|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what targets he has set for the (a) Probation Service and (b) National Offender Management Service for efficiency savings in (i) 2009-10 and (ii) each of the subsequent five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Maria Eagle: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) efficiency savings for the financial year 2009-10 are £171 million (near cash) and this includes efficiency savings for probation of £20 million (near cash).
The NOMS planned savings form part of the £1 billion savings plan for the Ministry of Justice agreed in the comprehensive spending review 2007 settlement, which covered three years ending March 2011. NOMS and the MOJ remain absolutely committed to delivering the best services possible to our service users and the public. Ministers are determined to ensure savings are prudent, and wherever possible, release resources to the "frontline" operational delivery units.
Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what criteria apply to public bodies in determining whether a document (a) has been identified as being available for re-use and (b) is available for re-use under the Re-use of Public Sector Information provisions. 
Mr. Wills: Public sector bodies need to ascertain whether the documents fall within the scope of the Regulations on the Re-use of Public Sector Information (SI 2005/1515) taking into account whether: the document was supplied within the public sector organisation's public task; the document falls within the scope of the Regulations; the intellectual property rights rest with the public sector organisation; and whether it has already been identified as being available for re-use.
Mr. Wills: The policy responsibility for public sector information and its re-use originally rested with the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Ministry of Justice assumed responsibility for this policy in October 2006. I am responsible for this policy.
Mr. Straw: Data on the multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) are published in local Area MAPPA Annual Reports. The MAPPA Annual Reports have included in each of the last five years the number of offenders managed at levels 2 and 3 who have been charged with serious further offences-but not all offences. Areas have not so far been asked to report on charges of re-offending against MAPPA level 1 offenders, so the data requested are currently unavailable.
The purpose of the MAPPA Annual Report is to show what multi-agency intervention and resources bring to local public protection arrangements. The focus of the data, therefore, has been upon the offenders managed at level 2 and 3 rather than at level 1, where offenders are managed through ordinary agency management.
However, in order to provide data on the whole offender population eligible for multi-agency management and resources, since April 2009 all areas have been required to record instances of offenders managed at level 1 of MAPPA who are charged with serious further offences (as well as those managed at levels 2 and 3), with a view to inclusion in next year's annual reports.
Community sentences have played an integral part in the 23.6 per cent. fall in the frequency of juvenile reoffending rates between 2000 and 2007, from 151.4 offences per 100 offenders committed within one year, to 115.7 offences. We recognise that there is a lack of evidence of 'what works' with young people, which is why we have commissioned the Juvenile Cohort Study. This is designed to track some 10,000 young offenders from 30 different Youth Offending Teams over a period of approximately two years, between 2008 and 2010, to
explore the experiences of different types of young offenders within the criminal justice system. The Juvenile Cohort Study will assess the impact of interventions and combination of interventions that are associated with a reduction in reoffending in different types of young offenders subject to the criminal justice system.
Mr. Straw: The Supreme Court was delivered on time and within budget. Closure of the final accounts is under way and the full costs for the court will be announced in a written ministerial statement in due course.
Current estimated set-up costs (as announced in June 2007) are £58.9 million (made up of £36.7 million renovation costs which will be paid for by an annual lease charge of £2.1 million over 30 years and £22.2 million for repairs to external stonework, professional adviser fees, programme team costs, furniture, IT services and library costs).
In addition, the security provision at Middlesex Guildhall has been reassessed in line with other high-profile buildings in central London. While this increased overall construction costs, these remain within budget.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) corporate tax and (b) other tax cases were heard by the Tax Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and its predecessor in each financial year since 1995-96. 
|VAT and Duties||Special Commissioners of Income Tax|
|Financial year||Disposed at hearing||Disposed-other||Disposed at hearing||Disposed-other|
TS Tax Business Plan
As part of the implementation of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax), data was collated and agreed by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Tribunals Service for the year 2006-07. During that year, 9,545 cases were heard before the General Commissioners and five cases were held before the Section 706 Tribunals. No other data are available for years prior to April 2009.
Since April 2009, the Tax Chamber has not differentiated between direct and indirect tax. It has heard 779 appeals. The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on the specific type of appeal, e.g. corporation tax. This information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost by checking individual records of all appeals.
Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people in Leeds, North West constituency were prosecuted for not having a television licence in each of the last three years. 
Claire Ward: Information showing the number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for television licence evasion in the West Yorkshire police force area from 2005 to 2007 (latest available) is shown in the following table. Information is not available at constituency level; therefore police force area level data have been provided in lieu.
|Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for television licence evasion, in West Yorkshire police force area, 2005 to 2007( 1, 2)|
|(1) The statistics 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.|
(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.
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice.
|All female establishments|
|Direct cost per place (£)|
The direct cost per place for 2008-09 is shown net of income from the Department of Health and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, whereas for earlier years it is gross. This partly explains the reduction in cost in 2008-09.
Traditionally HMPS annual accounts have published the cost per place using only costs met by establishments. For 2007-08 and 2008-09 a more comprehensive cost has been calculated which includes prison related costs met centrally by HMPS and NOMS, and these are shown in the following table.
|All female establishments|
|Total overall cost per place (£)|
The overall average costs comprise the public sector establishments' direct resource expenditure, increased by an apportionment of costs borne centrally by HMPS and the NOMS; and the resource expenditure of contracted-out prisons also increased by certain costs borne centrally. This involves some estimation. The figures do not include prisoners held in police and court cells under Operation Safeguard, nor expenditure met by other Departments (e.g. for health and education). The prisoner escort service is included.
accredited qualifications in community skills, social and personal development
business start up
supporting transition between custody and community
access to employment
"Working with the third sector to reduce re-offending Securing effective partnerships 2008-11", provides a framework for securing a continuation of engagement with such organisations and provides endorsement to the kinds of activities in which they are engaged.
Maria Eagle: Youth offending teams receive funding from a number of sources. The following table, taken from the forthcoming Youth Justice Board annual work load publication 2008-09, shows financial contributions made to youth offending teams (YOTs) via the YJB and other Government sources (including police, probation, social services and via local authorities) in the financial year 2008-09:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|