| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
14 Dec 2009 : Column 787W—continued
| Estimated additional expenditure on pension credit due to the severe disability premium, for claimants aged 65 and over and living in England | |
| Total expenditure (£ million) | |
| Notes: 1. Expenditure estimates are consistent with expenditure information published on the internet at http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/expenditure.asp 2. The proportion of total pension credit expenditure relating to this group has been estimated using a 5 per cent. sample snapshot of cases in August of each year. 3. For couples, age is defined as the age of the claimant. 4. Additional expenditure on pension credit due to the severe disability premium is defined as the lower of the value of the premium(s) used in the pension credit assessment and the weekly pension credit award. 5. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest £10 million. Source: DWP Statistical and Accounting Data | |
Social Security Benefits: Mortgages
Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment she has made of the effects of the time taken to make support for mortgage interest payments on people in receipt of (a) income support, (b) income-based jobseeker's allowance, (c) income-related employment and support allowance and (d) pension credit; what the reasons are for the time taken to make such payments; how many people she estimates will be affected by the time taken; what estimate she has made of the monetary value of such outstanding payments; when she expects payments to be made in accordance with target times; and if she will make a statement. [304879]
Helen Goodman [holding answer 7 December 2009]: The information is not available in the format requested.
Neither Jobcentre Plus nor the Pension Disability and Carers Service has separate specific targets for processing support for mortgage interest (SMI) payments. Clearance times for SMI payments are measured along with all other claims or changes of circumstances affecting benefits.
Jobcentre Plus is meeting the actual average clearance targets for changes for all primary benefits; the Pension Disability and Carers Service is meeting its targets for clearing pension credit claims.
Written Questions: Government Responses
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons question (a) 300399 on definition of disability and (b) 300517 on expenditure on disability benefits, was not answered before 9 December 2009. [307203]
Jonathan Shaw: Answers to questions 300399 and 300517 were not given to the hon. Member on the due dates as a result of administrative delays, for which I sincerely apologise.
Justice
Correctional Services Accreditation Panel
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much remuneration the chair of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel receives. [304317]
Mr. Straw: The chair of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel is the Head of Performance and Regulation, Criminal Justice Group, Ministry of Justice. He is a senior civil servant who performs this role as part of his normal duties and receives no additional payment in relation to the chairmanship of CSAP.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people worked for the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel in each of the last three years. [304318]
Mr. Straw: In addition to the chair, the panel consists of appointed members, who are independent experts in offending behaviour programmes, the principles of effective practice and/or accreditation. 12 members were appointed in 2003 for a period of three years. These appointments and the appointment of the acting chair were extended until 31 April 2008.
Following an open competition in January 2008, 15 independent experts were appointed. Members are appointed to carry out work when required and remuneration is dependent on that work and attending the panel which convenes on an ad hoc basis. The panel is supported by one full-time civil servant who manages the programme of work.
Bill of Rights
Mrs. Laing: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether invited members of the public were remunerated for attendance at his Department's deliberative events on British values. [306703]
Mr. Wills: At the regional events which took place on Saturdays throughout October in London, Cardiff, Sheffield, Gateshead and Edinburgh invited members of the public received an incentive payment of £75 per person. A total of 457 people attended the regional events. At the reconvened events in November in Gateshead and Birmingham (for which more travelling time was required for most delegates) invited members of the public received an incentive payment of £85 per person. A total of 225 people attended the reconvened events. When carrying out general population research it is usual for research companies to make incentive payments as a means to ensure that the research not only includes active individuals who like to engage in these discussions but also encourages less engaged individuals to take part. Incentive payments are especially important in the case of events of this nature, as participants will often be expected to travel long distances to attend and will also be expected to reconvene as part of the next stages in the deliberative events process.
Convictions
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average age was of people convicted of (a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery, (d) burglary and (e) drug offences in each year since 1997. [306376]
Maria Eagle: The average age of persons found guilty at all courts in England and Wales, by selected offence type, from 1997 to 2007 (latest available) is given in the following table.
Data for 2008 are planned for publication on 28 January 2010.
| The average age of persons convicted at all courts for selected types of offence, England and Wales 1997 to 2007( 1, 2) | |||||||||||
| Offence type | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
| (1) The statistics relate to the average age of 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. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice. | |||||||||||
Crimes of Violence
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many threats made by prisoners to prison officers were reported in the latest period for which figures are available; and what his Department's policy is on action to be taken in response to such reports. [305124]
Maria Eagle: A prisoner who makes threats to anyone may be charged under the prison or young offender institution rules with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. The charge will be dealt with at an adjudication hearing by a prison governor, or in more serious cases by an independent adjudicator (district judge). If the charge is proved the governor may impose any of the punishments set out in the rules, ranging from a caution, forfeiture of privileges, stoppage of earning, or cellular confinement. An independent adjudicator may impose any of these punishments, plus up to 42 additional days in custody.
The Offender Management Caseload Statistics (OMCS), available on the Ministry of Justice website at:
show that in 2008, 16,048 offences of threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour were punished following guilty findings at adjudications. The OMCS do not
show the number of these offences that were directed at prison officers (as opposed to other members of staff, other prisoners, or visitors), or how many charges were not proven or not proceeded with.
Any threats by prisoners towards prison staff should be recorded on a Security Information Report (SIR). In the period January to August 2009, 15,232 SIRs were submitted in connection with threats to staff and others, but these records do not show how many of these incidents related to threats to prison officers, other staff, or visitors.
Alternatively to, or in addition to, the prison disciplinary system, prisoners' behaviour is taken into account when their privilege level under the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme is reviewed. A pattern of bad behaviour, such as making threats, or a particularly serious single incident, is likely to lead to a loss of privileges under the scheme. No figures are available on the number of prisoners whose privilege level has been reduced as a consequence of making threats.
Crown Courts
Sir Stuart Bell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what recent assessment he has made of the level of competition for contracts for the provision of advocacy services in the Crown Court Criminal Defence Service; [306377]
(2) what his policy is on the provision of criminal litigation support and advocacy services in respect of a case in the Crown Court by the same firm of solicitors; and what value for money assessment has been made of that practice; [306378]
(3) if he will make an assessment of the potential effects on standards of representation in the Crown Court provided by the Criminal Defence Service of the appointment by the solicitors' firms providing criminal litigation support of advocates from those firms; [306379]
(4) if he will make an assessment of the potential effects on standards of advice given to a client of the Criminal Defence Service of the appointment to the client's case of a solicitor and an advocate from the same firm, with particular reference to (a) advice on the right to silence during an investigation and (b) the avoidance of adverse references at trial. [306380]
Bridget Prentice: With the exception of some advocates on very high cost (crime) cases, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) does not directly contract with advocates for the provision of advocacy services in the Crown court. The LSC is currently consulting on changes to the way that it procures advocacy services for high cost criminal cases. Currently there are sufficient advocates of appropriate quality to meet the needs of the Criminal Defence Service.
Solicitor advocates must pass through an appropriate accreditation scheme before they are able to appear in the Crown court. The aim of this is to ensure that they achieve an equivalent level of skills to barristers. It is also the case that solicitor advocates and barristers-whether employed or self-employed-are under a professional obligation only to take on cases for which they are suitably experienced and qualified.
In commissioning defence and other services, the LSC needs to be able to rely on suitable standards and accreditation to provide assurance as to the quality and value for money of the services it is buying. MOJ and the LSC have spent three years working with the professional bodies, the senior judiciary and the Crown Prosecution Service to develop a quality assurance scheme for all advocates as recognition of the significant change in those now permitted to partake in advocacy. In the longer term, the Quality Assurance of Advocates scheme (QAA) which is currently being developed may become a contractual requirement for all advocates wishing to undertake publicly funded advocacy.
Advocates, whether solicitor advocates or barristers, are not involved in advising clients during investigations prior to charge. If a litigator advises his client to remain silent during interview, then that is a matter of professional judgment at that time with no bearing on any decision to instruct an in-house advocate or independent counsel if the client is subsequently charged.
Departmental Freedom of Information
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many officials in his Department's Information Directorate were seconded to the Information Commissioner's Office in (a) 2007, (b) 2008 and (c) 2009. [306648]
Mr. Wills: The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is the independent authority responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act.
The ICO is supported by one secondee from the Information Directorate in the Ministry of Justice, who joined the Office in April 2009. There have been no previous secondees from the Information Directorate.
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 received by his Department in 2008 received a substantive response within 20 days. [305570]
Mr. Wills: Statistics published by the Ministry of Justice on Freedom of Information in central Government for 2008 show that of a total of 2,492 non-routine requests received by the Department, 56 per cent. (1,393) received a substantive response within 20 days. 62 per cent. (1,537) of requests were dealt with 'in time', that is, within 20 days or by meeting a permitted extension deadline.
To improve its performance, the Department brought the management of all of its freedom of information requests within the remit of a new data access and compliance unit, in late 2008.
Since 2008, the timeliness with which it deals with requests has risen substantially-from 51 per cent. at the end of 2008 to 71 per cent. in the second quarter of 2009. It expects to see further improvements in timeliness during 2009.
The statistics can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |