| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 July 2010 : Column 903W—continued
| Table 4: The total number of civil (non-family) cases heard in each county court in Wales for the last full three financial years | |||
| Court name | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
| Note: Total number of civil proceedings completed in the Welsh county courts includes all cases disposed of by a trial or small claim hearing, or which saw an order for possession of property made at a hearing. Source: HM Courts Service CaseMan system and Possession Claim On-Line system | |||
| Table 5: Crown court cases dealt with in Wales, 2007-08 to 2009-10 | |||
| Crown court centre | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
| Note: 1. Crown court cases includes cases committed/sent for trial, committed for sentence and appeals against magistrates courts decisions. 2. Some of the centres listed above are 'satellite' courts of main centres, those main courts and satellites are listed in the following list. Source: HM Courts Service CREST System | |||
Caernarfon
Dolgellau
Welshpool
Carmarthen
Haverfordwest
Crimes of Violence: Sentencing
Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of offenders sentenced to prison terms of six months or less were sentenced for violent offences. [11348]
Mr Blunt: The number of offenders sentenced to an immediate custodial sentence of six months or less for violent indictable offences, non-violent indictable offences and all indictable offences, and the proportion they are of total indictable offences, England and Wales 2008 (latest available) are shown in the table as follows.
Data for 2009 are planned for publication on 21 October 2010.
Debt Management : Regulation
Mr Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) which organisations officials of his Department have met to discuss regulation of the debt management sector since 6 May 2010; [11472]
(2) what research his Department has undertaken on alternative regulatory models to the system of self-regulation in the debt management sector since 6 May 2010; [11473]
(3) what estimate the Government have made of (a) the number of people who will be in debt management plans where fees have been charged by the end of 2010 and (b) the total amount of fees that will have been incurred by customers entering into debt management plans in 2010; [11474]
(4) when he expects to publish the response to his Department's consultation on debt management schemes; whether a summary of responses will be published; and which Department will be responsible for implementing the decisions made; [11476]
Mr Djanogly: Officials at the Ministry of Justice speak to a wide range of interested parties as part of conducting the business of government. However, since 6 May 2010 there have been no meetings with any organisations to discuss debt management, nor has been any further research on alternative regulatory models to the system of self-regulation in that sector.
The consultation on debt management schemes that closed on 18 December 2009 looked at the way that debtors deal with their indebtedness. It asked for evidence on whether the powers contained in Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act (TCEA) 2007 to approve operators of Debt Management Schemes (DMS) should be introduced or whether the taking of other steps to make sure that debtors are protected and creditors' interests are safeguarded would be more appropriate.
There is currently very little empirical data relating to debt management plans. It is estimated that 100,000 to 150,000 individual plans are created each year, with up to 700,000 plans in existence at any one time. However, there is no definitive data on either the proportion of
these where fees are charged, or the nature and level of any fees that may be charged by different providers.
An initial impact assessment was published alongside the consultation paper which considered the potential effectiveness of all of the options contained in the consultation paper. The impact assessment contained a number of questions which sought to obtain information relating to each of the options. However, the few responses to these questions contained very little factual information relating to these options. Consequently, it is not possible to make any estimate about the total amount of fees that will have been incurred by customers entering into debt management plans.
Officials at the MoJ have recently completed a full analysis of the views and opinions offered by all interested parties to the debt management consultation. The Government will consider the results of the consultation before deciding what further action to take, and will publish its response shortly.
Departmental Billing
Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what percentage of payments made by his Department to (a) small and medium-sized enterprise suppliers and (b) all suppliers were made (i) within 10 days of receipt of invoice and (ii) on the agreed payment terms in the last three months for which information is available. [11379]
Mr Djanogly: The percentage of payments made within 10 days to all suppliers for the last three months are:
| Percentage | |
The Department does not keep records on payments made to small and medium-sized suppliers, as to attempt to break the payment performance down further between SMEs and all creditors by the Department and its agencies would incur disproportionate costs.
As the Department's payment processes are now predicated on achieving the cross-Government prompt payment targets performance for all suppliers against individual supplier terms are not measured.
Departmental Communication
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what instructions have been issued by the private office of each Minister in his Department on the preparation of briefing, speeches and replies to official correspondence. [9673]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: Guidance on ministerial preferences is an effective way of making sure Ministers are able to fulfil their obligations to Parliament and the public to the highest standards possible. Ministers' private offices have therefore issued guidance on the departmental intranet as necessary setting out each Minister's preferences for briefing, speeches and replies to official correspondence.
Departmental Consultants
Mr Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his Department's budget for consultants is for 2010-11. [9212]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Department's budget for consultancy for 2010-11 is £23.546 million. This was the initial identified allocation, and has not been amended following the new cross Government freeze on new consultancy spend.
We are committed to implementing this freeze and hope to reduce the anticipated spend. All new consultancy contracts over £20,000 must now be signed off by a departmental Minister and notified to the Efficiency Reform Group and HM Treasury Spending teams.
Departmental Official Cars
Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department has spent on the Government Car Service since the Government took office. [7965]
Mr Blunt: The cost to the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) for the use of the Government Car Service for the period 12 May 2010 to 12 July 2010 is £67,402.79. This expenditure covers use of the Government Car Service by the Ministry of Justice headquarters, Her Majesty's Courts Service, the Tribunals Service, the Office of the Public Guardian and the National Offenders Management Service (NOMS). The figures are for amounts invoiced by the Government Car and Despatch Agency in the period and may relate in part to journeys taken prior to 12 May 2010. Average monthly expenditure on the Government Car Service in 2008-09 was £110,000 per month, giving an indicative equivalent figure of £220,000 for the same period last year. These figures are currently unaudited.
Due to the process used to account for expenditure, a small proportion of costs may relate to the previous Administration in the early part of May and some recent journeys may not yet have been accrued for on the accounting system. It would incur disproportionate cost to quantify these issues as individual order details would need to be retrieved and scrutinised.
The Home Office provides the arrangements in relation to the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice, who also has ministerial responsibilities at the Ministry of Justice.
The new ministerial code, published on 21 May 2010, contains changes that affect ministerial entitlement to travel by Government car. It states that
"the number of Ministers with allocated cars and drivers will be kept to a minimum, taking into account security and other relevant considerations. Other Ministers will be entitled to use cars from the Government Car Service Pool as needed".
The Department for Transport and its Government Car and Despatch Agency are working with Departments to effect the transition to the new arrangements.
The ministerial code is available on the Cabinet Office website.
Departmental Official Hospitality
Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department spent on hospitality for events hosted by each Minister in his Department in (a) May and (b) June 2010. [10117]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The only expenditure of this nature was by me, as Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor on the following events:
| Event | Amount (£) | |
|
Reception for key figures in the Legal and Criminal Justice system |
All hospitality is closely scrutinised and carefully monitored to ensure good value for taxpayers' money and that it stays within the appropriate rules and guidelines.
First Offenders
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many of those convicted for a first offence of a non-violent and non-sexual nature have been sentenced to a prison term in each year since 2005. [11559]
Mr Blunt: Figures for the total number of offenders who were convicted for a first offence of a non-violent and non-sexual nature and sentenced to a prison term in each year since 2005 are shown in the following table:
| Number of offenders who were convicted and sentenced to immediate custody for a first offence of a non-violent and non-sexual nature in England and Wales, 2005-08, indictable offence only( 1,2) | |||
| Sentencing year | All | Immediate custody | (%) |
| (1) Including indictable and trial either ways offences (2) Counts of offenders sentenced during the year, an offender may be counted more once if an offender had been sentenced more than once | |||
These figures are a further breakdown of those in Table 6.7 of 'Sentencing Statistics 2008' which was published on 28 January 2010 and can be found at
The figures have been drawn from the police's administrative IT system, the police national computer, which, as with any large scale recording system, is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.
Fixed Penalties: Shoplifting
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many fixed penalties have been (a) issued and (b) paid in each of the last three months for shop theft; and if he will make a statement. [10849]
Mr Blunt: Data on the number of Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) issued and paid in full for theft (retail under £200) to all persons aged 16 and over, in England and Wales, 2008 (latest available) can be viewed in the following table. Data for 2009 are planned for publication on 21 October 2010.
The figures presented for the number of PNDs paid in full reflect the number of PNDs that have been paid without any court action being taken.
We will be considering our approach to all out of court disposals, including fixed penalty notices for shoplifting, as part of the sentencing assessment.
Under our programme for Government for the next five years, we will conduct a full assessment of sentencing policy to ensure that it is effective in deterring crime, protecting the public, punishing offenders and cutting reoffending.
| Number of Penalty Notices for Disorder issued and paid in full for theft (retail under £200) to all persons aged 16 and over, by month, England and Wales 2008( 1, 2) | ||
| Issued | Paid in full | |
| (1) The Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) scheme was rolled out to all police forces in England and Wales in 2004 under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Under the scheme, the police are able to issue penalty notices (£50 or £80) for a range of minor offences some of which attract a higher tariff. The recipient of a PND has 21 days to either pay the penalty or seek a court hearing. No admission of guilt is required and the PND recipient discharges all liability for the offence and receives no criminal record, if the penalty is paid. If no action is taken a fine of one and half the penalty amount is registered against the recipient of the notice. The courts are responsible for enforcing fines arising from PNDs in the same way as any other unpaid fine. (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 in the Ministry of Justice. | ||
HM Courts Service
Mr Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the consultation by HM Courts Service on the provision of courts services in Devon and Cornwall, Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire will include an assessment of the likely effect on the sitting times of Taunton magistrates court in the event of the closure of Bridgwater magistrates court. [11541]
Mr Djanogly: Our assessment is that Taunton magistrates court has sufficient capacity to deal with any additional work that it receives if Bridgwater were to close. The proposals are designed to ensure that sitting days are fully utilised but we do not predict that Taunton magistrates court will need to sit beyond the target of five hours per courtroom per day.
Mr Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what consideration he has given to the future use of the Bridgwater magistrates court building should the consultation by HM Courts Service on the provision of courts services in Devon and Cornwall, Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire recommend its closure. [11542]
Mr Djanogly: No decisions on closures have been made or will be made until all the responses to the public consultations have been considered. The consultations will be vital in deciding the approach to the retention or closure of courthouses within the HMCS estate. It would be premature to discuss future use of court buildings during the consultation phase.
Human Rights: Children
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether Andrew Williamson and Peter Smallridge received legal advice from his Department on the use of force and the human rights of children in the course of their review of the use of restraint in juvenile secure settings. [11136]
Mr Blunt: We have no record of receiving a request for legal advice from the co-chairs of the independent review. However, the Government's response to the review was informed by legal advice.
Insurance: Households
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of householders who have legal insurance; and if he will make a statement. [10848]
Mr Djanogly: Legal expenses insurance (often referred to as before the event insurance) pays or contributes to the policyholder's legal expenses in circumstances prescribed by the policy. This type of insurance cover is commonly purchased as an add-on to other insurance policies such as home or motor insurance. However, it may be taken out by individuals as a stand-alone policy.
The Government do not routinely collect data on the number and proportion of householders who have legal insurance. However, a report prepared for the Ministry of Justice in 2007 estimated that 59% of people had some form of legal expenses insurance overall. Of those 35% had legal expenses insurance as part of their home insurance. A copy of the report is available at
Judges
Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many district judges there were in each year from 2003 to 2009. [10335]
Mr Djanogly: The numbers of district judges in post as at 1 April each year from 2003 to 2009 are set out in the following table. This information is also available on the Judiciary of England & Wales website at
| As at 1 April | District Judge | Deputy District Judge | District Judge (magistrates courts) | Deputy District Judge (magistrates courts) |
Legal Aid : Expenditure
Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what legal aid expenditure was on immigration appeals in (a) London and (b) nationally in each financial year since 2005-06. [11801]
Mr Djanogly: It is not possible to identify expenditure for initial advice from expenditure before the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal in cases where work under both levels of service is provided, nor is it possible to identify immigration expenditure from asylum expenditure under a legal aid certificate. The overall legal aid expenditure on immigration and asylum in London, and nationally, for each year since 2005-06, is provided in the following table.
| £ million | ||
| London | National (including London) | |
Legal Services Commission: Finance
Karen Lumley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans his Department has for future funding for the Legal Services Commission. [11122]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: As part of our spending review planning and negotiation, we are considering a number of options to reduce legal aid spend over the course of the spending review period. We intend to seek views on our proposed new approach in the autumn.
It has already been announced that we plan to move the Legal Services Commission to become an Executive agency of the Ministry of Justice, which will streamline accountability.
Magistrates Courts
Mr Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the adequacy of courthouse provision in Taunton in the event of the closure of Bridgwater magistrates court. [11030]
Mr Djanogly:
Bridgwater magistrates court is the only court in the Sedgmoor Local Justice Area. The closure of the court would require the merger of the Taunton
Dean and West Somerset Local Justice Area and the Sedgemoor Local Justice Area. The proposal is to close Bridgwater and transfer work to Taunton magistrates court, which is 12 miles and a 20 minute car journey away.
Bridgwater has a very low utilisation rate of 41.2%. The court is not permanently staffed and does not provide a public counter service; staff at Taunton currently travel to Bridgwater for hearings. Taunton magistrates court has a utilisation rate of 52.5% and could accommodate the workload from Bridgwater, should it close.
Should the decision to close Bridgwater magistrates court be taken, a full implementation plan will be produced to ensure the smooth transfer of work. This will include some minor work in Taunton magistrates court to prepare it to receive the additional work.
Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what capital expenditure was incurred in maintenance of the building housing Llangefni magistrates court in each year from 2006 to 2009. [10462]
Mr Djanogly: The capital costs for Llangefni magistrates court were zero for each of these years. The resource maintenance figures for these years, which form part of the overall running costs, are provided in the following table.
| £ | |
Magistrates Courts: Closures
Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the consultation of HM Courts Service on proposals on the provision of courts services in North and West Yorkshire, what factors he took into account in determining that the closure of Skipton magistrates and county courts would remove the requirement for the allocation of HM Courts Service funding of £310,000 for backlog maintenance. [11116]
Mr Djanogly: The maintenance backlog figure comprises several elements of maintenance work including: heating and plumbing; decoration; roofing; ventilation and air-conditioning and external works. Assessments of backlog maintenance are provided by professional Managing Agents using Condition Surveys and reference to their Forward Maintenance Register.
