|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Applied for, and secured, staff training between October 2007 and March 2009( 1) : 1 January 2008 to 31 March 2009( 2)|
|Ethnicity||Total employees||Number received training|
|(1 )No formal training took place between 1 October 2007 and January 2008, when our mandatory training programme commenced.|
(2) This includes both permanent and temporary staff.
Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the answer of 12 November 2009, Official Report, column 842W, on interpreters: finance, for what reasons he has not yet written to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford with the information he undertook to provide by Christmas 2009. 
I apologise for the delay. However, during the collation of the information requested, we identified that inconsistent answers had been given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Justice (Maria Eagle) to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on 9 May 2008, Official Report, columns 1270- 71W and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on 2 June 2008, Official Report, columns 640-41W and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Straw) to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on 16 March 2009, Official Report, columns 955-56W and the
hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) on 20 April 2009, Official Report, column 337W, on the subject of interpreters expenditure. This necessitated an investigation which has now concluded. The information requested is provided in the following table and covers all the information the Ministry of Justice holds on interpreters expenditure. I will also write to the hon. Members who received incomplete information with a full response as soon as possible.
|The expenditure for financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09|
|To nearest £ 000|
|(1) This figure includes translation costs as well as interpretation costs. The amounts are not separately recorded and can only be disaggregated at disproportionate costs.|
It is not possible to separately identify expenditure on interpreters by magistrates courts from other magistrates costs financed from the Central Fund Budget without incurring the disproportionate cost of examining every transaction, the supporting records for which are held locally. Sample exercises have been undertaken in the past to estimate the proportion of magistrates expenditure that relates to interpreters but they have yielded inconsistent results.
The NOMS figure excludes expenditure by the National Probation Service which is held locally by 42 probation boards and trusts who use separate and different accounting systems. Information could only be determined at disproportionate cost through examination of local records.
Expenditure by Her Majesty's Courts Service for interpreters in Crown courts in the Essex region in 2008-09 was £101,941. The comparable figure for 2007-08 cannot be separately identified from the Central Fund payment records which did not include regional identifiers. Information for other parts of the Department is not recorded on a regional basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Her Majesty's Courts Service meets interpreters' costs for victims, which are provided above. The police meet interpreters' costs for suspects and charged individuals. Police costs are funded by the Home Office.
Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department spent on works and refurbishment to offices allocated to Ministers in his Department's buildings in the last 12 months. 
There has been some normal maintenance work to heating, cooling and lighting systems in Ministers' offices. The costs for these visits are part of an overall building maintenance agreement and, while it is not possible to separate them out with accuracy, these costs are estimated to be less than £2,000.
(a) Office space of 68,240 square metres (net internal area), all of which is rented and none of which is vacant.
(b) Annual rental cost of £25,588,986.
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the implications for the Government's policy of the European Commission draft regulation on jurisdiction applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments of succession and the creation of a European certificate of succession; and if he will make a statement. 
Bridget Prentice: I refer the hon. Member to the written statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Straw) on 16 December 2009, Official Report, columns 140-41WS.
Mr. Wills: Section 5(3) of the Freedom of Information Act requires the Secretary of State to consult with persons to whom a section 5 order may relate. The consultation with Academy Trusts concluded on 1 December 2009 and the responses received are being considered. Subject to the outcome of this consideration, the Government intend to bring forward a section 5 order in this session of Parliament.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many (a) documents and (b) other items of information held in electronic format at each level of security classification the Iraq Inquiry has requested from his Department; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) whether any (a) documents and (b) other items of information held in electronic format sought from his Department by the Iraq Inquiry have not been
disclosed owing to Government's obligations to foreign governments or international bodies; and if he will make a statement; 
(3) how many and what proportion of the (a) documents and (b) other items of information held in electronic format at each level of security classification requested by the Iraq Inquiry have been provided to it by his Department; and if he will make a statement. 
Bridget Prentice: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (Angela E. Smith) has answered on behalf of all Departments. Her answer was published on 14 December 2009, Official Report, columns 840-41W.
Bridget Prentice: The Legal Services Commission manages individual case contracts on all very high cost criminal cases for trials lasting 41 days or over. The costs are agreed between the service providers and the LSC at each stage. The LSC also manages civil cases where the costs are likely to exceed £25,000 under individual case contracts. Expenditure on criminal and civil very high cost cases is shown in the following tables.
|Crime very high cost cases|
|Expenditure (£ million)||Percentage of total criminal defence service expenditure||Percentage of total Crown court and higher courts expenditure|
|Civil very high cost cases|
|Expenditure (£ million)||Percentage of total community legal service expenditure|
Bridget Prentice: Sharia councils do not describe themselves as 'courts' as they do not have powers to enforce their decisions. Sharia councils are not part of the court system in England and Wales, and are not unified under one system. Marriages conducted under sharia law are not legally recognised in England and Wales unless they also comply with the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949. The English and Welsh courts do not legally recognise divorces granted by any faith groups. The Government do not maintain statistics on either marriages or divorces conducted by sharia councils.
Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many indeterminate sentences for public protection were given tariffs of 23 months or less in (a) 2005, (b) 2006, (c) 2007 and (d) 2008. 
Maria Eagle: The number of offenders sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) with a tariff of 23 months or less sentenced in each of the years requested is shown in the following table:
|I PPs sentenced with a tariff of 23 months or less|
By virtue of provisions in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which took effect from 14 July 2008, an IPP may not be passed where the minimum tariff is less than two years, except where offenders have committed extremely serious crimes in the past.
The figures in the table above are taken from the Public Protection Unit Database in the National Offender Management Service, and, as with any large scale recording system, it is subject to possible errors arising from either data entry or processing.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|