| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Mar 2010 : Column 1012W—continued
Justice
Arrest Warrants: War Crimes
Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) which (a) individuals and (b) organisations have been sent copies of his Department's Better Trials Unit's consultation note, Arrest warrants - universal jurisdiction; [322816]
(2) for what reasons the consultation on Arrest warrants - universal jurisdiction is not listed on his Department's website; [322817]
(3) what steps his Department has taken to include countries whose citizens are at risk of arrest for war crimes in his Department's consultation on Arrest warrants - universal jurisdiction. [322818]
Claire Ward: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor wrote on 6 March to the Chairman of the Justice Select Committee, inviting the Committee to consider proposals that were set out in a short paper, 'Arrest warrants-universal jurisdiction'. The Chairman replied on 10 March with the suggestion that the Government should first seek views from appropriate sources directly, which the Committee would then consider.
Copies of the paper have now been sent to interested parties, including the Lord Chief Justice, the Senior Presiding Judge, the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate), the Justices' Clerks' Society, the Criminal Bar Association, the Law' Society, Liberty, JUSTICE, and Amnesty International. It has also been placed on
the Ministry of Justice website. We have not sought the views of foreign Governments, but will take note of any that may be offered.
Departmental Theft
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department is taking to deter theft from within the Department. [322652]
Mr. Wills: The Department applies a regime of protective security in accordance with the Government's Security Policy Framework. Measures to protect assets and deter theft involve access controls, including perimeter security, guarding, alarms, CCTV and pass wearing; provision of secure storage to lock valuable assets away, and personnel checks to ensure trustworthiness of those given unsupervised access to sites and assets. These are supplemented in prisons by local searching strategies and daily checks on store areas. We have a security breach policy which is linked to our conduct and discipline policies. Our programme of action to improve the security of information assets, flowing from the Data Handling Review, includes training and awareness which covers the value of assets, awareness of risk and the need for protection.
Juries: Disabled People
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether support is available to enable people with learning disabilities to serve on juries. [321971]
Mr. Straw: Support is available from both the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB) and the courts to enable people with learning disabilities to serve on juries.
All potential jurors must complete their reply to their jury summons and return it to the JCSB with the help from a friend or family member, if necessary. Part 4 of the summons asks jurors ,to identify any disabilities and special needs. On receipt of the completed summons, the JCSB will contact the relevant court with details of the information received from the juror to highlight any special arrangements for the court to put in place.
Jurors are encouraged to contact the JCSB to arrange a pre-court visit to view facilities at court and discuss any special arrangements needed. For example, courts can assist the juror with reading and completing jury forms while at court and the juror is given the option of repeating the oath after the usher rather than having to read it themselves.
However, if the juror requires a note taker or interpretation assistance in the jury room this will exclude them from jury service. Under the common law, a jury must conduct its deliberations and reach its decision in the privacy of its own room and this usually necessitates that no one else is present.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his policy is on summoning people with learning disabilities to jury service. [321972]
Mr. Straw: A person should only be required to serve on a jury where he or she is mentally capable of doing so satisfactorily. To that end, the Juries Act 1974 (as amended) disqualifies a person from serving if he or she:
suffers or has suffered from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 and on account of that condition either is resident in a hospital or similar institution or regularly attends for treatment by a medical practitioner; or
is subject to guardianship or a community treatment order under the Mental Health Act 1983; or
lacks capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to perform jury service.
This provision encompasses some people with learning disabilities. For other people with learning disabilities our policy is that support should be made available where possible to enable them to serve satisfactorily.
Prison Service: Procurement
Dr. Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the £37.5 million potential savings in procurement activity identified by the National Audit Office in its report on The procurement of goods and services by HM Prison Service, HC 943, Session 2007-08, have been realised. [322220]
Maria Eagle: The National Audit Office (NAO) report on the procurement of goods and services by HM Prison Service confirmed that the Prison Service had estimated that savings of £37.5 million would be delivered in 2007-08. The figure was estimated because the review was undertaken part way through the financial year in question and the figure available at the time was a combination of realised and forecast savings. The NAO conducted a follow up review in December 2008 and confirmed that the revised value of savings was £36,793,305. This was fully delivered within financial year 2007-08.
Prisoner Escapes
Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) category A prisoners and (b) prisoners categorised as at risk of attempting to escape held at HM Prison Brixton were moved prior to a security audit or inspection in each of the last five years. [301231]
Maria Eagle: Brixton has not held any Category A prisoners in the last five years. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Straw) said in his written ministerial statement on 11 March 2010, Official Report, columns 30-32WS, on prison transfers prior to HMCDP Inspections , three prisoners were transferred from Brixton to High Down and Wandsworth prior to the April 2008 investigation and returned after the inspection. A further prisoner was transferred to Wandsworth but did not return to Brixton. Another prisoner was discharged to court from Brixton prior to the inspection and was transferred to Chelmsford prison from court. Each of these five prisoners was individually assessed as a potential escape risk (E-list).
My right hon. Friend's statement also set out the outcome of the investigation into the three transfers where the prisoners returned to Brixton.
