|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) pursuant to the answer of 19 January 2009, Official Report, column 1126W, on magistrates courts: Welsh language, what the (a) estimated cost, (b) expected completion date and (c) start date for the bilingual version of the Libra IT system is; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) pursuant to the answer of 19 January 2009, Official Report, column 1126W, on magistrates courts: Welsh language, how much his Department has spent (a) in total and (b) in each month on translating summonses into Welsh since the Libra IT system became operational; and if he will make a statement; 
(3) pursuant to the answer of 19 January 2009, Official Report, column 1126W, on magistrates courts: Welsh language, how many requests there have been for summonses to be translated into Welsh (a) in total and (b) each month since the Libra IT system became operational, broken down by the smallest geographical area for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; 
Bridget Prentice: The estimated cost of the Libra bilingual solution is £4 million. Final contractual papers are yet to be signed so precise figures are not available at this point. This figure represents application development costs and does not include support costs which are on-going for the life of the application.
Since the Libra IT system became operational, the Department has spent £425 in total on translating summonses into Welsh. Of this, £80 was spent in August 2008; £165 in December 2008 and £180 in January 2009.
Since the Libra IT system became operational, there have been 21 requests in total for summonses to be translated into Welsh. The following table shows a breakdown of monthly requests by the smallest geographical area.
(i) estimated to (i) cost £184 million and (ii) to complete rollout in July 2001;
(ii) The outturn cost of the project is £444 million;
(iii) The date of completion of rollout was 9 December 2008.
|Cost of translation of Libra documents into Welsh|
|Number of requests by smallest geographical area|
|Requests||Mid and West Wales||North Wales||South Wales|
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what target he has set for the maximum duration between a court awarding a maintenance payment and that payment being made; what steps he plans to take to minimise the amount of time taken; and if he will make a statement. 
Bridget Prentice: In family proceedings, the court has power to order periodical payments for maintenance in a variety of situations. The court can order periodical payments to be made for the benefit of a former spouse or civil partner or for the benefit of a child of the family on divorce or on dissolution of a civil partnership. The court can also order payments to be made when a spouse or civil partner has failed to maintain the other party to the marriage or civil partnership or any child of the family. Additionally, the court can also order any parent to make periodical payments for the benefit of a child under schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989.
When making an order for periodical payments for maintenance, the court can order when the payments shall be made, the amount of the payments to be made and the term for which payments may be made. The court can also order periodical payments to be made on an interim basis before the proceedings are finally resolved. It is not possible to set a target for commencement of payments because the court will determine the appropriate date for the first payment after considering the circumstances of each individual case.
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will introduce systematic screening of offenders for (a) learning disabilities and (b) learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Hanson: The issues of learning disability and learning difficulty are matters where my Department works closely with the Department of Health, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Welsh Assembly Government.
The National Offender Management Service and the Department of Health are shortly to pilot a simple screening tool aimed at identifying the possibility of a learning disability. The results of piloting in three prisons will then inform plans for implementing a screening tool across all care settings in the criminal justice system.
In current use with offenders, section 4 of the Offender Assessment System (OASys), assesses level of problems with reading, writing and numeracy and any learning difficulties. OASys is used with offenders sentenced to over 12 months in custody, or on a community sentence, excluding unpaid work.
Through the Learning and Skills Council, we are broadening the assessment requirement for learning difficulties that is placed on offender learning and skills service providers with effect from August 2009. With Dyslexia Action, the Learning and Skills Council is developing tools to identify additional learning needs and a training programme to support their use by its offender learning and skills service providers staff. This is a matter also under consideration in Wales.
For young people in custody, we intend to place statutory duties on local authorities to fund and commission education in juvenile custody (in England and Wales) and this will include legislation relating to those with special educational needs. In the meantime, we are developing training materials on dyslexia and speech, language and communication needs during 2009-10 for those responsible for education of young people in custody.
To support this greater focus on screening for learning disabilities and difficulties, my Department has worked with the Department of Health to trial a one-day training course for prison officers, aimed increasing awareness of these issues. The training is being rolled out nationally, focused on key staff within each prison: the disability liaison officer; a member of the health care team and a member of the induction team.
Work is also under way to tailor the awareness package for use in probation areas. The training materials to support the probation training are currently under discussion with roll out of the training planned for later this year.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his Departments expenditure on the Prison Radio Service was in 2008-09; and what estimate he has made of such expenditure in (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2010-11. 
This investment in set up costs, licences and other costs falls to the Ministry of Justice and enables the significant majority of ongoing service cost delivery to be met by the Prison Radio Association (a registered charity).
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the existence and effect of prejudice among (a) the police, (b) the Crown Prosecution Service, (c) criminal lawyers, (d) the judiciary and (e) juries towards rape and sexual assault victims. 
The Government are determined to tackle the barriers to the successful prosecution of rape cases and set out its plans for doing so in the cross-Government Action Plan on Sexual Violence and Abuse published in 2007.
No assessment has been made on the existence of prejudice within the criminal justice agencies, the judiciary or juries however action has been taken to ensure that policies on rape investigation and prosecution are translated into practice.
John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will consider the merits of proposals for (a) appealable community penalties and (b) reparation fixed penalty notices for minor crimes. 
Maria Eagle: Community sentences are available for all offences that also carry imprisonment. The sentence in any individual case is entirely a matter for the court, which can impose a community sentence if it considers the offence serious enough to warrant that but not so serious if the custody is the only proper response. All sentences are appealable.
Fixed penalty notices are simple non-bureaucratic financial punishments designed to deal with minor crimes on the spot. As their name implies, they are fixed. This concept does not lend itself to reparation. There are alternative, more suitable out-of-court disposals available, such as conditional cautions, where offenders can be required to make reparations such as repairing any damage caused.
Raising public confidence in the criminal justice system (CJS) is one of the Governments key public service agreement (PSA) targets, and is measured through responses given to the BCS. The PSA2 indicator (year ending March 2003 to March 2008) was based on the question
How confident are you that the criminal justice system is effective in bringing offenders who commit crime to justice?.
As part of the process of measuring the new Justice for All public service agreement PSA 24, a new set of questions were developed to measure public perceptions of the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system (CJS). These questions are contained in the British Crime Survey, and respondents are asked about their confidence in each of the individual agencies that comprise the CJS. Two of these questions relate to prisons:
How confident are you that Prisons are effective at punishing offenders who have been convicted of a crime?
How confident are you that Prisons are effective at rehabilitating offenders who have been convicted of a crime?
Mr. Straw: As announced on 14 June 2007, the estimated set-up costs for the UK Supreme Court are £36.7 million for capital construction, which will be met over a 30-year period through rental payments of £2.1 million per annum, increasing at a rate of 2.5 per cent per annum, plus £20.2 million of other set-up costs (including provision of library, visitor and dining facilities). The only change to this estimate is an additional £2 million for repair work I announced on 3 July 2008, Official Report, column 59WS, and new security measures. The House will be updated of costs once we have the final figure.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many (a) convictions and (b) acquittals there have been in cases where people have been prosecuted for using imperial weights and measures at point of sale in each of the last three years; and what sentence was handed down in respect of each conviction; 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|