|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
To date, seven schools in (a) Herefordshire, no schools in (b) Shropshire, seven schools in (c) Worcestershire, and 67 schools in (d) West Midlands (including Herefordshire and Worcestershire) have either applied or established a trust under the provisions of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. All 67 schools are on the Trust and Foundation Schools Support programme where they have access to advice and guidance on the processes associated with acquiring a Trust.
Schools in Herefordshire are consulting about the acquisition of a trust, including who their partners will be. Trust partners are available from individual governing bodies through the publication of statutory proposals.
From 5 January probation areas have been instructed to make intensive unpaid work of any sentence length, to the maximum of 300 hours, available for offenders convicted of knife crime offences. Under this revised definition of intensive unpaid work, offenders will be required to complete unpaid work at a minimum of 18 hours per week and may also be required to comply with other community order requirements designed to address offending behaviour.
Bridget Prentice: There are five county courts in Essex, located at Basildon, Harlow, Chelmsford, Colchester and Southend. Basildon and Harlow are relatively small and only sit District Judges. Chelmsford is the Care Centre for the whole of Essex and Colchester and Southend are both Trial Centres. We are currently reviewing the listing arrangements, mainly for the Circuit Judges, with a view to ensuring that the courthouses and judiciary are being utilised in the most effective and efficient way to deliver the best service we can to the court users of Essex.
During 2009, the plan is for civil work at Southend to change from being listed for a single Circuit Judge every day and towards listing for two Circuit Judges sitting together for up to two weeks each month still at Southend. This will facilitate a back to back listing system for multi track cases increasing throughput, disposal rates and, ultimately, reducing waiting times.
Chelmsford county court moved into a new building in December 2007 which provides modern improved facilities and additional courtrooms and hearing rooms. Again, during 2009, the plan is to create a similar back
to back listing system for both Chelmsford and Colchester multi-track work at Chelmsford with Ipswich civil cases being listed from Ipswich. Some civil work and private family law work will remain at Colchester. All Essex county court public law family work will continue to be listed at Chelmsford where the Family Proceedings Court work for Chelmsford is also heard now. This will enable Circuit Judges to sit back to back on public law and civil work.
To reduce waiting times and improve our customer service to all Essex court users.
Make best use of court accommodation and judicial resources.
List more effectively and with greater certainty.
Bridget Prentice: Although my Department identifies the total value of fines owed and the total value of fines collected within each police force area, current management information systems do not allow for these to be separated into those imposed and paid within a single year. It is therefore not possible to say how many fines imposed in a year remain unpaid.
|New net amount owed (£)||Amount paid (£)||Payment rate (percentage)|
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many and what percentage of claims the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (a) received and (b) processed where a civil claim was also outstanding in (i) 2007 and (ii) 2008; 
(2) how many and what percentage of Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims where a civil claim was also outstanding were completed before the civil claim was completed in (a) 2007 and (b) 2008. 
Maria Eagle: These statistics are not kept. To obtain such information would require a manual search of each application received and processed for the last two yearsto do so would incur a disproportionate cost.
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority practice of continuing to process applications when other claims are being pursued will be discontinued. 
A claims officer may require an applicant to provide details of any steps taken or planned to obtain damages or compensation in respect of the same injury and may decline to process an application further until those details have been provided or until the applicants attempts to obtain such damages or compensation have been exhausted.
Maria Eagle: The criminal injuries compensation scheme 2008, introduced on 3 November 2008, includes an amended Tariff of Injuries, which re-categorises some of the injuries contained in the previous tariff and increases the tariff level of award for some categories of injury.
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what consideration was given to increasing the tariffs applied by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in the recent review of the scheme; 
Maria Eagle: Following consultation, launched in December 2005 by the green paper Rebuilding Lives: supporting victims of crime, working groups were set up to discuss the appropriate levels for the tariff.
The tariff scheme was introduced to stop the costs of the scheme rising at a rate that was no longer sustainable for a scheme funded by the taxpayer. A balance therefore has to be struck between competing demands for finite public resources, and what the taxpayer can afford against what is a reasonable amount of compensation for victims of violent crime.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme of Great Britain is probably the most generous scheme in the world for compensating innocent victims of violent crime. With regards to the maximum cap of £500,000, nearly all state compensation schemes in the European Union have a maximum cap, and it is usually far lower than £500,000.
|(1) As at 17 December 2008|
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what factors the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority considered when setting the appropriate level of compensation for the loss of one kidney at £11,000. 
Following consultation, launched by the Government in December 2005 by the green paper Rebuilding Lives: supporting victims of crime, working groups were set up to discuss the appropriate levels for the tariff.
Representatives on the working groups included judges from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, lawyers from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Home Office and Ministry of Justice and policy advisors from the sponsor Department and Scottish Executive.
Advice was sought from panel members with medical knowledge and consultant status. They advised that the human body can function as normal with one kidney. Therefore £11,000 was considered to be a more appropriate level of award for this injury.
Mr. Wills: All the IT environments in the Department and its agencies have been fully accredited to Government security standards; a number of these are currently undergoing their periodic re-accreditation. All new applications must be accredited before they are accepted into service.
John Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many enforcement restriction orders have been granted by the county courts in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. 
Bridget Prentice: The county courts have not granted any enforcement restriction orders (EROs) because the provisions have not yet been introduced. Our current intention is to implement the ERO in 2010.
The ERO scheme was enacted in Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It was developed following extensive consultation with the advice and credit sectors. It is intended specifically to
support only those debtors who encounter unforeseen short-term difficulties from which they are likely to recover in a relatively short period. Other options, such as the reformed Administration Order (AO), which is contained in Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, exist for those with more long-term problems.
Earlier this year Her Majesty's Court Service consulted on certain aspects of the Administration and Enforcement Restriction Order schemes, including the types of debts that should be able to be protected. The response to the consultation paper: Administration and Enforcement Restriction Orders: setting the parameters, will be published shortly.
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 24 November 2008, Official Report, columns 873-4W, on prisons: complaints, how many complaints by prison officers have been made against fellow officers at HMP Whitemoor on the grounds of (a) sexual discrimination, (b) sexual harassment, (c) homophobic behaviour and (d) racial discrimination in each of the last 10 years; what proportion of these complaints were upheld; what proportion of those making such complaints received compensation payments; and how much each received. 
Mr. Malik: Information held locally by the establishment is only readily available for the period since 2001-02. The table lists those cases involving complaints made by prison officers about fellow officers.
|Year||Number of cases||Type of complaint||Complaint upheld/dismissed|
|(1) This case also involved complaints made against staff from other areas of the Prison Service.|
(2) To end 12/2008
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|