| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Oct 2008 : Column 169W—continued
Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings
Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the five most serious disciplinary breaches in his Department were in the last 12 months; and what steps were taken in response to each breach. [223063]
Maria Eagle: Proven cases of gross misconduct are, by their very nature, the most serious disciplinary breaches. Staff who are proven to have committed gross misconduct are subject to dismissal.
The following information gives a breakdown of proven gross misconduct cases in the Department that have been concluded in the 12 month period ending on 31 July 2008, together with the total number of dismissals for each category:
| Number | |
Each case was dealt with in accordance with published departmental policy and procedures, concluding in dismissal. As these matters relate to individual members of staff the details are considered to be confidential.
Departmental Home Working
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 30 June 2008, Official Report, column 680W, on departmental home working, if he will make it his policy to collate and maintain central records of home working by his Department’s staff. [222536]
Mr. Wills:
There is no requirement to maintain records of home working arrangements centrally. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is introducing a shared services system by the end of 2010. As part of that project it is being considered whether it would be practical and cost effective to collate and maintain central records of MoJ staff
working at home. In the interim it would not be possible to do so without disproportionate cost.
Departmental Information
James Duddridge: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what types of data have been sold by (a) his Department and (b) its agencies under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations in the last 12 months. [221969]
Maria Eagle: My Department has not received any requests for information directly arising from the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations. However, we currently have data sharing arrangements in place with the suppliers listed as follows for the services indicated:
Smee and Ford—charitable bequests
Courtel—Crown court listing
Registry Trust Ltd. (RTL)—Registry of Judgments, Orders and Fines.
Departmental Postal Services
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department has taken to monitor the cost of its mail services in the last 12 months. [221477]
Maria Eagle: My Department monitors the cost of its mail services using a combination of financial planning/forecasting, budget monitoring, analysis of management information from suppliers and regular contract review meetings. In addition to this, Her Majesty’s Court Service (HMCS) has recently commenced a postal benchmarking exercise across all HMCS sites to identify any disparity of postage spend across their estate.
Departmental Public Participation
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what (a) listening exercises and (b) public forums his Department has held in each of the last two years; what the (i) purpose and (ii) cost was in each case; and who the private contractor was and how much it was paid in each case. [221347]
Bridget Prentice: The Ministry of Justice carries out a wide range of activities which allow Ministers and officials to listen to and understand the views of the public and stakeholders. My answer on 3 June 2008, Official Report; column 842W, to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) set out the main activity undertaken over the last three years and the following table sets out the main activities which have taken place since then. It is not possible to provide in-house costs for all listening exercises and the data is therefore limited to activity where external organisations have been contracted to undertake the work.
Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the differences are between citizens' summits and citizens' juries. [223069]
Mr. Wills: The discussion paper “A National Framework for Greater Citizen Engagement” published in July 2008 sets out what the Government see as the main differences between the two mechanisms. These are:
Size: citizens’ juries are likely to involve 50-100 participants. Citizens’ summits should involve large groups of around 500 or more to provide a more representative sample of public opinion;
Result: recommendations from a summit would be put to Parliament for consideration, along with a Government statement on the proposed way forward, while recommendations from juries would require a Government response; and
Coverage: the Government envisage that summits would be limited to national issues where there is a compelling case for large scale deliberation, while juries might be used as part of the policy development process, both national and locally.
We are currently seeking views on these proposals.
Departmental Records
Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make it his policy to adopt a principle of data minimisation in the information the Government collect and hold on citizens. [222930]
Mr. Wills: The processing of all personal data by private companies and public authorities must be in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
The data protection principles are predicated on, among other things, a requirement to ensure that data collected and processed is adequate, relevant, not excessive and not kept for longer than is necessary.
The Government will also consider the recommendations in the Data Sharing Review published by Richard Thomas and Dr. Mark Walport, and will announce in the autumn what further measures they will take to strengthen the protection of personal data.
Departmental Retirement
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green of 1 July 2008, Official Report, column 873W, on departmental retirement, how many requests to work beyond the standard retirement age have been received by his Department in respect of (a) the former Department of Constitutional Affairs, (b) HM Prison Service and (c) the National Offender Management Service and Office for Criminal Justice Reform. [222437]
Maria Eagle: Such requests 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 the standard retirement age is not held centrally and to collate this would incur disproportionate costs.
Domestic Violence
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average delay before offenders convicted of offences of domestic violence or abuse commenced integrated domestic abuse programmes was in each probation area in England and Wales in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [224445]
Mr. Hanson: The following table shows the average number of weeks that elapse from the date of sentence for offences of violence or abuse to the commencement of domestic violence programme requirements in probation areas for 2005-06 to 2007-08. Prior to commencement on the core programme all offenders are required to complete pre-programme work.
These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |