---

16 Dec 2009 : Column 1241W—continued

Jersey: EC law

Dr. Iddon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when officials of his Department last met representatives of the authorities in Jersey to discuss the implementation of the (a) Food Supplements Directive and (b) Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation. [307052]

Mr. Wills: Ministry of Justice officials last met representatives of the authorities in Jersey to discuss the implementation of the Food Supplements Directive and the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation on 14 September 2009.

Judges: Sentencing

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what training judges receive on consistency in sentencing; what steps he (a) has taken in the last three years and (b) plans to take to encourage consistency in sentencing; and if he will make a statement; [306107]

(2) what guidelines his Department has issued to judges on consistency of sentencing since December 2008; and if he will make a statement. [306108]

Maria Eagle: The responsibility for judicial training lies with the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary and is exercised through the independent Judicial Studies Board (JSB).

Sentencing is an independent function and judges and magistrates are responsible for making decisions in
16 Dec 2009 : Column 1242W
individual cases subject to the statutory framework laid down by Parliament. All those who pass a sentence will also consider relevant case law, Court of Appeal decisions and any guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Guidelines Council.

Training for both judges and magistrates seeks to promote a consistent approach to decision making, and uses sentencing exercises to give judges the opportunity to discuss the issues involved.

Responsibility for issuing sentencing guidelines rests with the Sentencing Guidelines Council, not the Government. The Council was set up under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and is an independent body chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. In framing or revising sentencing guidelines the Council must have regard to the need to promote consistency in sentencing. The Sentencing Council for England and Wales, created by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 as an independent body, will replace the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Sentencing Guidelines Council with a significantly expanded remit.

Subject to Parliament's approval of the relevant orders provided for in the Coroners and Justice Act, it is expected that the Sentencing Council for England and Wales will be established by April 2010. The Sentencing Council will encourage greater consistency in sentencing as courts will be obliged to follow relevant guidelines published by the Council unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so, and must include reference to those guidelines when explaining why a sentence given is significantly different from that guideline.

Legal Services Commission: Public Relations

Mr. Hurd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what payments the Legal Services Commission has made to Positif Politics Ltd in the last 12 months; for what purposes; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract under which such payments were made. [305422]

Bridget Prentice: The Legal Services Commission in Wales (as a non devolved body) has a contract with Positif Politics Ltd to track Welsh Assembly Government business. The purpose of the contract with Postif Politics is to ensure that the Legal Services Commission is kept up to date with developments in the National Assembly and Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) that might have an impact on the provision of legal aid services for Welsh citizens. The LSC jurisdiction is across England and Wales and most changes in law and process that have an impact on legal aid derive from Westminster. However many of the issues that can have an impact on social welfare law services are devolved matters for the Assembly Government.

The current contract covers the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 at a total cost of £4,365.

A copy of the contract will be placed in the Library.

Police Cautions and Convictions

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people (a) were convicted and (b) received a caution for offences of (i) perverting the course of justice, (ii) attempting to pervert the course of justice and (iii) wasting police time in England and Wales in
16 Dec 2009 : Column 1243W
each of the last 10 years; and how many and what proportion in each such category were convicted or cautioned as a result of having been found to have made false complaints of rape or other sexual assault. [307767]

Maria Eagle: The number of persons found guilty at all courts in England and Wales for perjury, attempting to pervert the course of public justice, and wasting police time, from 1998 to 2007 (latest available) is given in Table 1. The number of cautions issued for these offences is given in Table 2.

16 Dec 2009 : Column 1244W

Statistical information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Cautions and Court Proceedings Database for England and Wales does not identify the circumstances of the offence. Therefore it is not possible to separately identify those cautions or convictions that have arisen from complaints of rape or other sexual assault.

Cautions and court proceedings data for 2008 are planned for publication on 28 January 2010.