Prisons: Mobile Phones
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department has made an assessment of the effectiveness of security procedures at prisons in preventing mobile telephones being smuggled in for inmates; and if he will make a statement. [322438]
Maria Eagle: Smuggling mobile phones, as with other contraband, is by its nature a covert activity and. the effectiveness of preventative measures is therefore difficult to quantify.
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is determined to address the risks that mobile phones present to security and to the safety of the public. It has implemented a strategy to minimise, find and disrupt mobile phones in prisons.
The strategy follows the review carried out by David Blakey CBE QPM DL, formerly Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and chief constable of West Mercia, to review the effectiveness of the Prison Service's measures for disrupting the supply of illicit drugs in prisons. The review acknowledged the link between the availability of phones in prisons and the smuggling of illicit drugs.
NOMS has made good progress in implementing the recommendations which address illicit mobile phones, including:
publishing a guide to assist prisons in tackling mobile phones,
progressing work on mobile phone signal denial in prisons; and
providing all prisons with a Body Orifice Security Scanner and hand held metal detectors,. which can detect mobile phones, even those stored internally.
NOMS is undertaking an evaluation of the technology being used to detect mobile phones.
Royal Household
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 10 March 2010, Official Report, column 383W, on the Royal Household, if he will request the Royal Collection to publish an inventory of other uniforms, decorations or related artifacts in its custody relating to (a) HM King Edward VIII or any of his predecessors and (b) foreign monarchs prior to 1937 in the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [322626]
Mr. Wills: The Royal Collection has indicated that they will research what information is available in this area and write to my hon. Friend in due course. My hon. Friend may also wish to read "Royal Insignia: British and Foreign Orders of Chivalry from the Royal Collection" by Stephen Patterson.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 10 March 2010, Official Report, column 383W, on the Royal Household, if he will request the Royal Collection to (a) host an exhibition of uniforms, decorations or related artifacts in its custody, relating to (i) HM King Edward VIII or any of his predecessors and (ii) foreign monarchs prior to 1937 and (b) make these available for display to (A) the Imperial War Museum, (B) the National Army Museum and (c) other comparable museums; and if he will make a statement. [322627]
Mr. Wills: The Royal Collection regularly receives requests from museums and galleries around the United Kingdom and abroad for long and short-term loans, many of which are granted. Over 3,000 objects are presently on long-term loan. There are, however, no current plans to exhibit or loan the artefacts in question.
Solicitor-General
BAE Systems
David Howarth: To ask the Solicitor-General whether any information obtained by the Serious Fraud Office during its investigations into BAE Systems has been passed to the relevant authorities in other jurisdictions; and if she will make a statement. [321329]
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Solicitor General whether the Serious Fraud Office has provided assistance to overseas investigations into the affairs of BAE Systems as they relate to the al-Yamamah defence contract with the Government of Saudi Arabia. [318078]
The Solicitor-General: The Serious Fraud Office has provided assistance to overseas investigations while ensuring the UK national security interests are protected.
Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings
Barry Gardiner: To ask the Solicitor-General how many (a) disciplinary and (b) capability procedures have been (i) initiated and (ii) completed in the Law Officers' Departments in each of the last five years; how much time on average was taken to complete each type of procedure in each such year; how many and what proportion of staff of the Law Officers' Department were subject to each type of procedure in each such year; and how many and what proportion of each type of procedure resulted in the dismissal of the member of staff. [320627]
The Solicitor-General: No member of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, National Fraud Authority or the Attorney-General's Office has been subject to formal discipline in the past five years.
In respect of the Serious Fraud Office and Treasury Solicitors there have been fewer than five dismissals in any single year during this period, and this information is therefore suppressed on the grounds of confidentiality.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Revenue and Customs Prosecution Service (RCPO) have not maintained records in relation to average time taken to complete each procedure. Records are only available from 2007.
Table 1 shows (a) the number of formal disciplinary actions (i) initiated and (ii) completed in each of the relevant years, the proportion of staff subject to the procedures, and the number of resulting dismissals on disciplinary grounds. Table 2 shows the number of (b) formal capability procedures (i) initiated and (ii) completed in each of the relevant years, the proportion of staff subject to the procedures, and the number of resulting dismissals on disciplinary grounds.
| Table 1: Disciplinary cases - CPS and RCPO combined | ||||||
| Number and percentage of formal disciplinary actions initiated within the CPS and RCPO | Number and percentage of formal disciplinary actions completed within the CPS and RCPO | How many and what proportions of procedure resulted in dismissal within the CPS and RCPO | ||||
| Number | Percentage staff | Number | Percentage staff | Number | Percentage | |
| Table 2: Capability cases - CPS and RCPO combined( 1) | ||||||
| Number and percentage of formal capability (performance) actions initiated within the CPS and RCPO | Number and percentage of formal capability (performance) actions completed within the CPS and RCPO | How many and what proportions of procedure resulted in dismissal within the CPS and RCPO | ||||
| Number | Percentage staff | Number | Percentage staff | Number | Percentage | |
| (1) In 2007 there were fewer than five cases so information has not been provided so as to protect staff confidentiality. | ||||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |