|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Godsiff: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) hit and run accidents, (b) hit and run accidents in which the driver did not have insurance and (c) hit and run drivers taken to court there were in Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath constituency in each of the last three years. 
Claire Ward: Data on the number of reported hit and run personal injury road accidents in the Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath constituency provided by the Department for Transport (DfT) from 2005 to 2008 are shown in table 1. The DfT does not collect information centrally on uninsured drivers involved in hit and run accidents.
Information available on the Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database cannot identify those defendants, proceeded against for offences of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third-party risks that have been involved in a hit and run accident.
The number of persons 'proceeded against at magistrates' courts for the offence of 'failing to stop after an accident' in the west midlands police force area, from 2005 to 2007 (latest available) is shown in table 2.
Court proceedings data are not available at parliamentary constituency level, therefore information is given for the west midlands police force area in which the Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath constituency is located.
|Table 1: Reported hit and run personal injury road accidents in the Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath parliamentary constituency( 1) , 2005 - 08|
|(1) Based on 2004 parliamentary constituency boundaries. Source: Department for Transport.|
|Table 2: Persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for the offence of failing to stop after an accident( 1, 2, 3 ) in the west midlands police force area, from 2003 - 07( 4, 5)|
|(1) Not all hit and run incidents are pursued through the courts-minor ones in particular may not involve police attendance and may not be reported to the police by the injured party. (2) "Hit and run" usually refers to a collision in which someone was injured or killed. The offence of failure to stop is also committed if there has only been damage but such incidents cannot be distinguished from those involving injury or death. (3) A person involved in a hit and run incident may be convicted of a more serious offence such as dangerous driving. (4) The figures given in the table 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 it 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. (5) 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.|
Mr. Godsiff: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much has been spent by (a) HM Courts Service and (b) his Department in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath constituency on interpreters for (A) suspects, (B) charged individuals and (C) victims of crime who are unable to speak English in each of the last three years. 
|To nearest £000|
|(1) This figure includes translation costs as well as interpretation costs. The amounts are separately recorded and can be disaggregated only 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 be determined only at disproportionate cost through examination of local records.
Expenditure by Her Majesty's Courts Service for interpreters in the Crown Courts in the Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath constituency was £155,700 in 2007-08 and £128,600 in 2008-09. This expenditure was incurred by Birmingham Crown Court which is the only Crown Court falling within the constituency of Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath.
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.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the advice of the Attorney-General on the rights of illegitimate children in a succession to the Crown (a) was requested prior to and (b) has been requested since the deposition in February 1981 of the UK's interpretative declaration of articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of Wedlock. 
Claire Ward: By long-standing convention, observed by successive Administrations and embodied in the Ministerial Code, the fact that the Law Officers have advised (or have not advised) on a particular issue, and the content of any advice, is not disclosed outside Government without their authority.
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which organisations he (a) has consulted and (b) plans to consult regarding the proposed reduction in the number of staff at the National Offender Management Service headquarters. 
Maria Eagle: All trade union groups have been, and will continue to be, informed about and consulted on planned reductions to staffing levels in National Offender Management Service (NOMS) headquarters through the established NOMS trade union engagement structures.
Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what guidance has been issued to the Legal Complaints Service on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to those of its staff who are transferring to the Office for Legal Complaints; 
Bridget Prentice: The Office for Legal Complaints will administer the Legal Ombudsman Scheme which will provide a single point of entry with consistent handling of all consumer complaints about providers of regulated legal services. This will replace the existing complaints handling regime with a new system and therefore the operation of the Legal Complaints Service will not transfer to the Office for Legal Complaints.
To date no decisions have been made to transfer staff. The Law Society has commenced legal proceedings to seek clarification on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. The decision of the court will be a matter of public record.
Bridget Prentice: At present the OLC has four permanent members of staff one of whom is Adam Sampson who formally took up post as Chief Ombudsman and Chief Executive on 1 July 2009. The roles of the other three permanent employees are Head of External Affairs, Board Secretary and Head of Human Resources. In addition, the OLC has two employees on fixed term contracts: the interim Chief Operation Officer and an administrator. This team is supported by nine agency staff employed on an interim basis.
Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost to the public purse has been of establishing the Office for Legal Complaints; and whether he expects further such costs to be incurred. 
Bridget Prentice: The budgeted cost of establishing the Office for Legal Complaints is £15.1 million. To date £7 million has been expended or committed. However, the costs of establishing the Office for Legal Complaints will be recouped through a levy on the legal professions, and therefore, ultimately, there will be no cost to the public purse.
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he is taking to ensure equality of opportunity in respect of staff on the Prison Service surplus list and Probation Service secondees in applying for vacant positions in either service. 
Maria Eagle: Probation services are not part of the civil service, and their employees are not civil servants. Therefore recruitment to the National Offender Management service (NOMS)-which is a civil service agency-or any other civil service department or agency must reflect that distinction, and NOMS must follow civil service wide procedures for managing surplus staff that have been agreed with civil service trade unions.
Probation boards and trusts are employers in their own right and therefore have individual recruitment and secondment policies as well as individual policies for dealing with surplus staff which have been agreed with the probation trade unions.
Andrew Stunell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection have (a) had access to and (b) completed (i) one or more sex offender treatment programme courses, (ii) the Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It course and (iii) the Enhanced Thinking Skills course in each of the last five years; 
(2) how many prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection (a) have been assessed as needing the healthy relationships programme and (b) have completed the healthy relationships programme, in each prison providing the programme in each year since such programmes were introduced; 
(3) how many of those prisoners serving indeterminate public protection sentences who have reached their tariff expiry date had completed (a) none, (b) one and (c) two or more of the offender behaviour courses specified on their sentence plans prior to the expiry of the tariff; 
(4) how many prisoners serving indeterminate public protection sentences had completed (a) no, (b) one and (c) two or more offender behaviour courses on the most recent date for which figures are available; 
Maria Eagle: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) database on indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP) prisoners holds information on IPPs currently in custody. It therefore does not include those who have been discharged, or those whose IPP sentence was subsequently quashed. Although it captures data on access to, and completions of, accredited offending behaviour programmes, it does not record the date or location of programme completions, so answers are not broken down by year or location of completion.
In 2009 NOMS rolled out the Thinking Skills programme, which will replace the Enhanced Thinking Skills programme. The following figures therefore include data for both programmes. On 19 January 2010 there were a total of 5,828 IPPs currently in custody. Of those IPPs currently in custody:
628 have had access to one or more Sex Offender Treatment programme courses;
842 have had access to the Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It (CALM) programme;
3,509 have had access to the Enhanced Thinking Skills programme (ETS) or the Thinking Skills programme (TSP);
497 have completed one or more Sex Offender Treatment programme courses;
755 have completed the CALM programme; and
3,344 have completed the ETS or TSP programmes.
24 have been assessed as needing the Healthy Relationships programme; and
52 have completed the Healthy Relationships programme.
On 19 January 2010 there were a total of 2,468 IPPs who had reached their tariff expiry date. As the NOMS IPP database does not record the dates of accredited Offending Behaviour programme completions, it is not possible to determine whether the completions took place before or after tariff expiry.
466 have completed no accredited Offending Behaviour programmes;
779 have completed one accredited Offending Behaviour programme; and
1,223 have completed two or more accredited Offending Behaviour programmes.
1,991 have completed no accredited Offending Behaviour programmes;
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|