) offender and (b) victim of each racially aggravated offence in each of the last five years. [211102]
Maria Eagle: Figures are available for the ethnicity of people convicted of racially aggravated offences for the five calendar years from 2002 to 2006. These statistics are in the following tables.
From 1 April 2008, police forces have been required to collect figures on the ethnicity of victims of racially aggravated offences. These figures remain subject to
further collection and quality assurance work before they can be published by the Ministry of Justice.
| Persons convicted for racially aggravated offences by ethnicity( 1) at all courts 2002 to 2006( 2) | ||||||
| White | Black | Asian | Other | Unknown | Total | |
| (1) The ethnicity classification used here is the standard “4+1” classification as used in the 2001 Census. (2 )Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: Criminal Justice Evidence and Analysis Unit—Office for Criminal Justice Reform. | ||||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |