|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many chairs his Department and its predecessors purchased in each year since 1997; how much was spent in each such year; and what the five most expensive chairs purchased in each such year were. 
Prior to late 2009, the Ministry of Justice and its executive agencies (Her Majesty's Courts Service, Tribunals Service, the Office of the Public Guardian and the National Offenders Management Service (NOMS) held contracts for the provision of furniture with several suppliers for which complete data is no longer available.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which IT contracts awarded by his Department in each year since its inception have been abandoned; and what the monetary value of each such contract was. 
Mr Djanogly: In the context of this answer, IT contracts are interpreted as contracts relating to ICT-related projects or programmes, business change projects or to projects where ICT is a key element in delivering a service or outcome.
As part of the coalition Government programme and the ICT moratorium, the Department has reviewed all existing ICT projects to assess whether they should be closed, continued or re-scoped, and we are awaiting the results of this review.
Outside of this review, no ICT contracts have been cancelled (or abandoned) by the Ministry of Justice since its formation in May 2007. However, two ICT projects have been cancelled, as identified in the response to a question from the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) on 23 February 2009, Official Report, column 346W.
August 2007-The National Enforcement Tracker System (NETS) project was cancelled following a detailed review which highlighted that the cost and scope of the project no longer provided value for money or met current business requirements. Expenditure to closure of the project was £4.328 million; this sum was reported in accordance with HMT accounting rules.
November 2008-following a review by Her Majesty's Courts Service (HMCS) Board, the Electronic Filing
and Document Management programme, which included plans for future investment in ICT, was cancelled. The costs incurred by the programme from commencement of the programme in August 2005 to its closure in November 2008 were £5.922 million.
(1) The average hourly day rate has been calculated based on the 'mean' of all of the roles included in each supplier contracted rate card.
|Average hourly day rate (£)|
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many officials in his Department work (a) full-time and (b) for most of their time on the negotiation, implementation or administration of EU legislation and consequent policies. 
Mr Djanogly: The number of officials working within the Ministry of Justice on the negotiation, implementation or administration of legislation or policies originating from the EU will vary at any one time.
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what representations he has received on the reduction in the number of contracts issued by his Department for family legal aid work; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Djanogly: Representations to the Secretary of State have been received by a number of sources and have focused on two aspects of the tender process. The majority related to the outcome of a specific bid, and are being dealt with under the Legal Service Commission's (LSC) appeal process. A smaller number of the representations express concern about the impact of the tender outcome in particular geographic areas. These issues are being actively explored by the LSC.
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many reports were provided by independent social workers to (a) family courts, (b) magistrates courts, (c) county courts and (d) the High Court in each year from 2002 to 2010; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Djanogly: Independent social workers provide the court with advice and assessments reports in a range of proceedings. These reports are commissioned and organised locally. Information on the number of reports provided is not recorded by the courts.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people who (a) were given a non-custodial sentence and (b) were given their first custodial sentence in each year from 2002 to 2010 had previously had (i) no criminal convictions, (ii) one criminal conviction, (iii) two criminal convictions, (iv) three criminal convictions, (v) four criminal convictions, (vi) five to 10 criminal convictions, (vii) 11 to 20 criminal convictions, (viii) 21 to 30 criminal convictions, (ix) 31 to 40 criminal convictions, (x) 41 to 50 criminal convictions, (xi) 51 to 75 criminal
convictions, (xii) 76 to 100 criminal convictions and (xiii) more than 100 criminal convictions. 
|Table 1: Number of offenders who were sentenced to non-custodial sentences for indictable offences( 1, 2) by the number of previous convictions, 2002-08, England and Wales|
|Number of persons|
|Number of previous convictions||2002||2003||2004||2005||2006||2007||2008|
|Table 2: Number of offenders who were sentenced for the first time to immediate custody for indictable offences( 1, 2) by number of previous convictions, 2002-08, England and Wales|
|Number of persons|
|Number of previous convictions||2002||2003||2004||2005||2006||2007||2008|
|(1) Including indictable and trial either ways offences.|
(2) Counts of offenders sentenced during the year, an offender may be counted more than once if an offender had been sentenced more than once.
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.
Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people have been convicted under the House to House Collections Act 1939 for fraudulent collection in each of the last 10 years; and what sentence was given in each case. 
Mr Blunt: Persons proceeded against for offences under the House to House Collections Act 1939 cannot be separately identified on the Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database as they form part of a miscellaneous group which cannot be analysed.
When RMJ went into administration, they reported that 12,500 open client matters existed. All these cases have now either (a) been closed because in the professional opinion of the ex-RMJ caseworker no further action was required or (b) transferred to an alternative provider who had capacity to handle the matter. Some alternative providers needed additional matter starts and these have been agreed while others were able to handle some or all of the requests within their existing allocation of matter starts. Requests for additional matter starts are considered during the life of the contract with a legal aid provider. We cannot confirm whether requests from providers were as a result of the transfer of work from RMJ or that demand had increased
from clients. We can however confirm that RMJ had 7,800 unused matter starts at the point of insolvency and that no provider has had a request for an increase to handle transferred cases refused.
Barry Clark Solicitors
Brighton Housing Trust
Camden Community Law Centre
Charles Annon and Co. Limited
Cleveland and Co.
Corbin and Hassan
Dare Emmanuel Solicitors
David Gray Solicitors
Derbyshire Access 2 Law
Fadiga and Co.
French and Co.
Harbans Singh and Co. Solicitors
Harehills and Chapeltown Law Centre
Haringey Citizens Advice Bureau
Immigration Advisory Service
Irving and Co.
Island Advice Centre
Islington Law Centre
J D Spicer and Co.
Kirklees Law Centre
Lawrence and Co.
Migrants Resource Centre
Newcastle Law Centre
Parker Rhodes Hickmotts
Ratna and Co.
Sheffield Law Centre
Sheikh and Co. Solicitors
Sutovic and Hartigan
Thompson and Co.
Tower Hamlets Law Centre
Trott and Gentry
Waran and Company
Wick and Co. Solicitors
Wilson Solicitors LLP.
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many new matter starts were allocated to the Immigration Advisory Service in (a) Greater Manchester and (b) the UK in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009 and (iii) 2010. 
Mr Djanogly: The IAS allocation of matter starts in 2008-09 was based on an "estimate of likely usage". Their actual 2008-09 running rate informed their 2009-10 award in line with awards to other providers. The 2010-11 award was for 6.5 months only and not a full year as the current contract was due to end part way through the year.
The three IAS offices in the north-west (Manchester, Liverpool and Blackburn) operate under a single contract and there is therefore no separate contractual matter starts allocation for Manchester. The matter start allocations for the 'north-west' and other areas are shown in the table along with the England and Wales total.
|(1) Includes Birmingham, Leicester and Derby offices|
(2) Includes Cardiff and Bristol offices
(3) Covers Peterborough and Norwich offices
(4) Covers Leeds, Newcastle, Bradford, Sheffield and Middlesbrough offices
(5 )Covers Southwark, Hounslow and Bedford offices
(6) Covers Manchester, Liverpool and Blackburn offices
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what reasons the governing governor did not conduct the security category review which took place in April 2010 for Julian Harrington; and when Mr Harrington will be transferred to HMP Hollesley Bay. 
Mr Blunt: Governing Governors are not routinely required to conduct categorisation reviews. It is not the policy of the National Offender Management Service to comment publicly on the cases of individual prisoners. My Noble Friend Lord McNally wrote to the hon. Member on 22 August explaining the latest position, and I will contact her very shortly to update this.
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment has been made of the compatibility with the UK's international humanitarian obligations of changes in the tendering process for immigration legal aid. 
Mr Djanogly: The European Community Council Directive 2003/9/EC (Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003: Laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers) places certain obligations on member states with regard to the reception conditions for asylum applicants. Provisions include minimum standards on information, documentation, education, health care, accommodation, withdrawal of reception conditions as well as extra provisions for children and vulnerable individuals. The directive contains no obligation on member states to provide "free legal advice" and assistance to asylum seekers at the initial stage of their case. After a negative decision, the directive stipulates that access to legal assistance for appeals shall be laid down in national law (Article 21 (2)). As this is a minimum standards directive, member states are free to provide "more favourable conditions" than those contained in the directive. Unlike most member states, the UK continues to provide free legal "advice" and "representation at the Tribunal" out of public funds to eligible asylum applicants at both the initial stage and appeals. The current tendering process has in no way restricted the scope of legal aid.
Mr Djanogly: In apportioning immigration cases across England and Wales the LSC identified areas of high demand within procurement areas (access points) and assigned matter starts (cases) to these to ensure provision where there is the greatest demand. Once the tender process is completed and the LSC has carried out validation checks to ensure that successful applicants are in a position to deliver services from the start of the contract, the LSC will undertake an evaluation of the results.
Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the recommendations of Lord Justice Jackson's review of civil litigation costs, what plans he has for the future role of the Civil Justice Council in addition to consulting on a voluntary code of conduct for third party funders. 
Lord Justice Jackson's Review of Civil Litigation Costs makes a broad range of significant
recommendations for reducing costs in the civil justice system. Some recommendations are for the Government to take forward and as I announced to the House on 26 July 2010, Official Report, column 68WS, we will be consulting in the autumn on implementing Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations on the reform of funding arrangements.
Work on other recommendations is more appropriately led by others. So for example in addition to the consultation on a voluntary code of conduct for third party funders that I announced on 26 July 2010, the CJC are currently undertaking a review of pre-action protocols which includes consideration of Sir Rupert's recommendations in this area. They are also setting up a working group to look at the recommendation for uniform calibration of software systems used in assessment of damages.
I have agreed with the senior judiciary that they are uniquely placed to lead on the recommendations relating to case and costs management. The Civil Justice Council will assist them as appropriate in taking forward this work.
My officials will continue to work with the Civil Justice Council in identifying areas where their collective experience can best be directed in considering and taking forward the many recommendations contained in Sir Rupert's report.
Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what changes he plans to make to the provisions of conditional fee arrangements as a result of the recommendations of the review by Lord Justice Jackson; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Djanogly: As I announced to the House on 26 July 2010, Official Report, column 68WS, we will be consulting in the autumn on implementing Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations on the reform of funding arrangements, as set out in his report 'Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report' (published 14 January 2010). This will include in particular his proposals for significant reform to conditional fee agreements (CFAs). The Government will determine the way forward subject to the results of that consultation.
Heidi Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many immigration cases have been adjourned due to a lack of legal representation for former clients of Refugee and Migrant Justice since that organisation entered into administration. 
Mr Djanogly: The First-tier Tribunal-Immigration and Asylum Chamber is responsible for considering appeals against decisions made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The tribunal is not able to provide the information which the hon. Member has requested as it is not able to identify cases which have been adjourned solely on the basis of Refugee and Migrant Justice entering administration. It could do so only at disproportionate cost by checking each appeal file for the reasons for adjournment for the period in question.
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many staff at each grade have been engaged in processing tender applications at the Legal Services Commission in 2010, with particular reference to the notification of results in July 2010. 
A team of 55 staff, ranging from band A3 (lowest level line management, senior processing or administration roles) to band C (middle/senior managers, technical experts), were trained in the use of the e-tender system and assessment. This team's work was moderated by a team of 10 moderators from within the Commissioning and Operational Policy department who also received training and were graded at band B1 (lower management, technical specialists), B2 (middle management, senior technical specialists) or band C. Moderators could escalate any matters they could not resolve to a core team, consisting of a band B2, a band C and two band Ds (senior managers).
Final decisions on the failure of tenders at the Pre Qualification and Essential Stages and the agreement of the approach for assessing exceptional circumstances were agreed by either a band D or a director. Assessors, moderators and the core team have all participated in the notification process.
Jonathan Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the proportion of the population in (a) Woking and (b) the North West Surrey local justice area able to travel to Staines Magistrates Court by public transport in 60 minutes. 
Mr Djanogly: Statistics are not kept centrally on the population or geographical spread of people in each local justice area. It is proposed that only work currently heard at Woking from Runnymede will transfer to Staines, which is around 20 minutes by bus. The remaining two-thirds of work will be transferred to Guildford, which is 6.4 miles from Woking (20 minutes by car; eight minutes by train). Further analysis of travel times will be undertaken during the consultation period.
Mr Djanogly: There are currently 235 local justice areas in England and Wales. The Office of National Statistics' mid-2009 estimate of the population of England and Wales is 54,809,000. This indicates an average population of approximately 233,230 per local justice area. The Secretary of State is consulting on plans to reduce the number of local justice areas. A decision will be made after the consultation period has ended.
Jonathan Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what the population was in (a) North West Surrey, (b) North Surrey and (c) South West Surrey local justice area in the latest period for which figures are available; 
(2) what estimate he has made of the population to be served by (a) North Surrey and (b) South West Surrey local justice area after the proposed merger with North West Surrey local justice area. 
Mr Djanogly: Central Government became responsible for the magistrates courts in 2005 upon the formation of HM Courts Service. Limited information is available for the period before that. 20 years ago there were magistrates courts in: Camberley, Chertsey, Dorking, Epsom, Farnham, Guildford, Godstone, Redhill, Staines, Walton, and Woking.
Jonathan Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the closure of Woking Magistrates Court on those people living in areas surrounding Woking and dependent upon public transport to attend courts. 
Mr Djanogly: A preliminary impact assessment for all of the court estate proposals is available on the Department's website. Detailed impact assessments, including the impact on people who live in the areas surrounding Woking and who are dependent on public transport are currently being produced and will be informed by responses to the consultation paper.
Mr Djanogly: People often find themselves involved in court actions when their disagreements might be better resolved between themselves at a much earlier stage and with a more satisfactory outcome, through processes such as mediation, rather than the 'winner takes all' approach offered by litigation. The intervention of the court should only be sought when a genuine point of law exists or when people or businesses are at risk. As a Government, we are keen for people to take a less adversarial and a more collaborative approach to solving their problems and encourage greater use of mediation in both civil and family issues.
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he expects to reply to the letter dated 9 August 2010 from the hon. Member for Witham on Jeremy Bamber; and if he will make a statement. 
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he expects to reply to the letter dated 12 August 2010 from the hon. Member for Witham on Michael Binnington and Luke Atkinson; if he will meet their relations to discuss their case; if he will assess the merits of using his powers to commute their sentences; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Blunt: A reply to my hon. Friend's letter of the 12 August was sent on 10 September. That letter sets out the circumstances under which powers to commute a sentence may be used. In addition, my letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) dated 5 August set out the reasons why it would not be appropriate for Ministers to meet the families of Mr Binnington and Mr Atkinson.
Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the speech by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders on 22 July 2010, whether the Secretary of State (a) saw and (b) approved the speech prior to delivery, with particular reference to the announcement of the rescission of Prison Service Instruction 50/2008 on acceptable activities in prisons. 
Mr Kenneth Clarke: I work closely with all the Ministers in my Department on the range of issues for which I am responsible. The speech to which you refer, given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on 22 July, drew attention to PSI 50/2008 which expired on 5 January 2010.
Prior to this, decisions on activities in prison were taken locally by Prison Governors. The expiry of that PSI provided an opportunity to reassess whether local discretion could be returned to Prison Governors, or whether activities in the 140 prisons were better managed via central prescription. A new instruction was subsequently issued which drew attention to the need to ensure public confidence and modest costs were maintained, but which returned decision-making to the local level.
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many National Offender Management Service headquarters functions have been moved outside London in each of the last six years; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Blunt: During 2006 NOMS relocated the financial transactions functions in HQ from London to Newport. In 2007 NOMS relocated the Human Resources transactions function from London to Newport. In total 285 posts were moved out of London and the south east during these relocations.
Mr Blunt: Information on the number of operational managers employed across both public sector and contracted Prison Service establishments and the National Offender Management Service headquarters is contained in the following table.
|Operational managers in post( 1)|
|Operational managers( 2)|
|(1 )Basis: headcount, i.e. part-timers count as one. Data source: Personnel Corporate Database and Oracle HRMS). (2)All managers are allocated as operational at certain contracted establishments.|
Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many convictions there were for contempt of court where the offence related to a breach of the terms of a non-molestation injunction order in each year since 2000; 
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many new prison places have been created in each of the last 24 months for which figures are available; and what the estimated capital construction cost was per prison place per year of lifespan of the prison concerned, excluding operation, maintenance and other costs. 
|Number of places( 1)|
|(1) Includes places delivered through new build accommodation, conversion of existing buildings and more effective use of the estate.|
The average construction cost for new prison places, including costs of providing ancillary facilities, and excluding running costs, is approximately £170,000 per place across the lifetime of the accommodation.
Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of HM Prison Service officers and staff at each HM Prison Service facility in the London region are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. 
Mr Blunt: Information on what proportion of HM Prison Service officers and staff are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds based on headcount at each establishment within the London region as at 31 March 2010 is contained in the following table. Data provided are on headcount basis (part timers count as one).
|BME staff proportions within London establishments|
Includes prison, senior and principal officers.
Mr Blunt: Information on how many officers and other staff employed at each establishment within the London region as at 31 March 2010 is contained in the following table. Data provided is on headcount basis (part timers count as one).
|Staff in post within London establishments|
|Establishment (Est)||Officers( 1) (all officer grades)||Other staff||Grand total|
|(1 )Includes prison, senior and principal officers|
Mr Blunt: The role and function of prisons is kept under regular review, taking into account a number of factors affecting the requirements of a fit for purpose custodial estate. Decisions on the long-term future of the estate will be made in light of the review of rehabilitation and sentencing and the spending review.
Mr Blunt: Information on staffing levels in the grades specified within each Prison Service establishment is contained in the tables that have been placed in the House Library. Certain staff groups, for example operational support grades, are not included in the questions. A table of overall staff numbers at each establishment has also been included.
|Total releases||No fixed abode||% releases with no fixed abode|
Figures exclude any prisoners deported on release
Mr Blunt: Information on a prisoner's residence is provided by prisoners on reception into prison and recorded on the central IT system. However this information is stored in such a way that the retrieval and processing required to answer this question would be at disproportionate cost.
Work is currently under way to improve prisoner data systems and once this work is complete data will be easily obtainable and will readily be able to provide a population breakdown down to the Streatham constituency level.
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many (a) directors, (b) senior managers and (c) executive support and administration staff there were in each prison in each of the last five years; 
(2) how many (a) directors, (b) senior managers and (c) executive support and administration staff were employed by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in (i) headquarters, (ii) area offices and (iii) other NOMS non-prison offices in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Blunt: Information on staffing levels in the grades specified within each Prison Service establishment is contained in tables which have been placed in the Library. The data provided cover the public sector and the contracted estate. Grading systems vary between the public and private sectors, and between individual contractors.
|Prison population, England and Wales, as at 31 March, by establishment and year|
|'*' = Not applicable.|
(1) HMP Albany is now part of the organisational amalgamation of the former HMPs Camp Hill and Parkhurst. They now form HMP The Isle of Wight from 1 April 2009.
(2) HMP Aldington closed in 1999.
(3) Ashfield was opened in 1999.
(4) HMP Blakenhurst and two former prisons HMP Brockhill and HMP Hewell Grange amalgamated on 25 June 2008 to form HMP Hewell.
(5) HMP Brockhill now forms part of HMP Hewell from 25 June 2008.
(6) HMP Bronzefield opened in June 2004.
(7) HMP Buckley Hall was re-roled to a female closed training prison in 2002. The establishment was re-roled back to a male category C prison in 2005.
(8) HMP Bure opened in November 2009.
(9) HMP Dovegate opened in 2001.
(10) In October 2003, Highpoint North (female) was formally re-named HMP Edmunds Hill. The establishment was re-roled as a category C male prison in 2005.
(11) HMP Elmley forms part of The Sheppey Cluster, an amalgamation of HMP Standford Hill and HMP Swaleside.
(12) HMP Forest Bank opened in 2000.
(13) In 2002 Hatfield was taken over by HMP Moorland and re-named Moorland Open.
(14) In 2002 Hollesley Bay and Warren Hill became separate establishments, the Open complex retaining the name Hollesley Bay.
(15) HMP Kennet was opened in 2007.
(16) HMP Peterborough, a dual purpose-built prison for men and women opened in March 2005.
(17) HMP Rye Hill opened in 2001.
(18) HMP The Weare 'prison ship' closed 2005.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|