Table 1: The number of persons found guilty at all courts of perjury, attempting to pervert the course of public justice, and wasting police time, England and Wales 1998 to 2007( 1,2)
Statute	Offence description	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Perjury Act 1911, s.1; Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.89; Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.106; Criminal Justice Act 1925, s.36; County Courts Act 1984, s.133; mental Health Act 1983, s. 126(4); Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, s.12(2) (part); Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s.75.	Perjury and false statements (also false declarations and representations made punishable by any statute).	175	114	135	92	81	108	145	126	91	91
Common Law.	Attempting to pervert the course of public justice (fabrication of false evidence, causing person to be wrongly convicted, interference with witness)(3)	1,803	1,780	1,629	1,798	1,549	1,391	1,311	1,271	1,304	1,172
Criminal Law Act 1967, s.5(2).	Causing wasteful employment of the police etc.	57	53	81	72	62	66	111	133	160	225
Total		2,035	1,947	1,845	1,962	1,692	1,565	1,567	1,530	1,555	1,488
(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. (3) Does not include: intimidating a juror or witness or person assisting in investigation of offence or harming or threatening to harm a witness, juror or person assisting in investigation. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice

16 Dec 2009 : Column 1245W

16 Dec 2009 : Column 1246W

Table 2: The number of persons cautioned'( 1) for perjury, attempting to pervert the course of public justice, and wasting police time, England and Wales 1998 to 2007( 2)
Statute	Offence description	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Perjury Act 1911, s.1; Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.89; Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.106; Criminal Justice Act 1925, s.36; County Courts Act 1984, s.133; mental Health Act1983, s. 126(4); Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act1969, s.12(2) (part); Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s.75.	Perjury and false statements (also false declarations and representations made punishable by any statute).	42	37	17	11	17	26	39	26	44	46
Common Law.	Attempting to pervert the course of public justice (fabrication of false evidence, causing person to be wrongly convicted, interference with witness)(3)	316	312	259	226	202	283	311	377	405	286
Criminal Law Act 1967, s.5(2).	Causing wasteful employment of the police etc.	117	108	96	78	98	110	166	202	288	371
Total		475	457	372	315	317	419	516	605	737	703
(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 cautioned for two or more offences at the same time the principal offence is the more serious offence. From 1 June 2000 the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 came into force nationally and removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and replaced them with reprimands and warnings. These are included in the totals. (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 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. (3) Does not include: intimidating a juror or witness or person assisting in investigation of offence or harming or threatening to harm a witness, juror or person assisting in investigation. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice

Police: Sentencing

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what (a) representations he has received from and (b) discussions he has had with police forces on sentencing policy since December 2008; and if he will make a statement. [306091]

Maria Eagle: The Green Paper "Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice", published in April 2009, contained questions relating to sentencing policy (e.g. reviews of community sentences, and content of those sentences). Responses on those points were received from police forces. There are also ongoing discussions with police forces of criminal justice issues, including sentencing where relevant, across the range of criminal justice forums on which the police are represented.

Prisons: Television

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners have access to satellite television broadcasts in their cells. [306660]

Maria Eagle: No public sector prisoners have access to satellite television in their cells as no public sector prisons have in cell satellite television. Five contracted prisons have access to a limited number of satellite television channels in cell: Altcourse, Dovegate, Lowdham Grange, Parc and Rye Hill. In these establishments, satellite television in cell is generally only available to prisoners who are on the Enhanced or Standard level of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme. This means that numbers of prisoners with access may change on a daily basis. At 10 December 2009 this figure was approximately 4,070.

Public Contracts Regulations 2006

Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the new plea negotiations guidelines for implementation of regulation 23 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, with regard to mandatory exclusion. [307445]

The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply.

The Attorney-General's Guidelines on Plea Discussions in cases of Serious or Complex Fraud, which provide a framework within which prosecutors and defence can discuss the issues in a case from an early stage to narrow issues or to reach agreement about acceptable pleas of guilty to criminal offences, do not affect the operation of the law.

Reoffenders

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offences have been committed by those on home detention curfews since 1997. [306664]

Maria Eagle: The table gives the number of offences committed by offenders while on HDC between 2003-04 and 2007-08.

	Number of offenders on HDC( 1)	Number of reoffences( 2)
2003-04	20,802	2,307
2004-05	18,587	1,533
2005-06	15,443	1,176
2006-07	12,626	822
2007-08	11,316	820
(1 )Offenders starting HDC during the quarter; excludes offenders who were listed in the prison data but could not be found on the PNC. 2 The total number offences committed whilst on HDC that resulted in a conviction or caution within nine months of the end of the quarter.

---