|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
30 Nov 2010 : Column 705Wcontinued
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the Barnett consequentials for the devolved Administations as a result of the proposed reforms to the functions of the national consumer councils. 
Mr Davey: The Government set out their proposals for the competition and consumer landscape in the context of the Public Bodies Bill in a statement issued on 14 October. That indicated that the Government are minded to shift almost all relevant central Government funding for consumer bodies towards the Citizens Advice services and Trading Standards.
My officials are discussing the implications with the devolved Administrations as well as with Citizens Advice (and Citizens Advice Scotland) and a number of consumer bodies. Our main concern is how best to maintain and enhance consumer protection in the UK.
A full consultation on the main proposals will take place in early 2011.
Assessment of the financial implications will be made in the light of these ongoing discussions and in the context of a forthcoming public consultation on the proposals in early 2011.
Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what funding his Department plans to provide for the teaching of postgraduate taught courses in Higher Education Funding Council for England subject bands B and C in each of the next four years; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Willetts: The Department will be announcing decisions on the funding available for teaching, including masters, in our Grant Letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) before Christmas. We will bring forward proposals on the longer term future for the funding for post graduate teaching, in the light of the Post Graduate Review, in the forthcoming higher education White Paper.
Dr Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what plans his Department has to reduce the number of refrigerated display cabinets disposed of in landfill sites. 
Mr Prisk: The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations 2006 already minimise the amount of discarded electrical and electronic equipment going to landfill. The regulations place obligations on the producers and business end-users of a wide range of waste electrical equipment, including retail refrigerated display cabinets. These include the financing of the separate collection, subsequent treatment, re-use, recovery, recycling and environmentally sound disposal of such equipment when it becomes waste. Treatment and recycling facilities are approved and regulated by the environment agencies to ensure compliance with strict standards that minimise the environmental impacts of their operations and the maximisation of recycling rates.
Dr Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what plans he has to encourage the re-use and recycling of (a) refrigerated display cabinets and (b) other white electrical goods. 
The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations 2006 already encourage the re-use and recycling of refrigerated display cabinets and other white electrical goods. The regulations place obligations on the producers and business end-users of a wide range of waste electrical equipment, including refrigerated display cabinets and white electrical goods. These include the financing of the separate collection, subsequent
treatment, re-use, recovery, recycling and environmentally sound disposal of such equipment when it becomes waste.
Currently 96% of civic amenity sites across the UK collect large household appliances and 98% collect cooling equipment containing refrigerants from householders. The Code of Practice for collection of WEEE from these designated collection facilities encourages Producer Compliance Schemes (PCSs) to work with re-use organisations.
The WEEE regulations include specific provisions to encourage, where appropriate, the reuse of whole appliances including a requirement for PCSs, as part of the approval process, to set out how they propose to prioritise the reuse of whole appliances in their operational plans.
Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills when he expects to determine the funding allocations for growth hubs. 
Mr Prisk: Funding allocations for growth hubs will be determined as part of the process of prioritising activity in line with the spending review settlement. The Government will confirm funding once this process is complete.
Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many officials in his Department are working on the plans for the establishment of growth hubs. 
There are currently around 2.5 full-time equivalents directly engaged in developing plans for the
establishment of growth hubs. At need, a number of other officials are feeding into this process and contributing to the development of the wider business improvement policy.
Graham Evans: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities how much the Government Equalities Office spent on entertainment activities related to the 2010 FIFA World Cup. 
Lynne Featherstone: The Government Equalities Office did not spend any money on entertainment related to the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many appeal cases relating to incapacity benefit have been heard (a) in Coventry, (b) in the West Midlands and (c) nationally in the last 2 years; and how many such appeals (i) with and (ii) without legal representation were upheld. 
Mr Djanogly: The following tables show the number of incapacity benefit appeals heard by the First-Tier Tribunal-Social Security and Child Support nationally, and how many appeals were upheld where the appellant was and was not represented. Representatives do not need to be legally qualified.
|Incapacity benefit appeals 2008-09|
|Cases heard||Decision upheld||Decision upheld (percentage)||Represented||Decision upheld with rep||Without rep||Decision upheld without rep|
|Incapacity benefit appeals 2009-10|
|Cases heard||Decision upheld||Decision upheld (percentage)||Represented||Decision upheld with rep||Without rep||Decision upheld without rep|
1. Decision upheld by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
2. Figures with representative show appellants who had a representative; however, do not confirm that the representative was in attendance on the day of hearing.
3. West midlands statistics include Birmingham, Coventry, Harrow, Hereford, Kidderminster, Oxford, Reading, Shrewsbury, Stoke, Telford (now closed), Watford, Wolverhampton and Worcester.
4. Statistics have been rounded to the nearest 10 at local and area level and the nearest 100 at national level.
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many court cases arose from disputes between landlords and tenants in (a) 2007, (b) 2008 and (c) 2009. 
Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice holds statistical information in relation to the number of claims issued in the county courts of England and Wales for landlord possession orders, demotion of tenancy, forfeiture of tenancy, and for a new tenancy agreement of business premises under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The following table shows these figures for each year between 2007 and 2009.
Statistical information relating to other types of disputes between landlords and tenants such as over repairs or tenancy deposit protection is not held centrally. This is because the administrative computer systems used in the county courts do not presently identify these specific
application types. While the relevant cases will be logged on the system, they cannot be distinguished from other types of claims issued.
|Claims issued by landlords against tenants( 1) in the county courts of England and Wales, 2007-09|
|Recovery of land( 2, 3)||New tenancy agreement( 4)||Demotion of tenancy( 5)||Forfeiture of tenancy( 6)|
|(1) The breakdown by case type is only approximate as the claim may involve recovery of land in addition to demotion of tenancy or forfeiture of tenancy.|
(2) Includes all types of landlord whether social or private.
(3) Landlord actions include those made under both standard and accelerated procedures. Landlord actions via the accelerated procedure enables the orders to be made solely on the basis of written evidence for shorthold tenancies, when the fixed period of tenancy has come to an end.
(4) Claims for a new tenancy agreement as made under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 5.
(5) A demotion of the terms of the tenancy typically means losing the "Right to buy" or "Right to exchange" the property and the succession rights of the tenancy. These only apply to properties owned by social landlords.
(6) Forfeiture of a tenant's lease on a property
Ministry of Justice
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what guidance his Department issues to probation staff in respect of the preparation of court reports recommending sentencing options for cases where defendants are in receipt of incapacity benefit on the use of unpaid work as a disposal. 
Mr Blunt: Probation staff are made aware of the Department for Work and Pensions guidance that unpaid work and incapacity benefit are not necessarily incompatible. In the assessment and induction process for unpaid work, probation staff gather information about the offender's health and their status in terms of receiving benefits. Offenders can then be allocated to work that properly takes account of these issues.
Mr Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average time taken between the issue of a community order with a condition of attendance on (a) a group general offender behaviour programme and (b) a sex offender programme and the commencement of the programme was in each probation trust in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Mr Blunt: Waiting times for programmes are managed locally by each probation trust. This information is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by obtaining information held on offender files or on local data systems, validating it, and then collating it in a common format in order to provide a response. Offenders waiting for a place on a programme are under the supervision of their offender manager who will monitor and actively manage the risk posed during the course of the supervision period.
Paul Maynard: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that deaths occurring in psychiatric care must be reported to the Coroner. 
Mr Djanogly: We have no plans to bring forward proposals to amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In my statement of 14 October 2010, Official Report, columns 37-38WS, I set out our proposals for taking forward coronial reform. We are reviewing what provisions within the 2009 Act we may commence that are cost neutral and also intend to review Coroners Rules and guidance.
There is a power for the Lord Chancellor to make regulations requiring a registered medical practitioner to notify a coroner of a death in prescribed circumstances under the Act. The previous Government consulted on the categories of death to be reported to the coroner in 'Reform of the Coroner System-Next Stage-Preparing for Implementation', published in March 2010. The responses will inform our work in drafting these regulations.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 3 November 2010, Official Report, column 834W, on mercy killings, whether the Government plans to amend the law on offences of murder which may be classified as mercy killings. 
Mr Kenneth Clarke: No. The Government believe that any change to the law in this emotive and contentious area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide rather than Government policy.
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department spent on entertainment activities related to the 2010 FIFA World Cup. 
Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice did not spend any money on entertainment relating to the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
Ian Lavery: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prison officers were employed at HM Prison Acklington (a) on the latest date for which figures are available and (b) in each of the last five years. 
Mr Blunt: Information on the number of prison officers employed at HMP Acklington on (a) the latest published date and (b) in each of the last five years is contained in the following table.
|Prison officers employed at HMP Acklington|
Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the feasibility study he has commissioned on the Land Registry will involve full consultation with the main stakeholders. 
Mr Djanogly: There will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the feasibility study. As part of the information gathering process, the project team leading the study invited members of the HM Land Registry Advisory Council to a meeting on 19 November, which includes a wide range of stakeholders and interested parties among its membership. The project team has also invited written representations from members, should they have anything further they wish to add. The team also met with representatives from the trade unions for similar discussions on 22 November.
Ministers will only make a decision on their preferred option once they have received the feasibility study. If our preference is for a materially different business strategy or ownership structure for Land Registry then a full public consultation process will be undertaken.
I expect to be in a position to make a decision on the preferred option in the new year.
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many judgment orders to amend landlord possession claims were issued by county court judges in each of the first two quarters of 2010. 
Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice does not hold figures centrally on the number of judgment orders made by county court judges in each of the first two quarters of 2010 to amend existing landlord possession orders.
While the Department's management information system contains the incidence of orders made in landlord possession claims, it is not possible to identify which orders are amending orders that have previously been made. This information could be obtained only through the examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.
Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what level of (a) disclosure and (b) dissemination has been applied to information regarding Abdul Baset Al Megrahi held by the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Kenneth Clarke: None. The Criminal Cases Review Commission does not hold any information or material relating to Abdul Baset Al Megrahi. As he was convicted by the Scottish courts, the Criminal Cases Review Commission does not have the power to review his conviction or sentence. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can review the convictions or sentences of those convicted by the Scottish courts.
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders have been referred into drug treatment through the criminal justice system in each of the last five years. 
Mr Blunt: The Ministry of Justice does not record data in the form requested. However data are available for:
the number of clinical interventions for drug addiction in prisons delivered by health services;
initial assessments for adult prisoners by CARAT (Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare) services;
prison-based accredited drug treatment programme commencements;
initial assessments by Young People's Substance Misuse Service (YPSMS) for 15 to 17-year-olds in custody;
drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) and drug rehabilitation requirements (DRRs) issued as part of a community order or suspended sentence order; and
the number of individuals commencing treatment through the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP).
This information from the last five years is shown in the table.
Figures are not presently centrally collated for:
the number of offenders who are required to address their problems with drugs as a condition of their licence;
the number of Youth Rehabilitation Orders (YROs) with a drug treatment requirement.
CARATs-number of Substance Misuse Triage Assessments (SMTAs)
Young Persons Substance Misuse Services (YPSMS)-number of initial assessments
Accredited Drug Treatment Programmes/Therapeutic Communities
Drug Treatment and Testing Order/Drug Rehabilitation Requirement
|(1) Individual prisoners may access more than one type of treatment intervention in any given period (e.g. some individuals may receive clinical detoxification, a CARAT assessment, access an accredited drug programme and have a DIP care plan).|
(2) November 2007 onwards includes prison data.
All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and have been drawn from administrative data systems which may be amended at any time. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the operational staffing requirements for (a) operational managers, (b) principal officers, (c) senior officers, (d) prison officers, (e) operational support grades, (f) non-operational managers, (g) administration grades and (h) other staff for (i) each prison establishment, (ii) National Offender Management Service (NOMS) headquarters and (ii)
other NOMS offices will be by March 2011; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Blunt: Information on the operational staffing requirement for the end of March 2011 has been derived from returns collected from each establishment and National Offender Management Service (NOMS) headquarters directorate. The planned staffing requirements are subject to change as a result of more detailed plans being put in place following the spending review. The latest plans are contained in the table.
|Projected staffing requirements within NOMS (full-time equivalent), 31 March 2011|
|Establishment||Operational managers( 1)||Principal officers||Senior officers||Prison officers||Operational support grades||Non-operational managers( 2)||Administration grades||Other grades||Total|
|(1) Including developing prison service managers. (2) Also includes senior civil servants. (3) Includes national headquarters and Director of Offender Managers offices and regional service teams. (4 )Staffing plans for March 2011 are not held by the contractor, although no changes to staffing levels are anticipated. (5 )Grades in private sector prisons differ from public sector prisons.|
Ian Lavery: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many appointments there have been to each grade in the Prison Service since March 2010; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Blunt: Information on the number of appointments made to each grade in the public and private sector Prison Service and NOMS HQ from 1 March 2010 to 30 June 2010 (latest published date) is shown in the following tables.
|Appointments( 1) made to each grade in the public sector Prison Service and NOMS HQ between 01 March 2010 and 30 June 2010|
|Grade name||Public sector prisons||NOMS HQ||Total|
|(1) Appointments figures are based on records of persons joining the service.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|