As indicated in the consultation papers, if Skipton magistrates court and Skipton county court (which are co-located in the same building) were to close it would remove the need for HMCS investment in backlog maintenance of around £310,000. The maintenance backlog figures given in the consultation papers are based on data as at July 2009 (the most recent at time of publication). The figures will be updated with July 2010 data for the purpose of the impact assessment which will be published alongside the consultation responses.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make an equality impact assessment in respect of the proposed closure of (a) Denbigh magistrates court and (b) Rhyl county court. [10832]
Mr Djanogly: An equality impact assessment (EIA) initial screening has been produced for the court estate rationalisation programme. The EIA initial screening identifies that there are likely to be equality impacts should courts close and that further information is required. We will be working throughout the consultation period to gather this information and are seeking views on equality impacts through the consultation process. We will produce a full impact assessment for each HMCS area to inform any decision on whether and which courts should close.
Magistrates Courts: Domestic Violence
Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which of the magistrates courts being reviewed for closure have an associated specialist domestic violence court. [11932]
Mr Djanogly: Of the 103 magistrates courts on whose closure we are consulting, 25 are currently part of an accredited Specialist Domestic Violence Court (SDVC) system. These are:
Knowsley
Whitehaven
Salford
Goole
Selby
Pontefract
Barry
West Bromwich
Rugby
Towcester
Daventry
Kettering
Lewes
Hemel Hempstead
Newbury
Tamworth
Newton Abbot
Spalding
Acton
Aberdare
Bridgwater*
Andover*
Alton*
Grays*
Haringey*
For 20 of these courts it is proposed to move the work of the existing SDVC to another accredited SDVC should the courts close. In the remaining five cases (those starred above) the proposals involve the transfer of the SDVC work to a court that is currently not designated as a Specialist Domestic Violence Court, should those courts close.
In conjunction with the National Steering Group, we are currently reviewing the provision of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts in those areas where their provision may be affected.
Magistrates Courts: West Sussex
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) criminal cases, (b) individual hearings in criminal cases and (c) non-criminal cases were handled by each magistrates court in West Sussex in each of the last five years. [10622]
Mr Djanogly: Information is only available on the number of criminal cases and non-criminal cases for West Sussex Local Justice Area (LJA), which includes Chichester and Worthing magistrates courts, since 2007. This can be found in the following table:
| Completed proceedings: West Sussex( 1) | ||
| Criminal cases | Non criminal cases( 2) | |
| (1) Information is only available at Local Justice Area level and includes all the courts within this LJA (Chichester and Worthing). (2) Civil, Family, Means Inquiries and Rights to Representation. (3) Prior to April 2007, the data was not collected centrally. For this reason, the data is from 2007-08. Note: The data comes from an internal management system. The data is subject to our minimal levels of quality assurance and is based on the data currently available. | ||
The completed proceedings data above include cases that have a final outcome. They do not include the number of hearings a case may have had or any cases that are in the process of being heard.
However, information is held on the average number of hearings for West Sussex LJA. This can be found in the following table:
| Average number of hearings for defendants in all criminal cases-target: 2.25 hearings: West Sussex( 1) | |
| Period | Average number of hearings( 2) (target 2.25 hearings) |
| (1) Information is only available at Local Justice Area and includes all the courts within this LJA (Chichester and Worthing). (2) The average number of individual hearings for each criminal defendant (data above) is recorded via the Ministry of Justice Time Internal Survey. In March and September of each year the survey covers all defendants in completed criminal cases. As a year on year comparison, the same period should be used, as this is representative of the caseload during that period of the year (i.e. March 2008 should be compared with March 2007). Note: The average includes a mixture of cases that may have adjournments and cases that could also be completed after first listing. | |
Magistrates: Gwynedd
Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many justices of the peace there were in the county of Gwynedd in each year from 2006 to 2009; [10466]
(2) how many justices of the peace sat as magistrates in the county of Gwynedd in each year from 2006 to 2009. [10467]
Mr Djanogly: The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace for Gwynedd covers two benches-Gwynedd and Ynys-Mon/Anglesey. It should be noted that benches do not necessarily correspond to county lines. It is not, therefore, possible to give exact figures for magistrates (aka Justices of the Peace) allocated to a particular county. The following table shows all recorded magistrates covered by the Gwynedd Advisory Committee area from 2006 to 2009 (this includes magistrates who were not actively sitting during the period).
| Number | |
The following table shows those magistrates who were actively sitting in the area from 2006 to 2009.
| Number | |
Mesothelioma: Compensation
Mr Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he plans to take to help expedite compensation claims for those who have developed mesothelioma. [11219]
Mr Djanogly: The Government are committed to supporting people suffering from mesothelioma and we are considering how this can best be achieved. In particular, officials are currently undertaking scoping work to consider options to speed up and improve the claims process in relation to compensation claims for mesothelioma and will involve representatives from claimant solicitors, insurers and the judiciary. I expect to receive detailed advice on this in the autumn.
Money Laundering: Corruption
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to article 57 of the United Nations convention against corruption 2004, what embezzled public funds the Serious and Organised Crime Agency has returned to victim Governments following convictions in the UK for money laundering and corruption in the last five years. [11526]
Nick Herbert: SOCA is one of a number of UK law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation of the proceeds of corruption. SOCA does not have a role in the return of recovered funds to victim countries. Confiscation of assets is a matter for the courts. The subsequent enforcement of a court order is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Court Service. The return of recovered assets is the responsibility of the Government.
According to the latest data we hold, £1.37 million has been returned following convictions in the UK; a further £16.4 million has been recovered through civil actions launched by the Government of Nigeria in the UK building on Metropolitan police case work.
A further £162 million is frozen in the UK (as a result of Metropolitan police and SOCA work).
Offenders: Rehabilitation
Diana R. Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effect of budgetary reductions in his Department on the implementation of his proposals for the rehabilitation of offenders. [11305]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: Over the coming months we will be developing a new approach to rehabilitation so that the public are protected and the level of reoffending is reduced. We intend to increase opportunities for the private and not-for-profit sectors to become involved in rehabilitation work and be paid for their results. We intend to set out more detail on these proposals as well as on an assessment of sentencing policy in a Green Paper in the autumn.
Relevant resource decisions will be made in light of these policy developments and the spending review.
Office of the Public Guardian
Duncan Hames: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many investigations have been conducted by the Office of the Public Guardian in each of the last three years; and how many of these have resulted in consequent action being taken by the Public Guardian. [11920]
Mr Djanogly: The functions of the Office of the Public Guardian, as laid down in section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, include the ability to investigate any concerns around the way in which an attorney, appointed either under a registered enduring power of attorney (EPA) or lasting power of attorney (LPA), or a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection is carrying out their responsibilities.
Since 1 October 2007 the OPG has received a total of 2,559 referrals, all of which undergo an initial assessment in order to ascertain the level of risk to the vulnerable adult and the priority of the situation. After this initial assessment the cases were dealt with as follows:
1,195 required a more formal in depth investigation by the OPG;
1,080 were signposted to social services department, the police or elsewhere (because they fell outside the OPG's jurisdiction);
284 resulted in no other action being taken as the referral was found to warrant no action.
The breakdown by year of the 1,195 formal investigations is as follows:
2007: 29
2008: 294
2009: 544
2010 (to date): 328
Of this 1,195 total since October 2007, 998 formal investigations have so far been concluded and action taken.
Actions taken by the OPG at the conclusion of a formal investigation have included: applying to the Court of Protection for the removal of either the deputy or the attorney, severance of an EPA or an LPA, increasing the supervision level of the case, serving the attorney with a censure letter whereby the attorney is told to improve in specific areas or face further action. Some cases have resulted in a referral to the police.
Where cases are signposted to a third party, this is because the cases fall outside the jurisdiction of the OPG, which only covers registered enduring or lasting powers of attorney or deputies appointed by the Court of Protection.
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost of the operations of the Office of the Public Guardian was in each of the last three years; and what the cost of producing the OPG in Touch newsletter was in each of those years. [11532]
Mr Djanogly: The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) was created on 1 October 2007 to coincide with the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It replaced the Public Guardianship Office (PGO) and is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The operating costs for the final six months of the PGO from April 2007 to September 2007 and those for the OPG from its creation in October 2007 to date are as follows:
| Operating costs (£) | |
| (1) Figures for 2009-10 are subject to final approval. | |
'OPG in Touch' is the newsletter produced by the OPG to provide information to deputies-persons appointed by the Court of Protection to make decisions on behalf of someone lacking capacity to make those decisions themselves. Generally, up to three editions are produced each year. The predecessor, produced by the PGO was known as 'Reaching Out'.
The costs of producing the newsletter are as follows:
| £ | |
| (1) Includes two editions of 'Reaching Out' | |
Out-of-Court Disposals
Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many and what percentage of those offences brought to justice were (a) administered as out-of-court disposals and (b) pursuant to a criminal conviction in court in each year since 2003. [11447]
Mr Blunt: The number and proportion of offences brought to justice for England and Wales 2003 to 2008 (latest available calendar year) are given in the table as follows.
Data for 2009 are planned for publication on 21 October 2010.
| Number of offences brought to justice (OBTJs), by outcome and the proportion they are of the total, England and Wales 2003 to 2008( 1,2) | ||||||
| Offences brought to justice (OBTJ) | ||||||
| Offences taken into consideration( 3) | Penalty notices for disorder( 4) | Formal warnings for cannabis possession( 5) | Caut ions( 6) | Convictions | Total OBTJs( 7) | |
| n/a = Not applicable (1) Excludes British Transport Police. (2) Excludes convictions data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008. (3) Offences taken into consideration by the court and previously recorded by the police; figures for April 2004 onwards include offences not previously recorded. (4) Piloted in 2002 and introduced nationally in 2004. (5) Introduced in April 2004 (6) Includes reprimands and final warnings for juveniles. (7) Total may not equal the sum of the constituent parts due to rounding. Note: The introduction of the National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) in April 2002 resulted in significant increases in the number of crimes recorded. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services in the Ministry of Justice | ||||||
Pleural Plaques: Compensation
Mr Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the number of people with pleural plaques eligible for compensation under the extra-statutory scheme announced on 22 February 2010. [11362]
Mr Djanogly: We expect around 6,500 people to consider applying under the extra-statutory payment scheme.
Mr Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many of those with pleural plaques and eligible for the extra-statutory compensation scheme announced on 22 February 2010 have received compensation payments; and by what date he expects all those eligible under the scheme to have received compensation. [11363]
Mr Djanogly: The extra-statutory scheme has not begun accepting claims, and so no payments have as yet been made. We hope that the scheme will be in a position to start accepting claims shortly. The scheme will remain open for applications for the period of one year from the date on which it comes into operation. Payments will be made on a timely basis on receipt of applications, and any payments outstanding at the end of the one year period for applications will be made as soon as possible after that date.
Prison Officers
Philip Davies:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has for the future of prison
officer Grade 2; and if he will make a statement. [11216]
Mr Blunt: All new prison officer recruits join the service at prison officer Grade 2; this system has been in place since October 2009.
This arrangement is working well and NOMS do not have any plans to change it.
Prisoners: Foreign Nationals
Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many foreign nationals were detained at HMP Peterborough in each month in the last 12 months to April 2010; what proportion of the total prisoner population in each month this represented; and if he will make a statement; [11805]
(2) what the nationality was of each foreign national prisoner held at HMP Peterborough on 1 April 2010; and if he will make a statement. [11809]
Mr Blunt: Table 1 as follows shows numbers of foreign national prisoners detained in HMP Peterborough and these as proportions of the total population in HMP Peterborough, split by gender, for the last 12 months up to and including March 2010.
As at 31 March 2010, table 2 shows the nationality of each foreign national prisoner detained in HMP Peterborough. Figures of less than five have been suppressed to avoid possibility of disclosure, such figures are indicated by an asterisk.
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
| Table 1 | ||||
| Male Foreign Nationals in HMP Peterborough | Male Foreign Nationals as a proportion of total male population in HMP Peterborough (Percentage) | Female Foreign Nationals in HMP Peterborough | Female Foreign Nationals as a proportion of total female population in HMP Peterborough (Percentage) | |
| Table 2 | ||
| Nationality | Male | Female |
Nadine Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many non-UK nationals from (a) EU member states and (b) non-EU member states are detained in prison (i) on remand and (ii) serving sentences. [11815]
Mr Blunt: As at 31 March 2010, there were 879 non-UK nationals from EU member states in prison on remand and a further 2,413 serving sentences. There were 1,542 non-EU nationals in prison on remand and a further 5,420 serving sentences.
The number of foreign national prisoners held in all prison establishments in England and Wales by nationality is published quarterly in the population in custody bulletin, found under the following link:
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Prisoners: Repatriation
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will bring forward proposals to ensure prompt consideration of applications for the transfer of UK citizens serving prison sentences in (a) Venezuela and (b) other states with a prisoner transfer agreement with the UK. [11882]
Mr Blunt: The United Kingdom has been able to repatriate prisoners since 1985 and procedures are in place to ensure that any application received is considered promptly and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant international arrangement.
The United Kingdom and Venezuela are signatories to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. The Ministry of Justice is working in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to identify British nationals who wish to be transferred from Venezuela to England and Wales to continue serving their prison sentence here. From 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2009 the Ministry of Justice repatriated 10 British nationals from Venezuelan prisons. During the same period 177 British nationals were transferred from other countries with which the United Kingdom has prisoner transfer arrangements.
The repatriation of prisoners to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective devolved administration.
Prosecutions: Weapons
Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many 13 to 19-year-olds were prosecuted for possession of a gun in (a) Streatham constituency, (b) the London Borough of Lambeth, (c) London and (d) England in (i) each year from 2005 to 2009 and (ii) 2010 on the latest date for which figures are available; [10733]
(2) how many 13 to 19-year-olds were prosecuted for possession of knives in (a) Streatham constituency, (b) the London Borough of Lambeth, (c) London and (d) England in (i) each year from 2005 to 2009 and (ii) 2010 on the latest date for which figures are available. [10734]
Mr Blunt: The number of persons aged 13 to 19 proceeded against at magistrates courts in Greater London and England for firearms possession offences and having an article with a blade or point in a public place, from 2005-08 (latest available) is given in tables 1 and 2 respectively.
Information held centrally does not allow a breakdown of cases by parliamentary constituency or local authority area, therefore Metropolitan and City of London police force area data have been provided in lieu.
Data for 2009 are planned for publication on 21 October 2010.
| Table 2 : Number of persons aged 13 to 19 years proceeded against at magistrates courts in Greater London( 1) and England for offences of having an article with a blade or point( 2) , from 2005-08( 2, 3) | ||||
| A rea | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |
| (1) Includes the City of London and Metropolitan police force areas. (2) Includes offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 139; and section 139A(1) as added by Offensive Weapons Act 1996, section 4(1). (3) The figures given relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one 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. Note: 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. | ||||
Rape: Rights of Accused
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the oral answer of 20 July 2010, Official Report, column 161, on defendant anonymity (rape cases) (1) on what non-statutory basis he proposes that anonymity for defendants in rape cases could be provided; [11557]
(2) what plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases. [11558]
Mr Blunt: As I made clear at the all-day debate on this subject on 8 July 2010, Official Report, columns 533-602, the Government will consider over the summer recess how best to go about strengthening anonymity up to the point of charge and will bring proposals to Parliament in the autumn. The Government are only considering non-legislative options on this matter and, as I said in the House on 20 July 2010, Official Report, columns 160-61, we are trying to find the best non-statutory solution.
The Government have also decided to postpone publication of an assessment of the existing research and statistics until September. This will allow us to give as full a consideration as possible to the relevant evidence and to address the many questions that have been raised, in particular those raised in the debate on 8 July. The revised time scale also allows appropriate quality checks to be undertaken.
Secure Training Centres
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which (a) persons and (b) organisations his Department consulted prior to (i) the issue of contracts to the private providers to run the secure training centres at (A) Oakhill, (B) Hassockfield, (C) Rainsbrook and (D) Medway and (ii) the reissue of the contract for Oakhill. [10345]
Mr Blunt: Prior to the establishment of the first secure training centre (STC) in 1998, the Home Office (which at the time had responsibility for commissioning places for young people in custody) carried out a full public consultation on the new type of custodial establishment for under-18s.
Following this, the Home Office carried out a tendering exercise for the building, financing, construction and operation of the new centres, in accordance with European Union contract rules and regulations.
In May 2008 G4S, the contractor at Oakhill Secure Training Centre, acquired Rebound Children's Services, the operator of two other STCs (Rainsbrook and Medway). G4S decided that Rebound should also be given responsibility for Oakhill. However, this process did not involve reissuing the contract.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make it his policy to place secure training centres under the control of public sector providers. [10346]
Mr Blunt: Secure training centres are privately run custodial establishments for young people under 18. They are one of three forms of custody for under-18s: the other two are young offender institutions, which are mostly run by the Prison Service, and secure children's homes, which are run by local authorities (under the supervision of the Department for Education).
Each type of establishment operates a different type of regime, which is designed to cater for the needs of the young people that are placed there. The diversity of the under-18 estate helps it better to meet the varying needs of young people in custody.
Secure places for under-18s in custody are commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, which keeps the accommodation it commissions under continuing review, to ensure it best meets the needs of young people while ensuring value for money.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will review each control and restraint incident which took place in secure training centres during the 12 months to March 2009; and if he will publish details of each incident including the (a) number of staff involved, (b) age, ethnic origin, sex and any disabilities of the child in custody and (c) age, ethnic origin and sex of each member of staff involved. [10369]
Mr Blunt: Secure training centres are regularly inspected by Ofsted including in the use of restraint. In addition, the Youth Justice Board monitors who work in the establishments are informed whenever restraint is used within 24 hours of the occurrence.
Data regarding the use of restraint in secure training centres are collected by the Youth Justice Board from monthly returns by each establishment. The following tables show the number of restrictive physical interventions (RPI) recorded in each secure training centre by age, ethnic origin and sex of the young person during the 12 months to March 2009.
Data on restrictive physical interventions by disability or by number, age, ethnic origin or sex of members of staff involved in restraint incidents are not collected centrally.
The data have been supplied by the Youth Justice Board and have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time.
| Restrictive physical interventions by age, April 2008 to March 2009 | ||||||||
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | Total | |
| Restrictive physical interventions by ethnic origin, April 2008 to March 2009 | ||||||
| Asian | Black | Mixed | Other | White | Total | |
| Restrictive physical interventions by sex, April 2008 to March 2009 | |||
| Male | Female | Total | |
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will bring forward proposals to prohibit the use of restraint techniques that involve deliberately inflicting physical pain in secure training centres. [10370]
Mr Blunt: It is essential that approved and effective techniques are available to staff in custodial establishments who find themselves dealing with young people whose behaviour puts the young people themselves, or others, at risk. The independent Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings, published in December 2008, concluded that, in exceptional circumstances, pain-compliant techniques were necessary in the secure estate for children and young people. Pain-compliant techniques are only to be used as the last resort, where all other methods of control have failed or would not succeed and where there is serious threat to the safety of young people or staff.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will establish a public inquiry chaired by a member of the judiciary to investigate the compatibility of practices in secure training centres with article 3 of the European convention on human rights. [10374]
Mr Blunt: Secure training centres are subject to regular inspection by Ofsted. Each STC has a monitor whose role is to review and report to the Secretary of State on the running of the centre. Monitors have a number of statutory functions including investigating allegations made against custody officers and hearing appeals from trainees.
The independent "Review of Restraint in Juvenile Secure Settings", which examined behaviour management and restraint practices in all three sectors of the under-18 secure estate, reported in 2008. The Government have no plans to establish a further inquiry into practices in secure training centres.
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which companies have been contracted to transfer children under the age of 18 years to and from secure training centres; and how many times and for what purpose staff of each of these companies used each of the techniques involving force specified in the Physical Control in Care manual on a child under the age of 18 years in each month of each of the last five years. [11172]
Mr Blunt: Since 1 April 2005, the Youth Justice Board has contracted with Reliance Custodial Services for the provision of a service to transport sentenced young people to and from secure training centres. The contract makes provision for Reliance to sub-contract and there are currently four companies with whom they maintain such an arrangement: Wrixon Care Services; Cares UK; Excel Custodial & Escort Services; and Rebound Escort Solutions.
According to data provided to the Youth Justice Board by Reliance Custodial Services, between July 2005 and June 2010 a total of 12 Physical Control in Care restraints were applied for the purpose of preventing a young person from: injuring him- or herself or others; damaging property; or inciting another trainee to cause injury or damage to property. Details of which particular hold or holds were used in each instance are not collected centrally.
Restraint holds or, on occasion, handcuffs, are also used, following individual risk assessments, when escorting young people through non-secure areas; and handcuffs
are used in some court areas where it is mandatory to do so. Previous data are not available for this category of restraint, but earlier this year contractors began putting in place systems to collect the data, which the Youth Justice Board expect to be available from July onwards.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will bring forward proposals to prohibit the use of handcuffs on children in secure training centres and young offender institutions. [10371]
Mr Blunt: It is essential that approved and effective techniques are available to staff in custodial establishments who find themselves dealing with young people whose behaviour puts the young people themselves, or others, at risk. Handcuffs are permitted for use in secure training centres in exceptional circumstances, where their use would be the safest option. Any use of handcuffs must be authorised by the director of the centre.
In young offender institutions, handcuffs are applied only when absolutely necessary in specified circumstances, either within the establishment to control a violent or aggressive young person or to prevent the escape of a young person being escorted outside the establishment.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will undertake a review of child protection measures in secure training centres with the aim of bringing forward legislative proposals to improve the safeguarding of children in custody. [10372]
Mr Blunt: The Youth Justice Board, with the assistance of the National Children's Bureau, conducted a comprehensive review of safeguarding in the under-18 secure estate, which was published in December 2008. The review looked at child protection measures in secure training centres and noted a number of areas of effective practice and areas for improvement. Following the review, the Youth Justice Board developed a safeguarding strategy for the next three years and is pressing ahead with the implementation of that strategy.
The revised statutory guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children", published in March 2010, places a responsibility on local safeguarding children boards to have in place effective working practices between local authorities and secure establishments. This will include consideration of agreed referral processes and information-sharing arrangements for child protection issues. Secure training centres, in partnership with their local authorities, undertake regular audits of their safeguarding policies in line with section 11 of the Children Act 2004.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will take steps to improve the provision of information to children who have been detained in a secure training centre and their families on their rights to seek justice and compensation in cases of abuse by staff of a secure training centre. [10373]
Mr Blunt:
All young people in secure training centres (STCs) have access to support and advice, including from independent sources such as advocates and help-lines. As part of the induction process, all young people in STCs are provided with information about the complaints
process and how to contact advocates, which is displayed in communal areas. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is currently undertaking a review of complaints, with a view to improving the complaints processes across the under-18 secure estate.
The YJB is working in partnership with the Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) to develop an independent publication for children and young people. The publication will explain young people's rights while in custody and in the community, the concepts of human rights and equality and how and where to get help if they consider that their rights may have been breached.
Mr Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what information is provided by secure training centres to (a) children held in secure training centres, (b) the parents or carers of children admitted to secure training centres, (c) local authorities which are the corporate parents of children and (d) independent advocacy services on approved restraint measures. [10825]
Mr Blunt: Behaviour management and restraint issues are discussed with all children and young people as part of the secure training centre's (STC) admission procedure. The Youth Justice Board is working in partnership with STCs to pilot additional ways of informing young people on the use of restraint practices.
Parents and carers who attend a young person's initial planning and review meetings have an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the young person's training plan, including aspects of behaviour management. Parents and carers are informed of any incident involving restraint at the earliest opportunity.
Following every incident of restraint, the secure training centre will inform a young person's youth offending team (YOT) case worker. Where a local authority is the corporate parent of a young person, the YOT will either liaise with the social worker assigned to the young person regarding the incident or instruct the establishment to contact the social worker directly.
Each secure training centre holds a monthly incident review meeting attended by the independent advocate team leader to review information about restraint incidents including their location, the staff involved and the holds used. Independent advocates are also invited to demonstrations of the restraint techniques run by the centres.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |