Previous Section Index Home Page

10 Jan 2011 : Column 173W—continued

Strokes

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has for funding (a) the National Sentinel Stroke Audit and (b) the Stroke Improvement National Audit Programme after 2010-11; [32368]

(2) what funding the Cabinet Office Efficiency and Reform Group has approved for a further wave of the Act FAST stroke awareness campaign in 2011. [32369]

Mr Simon Burns: The contract and associated funding for the National Sentinel Stroke Audit runs until 3 March 2012 and for the Stroke Improvement National Audit Programme until 31 March 2011. Consideration is being given to the synergies between these two audits and the opportunities for developing a single stroke audit.

The Cabinet Office Efficiency and Reform Group has agreed to an exemption request for the Act FAST, stroke awareness campaign. This approval is for spend of £743,000 to cover television advertising, marketing and evaluation.

Tuberculosis

Mr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public awareness campaigns his Department is running to warn at-risk groups of the (a) dangers and (b) symptoms of tuberculosis. [32395]

Anne Milton: The Department is not running public awareness campaigns on tuberculosis (TB). However, the Department has provided grant funding to TB Alert, a United Kingdom charity, to work with at-risk groups, to encourage prompt referral for TB testing and treatment. This work includes building the capacity of a range of third sector organisations to raise awareness of tuberculosis with their local communities.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 174W

Justice

Coroners: Legal Costs

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the annual cost of legal representation was of the Government at completed inquests into all cases where the Government was represented in each financial year since 2007-08; and how much the Government spent on legal aid to the families of the deceased in each such year. [32899]

Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) does not hold details of the annual cost to the whole of Government of legal representation at inquests. Each Department makes their own arrangements.

The MOJ specifically incurs legal costs at inquests following the deaths of serving prisoners. The Treasury Solicitor's Department charges the MOJ on a monthly basis for legal advice and representation at inquests. These charges came to £1.8 million in 2007-08; £2.2 million in 2008-09 and £2.7 million in 2009-10. It is not possible to attribute a proportion of these charges specifically to completed inquests.

Under the Access to Justice Act 1999, the Lord Chancellor has the power to authorise the Legal Services Commission to grant exceptional legal aid funding in cases which are not within the scope of the civil legal aid scheme. The total amount spent on exceptional funding was £1.1 million in 2007-08; £1.5 million in 2008-09 and £1.6 million in 2009-10. While most of the applications for exceptional funding are for inquests, it is not possible to disaggregate the expenditure on inquests from the total amount spent on exceptional funding.

Courts: Closures

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice in which constituencies a magistrates' court or county court will not be located following the implementation of his proposals for courts closures. [32761]

Mr Djanogly: The provision of courts in England and Wales is not determined by constituency boundaries. Each community in England and Wales is served by both a magistrates and county court. Many courts serve a number of constituencies and many constituencies are served by more than one court.

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the distance is from each court which will close under his proposals for court closures to the nearest equivalent court which will remain open; and how many cases were dealt with in each court which he proposes to close in the last year for which figures are available. [32830]

Mr Djanogly: The consultation response documents detail the percentage of the population in each area within a 60 minute public transport commute of their local court. Table 1 shows details of the distance from closing court to receiving court for each of the courts that will close.

Central administrative systems do not provide statistics on completed proceedings at each individual magistrates court site, but do provide data by local justice areas
10 Jan 2011 : Column 175W
(LJAs). Table 2 therefore contains figures for the number of completed proceedings in 2009 for those LJAs which contain one or more magistrates courts proposed for closure. The counts provided do not relate solely to cases dealt with at the closing courts and include cases dealt with at any other magistrates courts in each LJA which are not proposed to close.

For county courts, Table 3 sets out the number of cases (non family) in 2009 in county courts that will close. Table 4 sets out the number of public and private law orders in 2009 in county courts that will close. Table 5 sets out the number of family proceedings completed in 2009 in county courts that will close.

Not shown on the tables are Coleford, Chepstow, Circencester, Rutland, Epsom and Llandovery magistrates courts, and Chepstow, Goole and Gravesend county courts, which were not utilised in 2009.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 176W

10 Jan 2011 : Column 177W
Table 1: Distance between closing court and receiving court
Magistrates court (MC)/county court (CC) Receiving magistrates court (MC)/county court (CC) Distance (miles)

Aberdare MC

Merthyr Tydfil MC

8

Aberdare CC

Merthyr Tydfil CC

8

Abertillery MC

Newport MC/Cwmbran MC

17/15

Acton MC

Ealing MC/Feltham MC/Uxbridge MC

3/10/12

Alnwick MC

Bedlington MC/Berwick upon Tweed MC

26/30

Alton MC

Aldershot MC/Basingstoke

14/14

Amersham MC

Aylesbury MC/High Wycombe MC

16/9

Ammanford MC

Llanelli MC

14

Andover MC

Basingstoke MC

23

Ashford CC

Canterbury CC

15

Ashford MC

Folkestone MC/Canterbury MC

16/15

Balham MC

South Western MC/Camberwell Green MC

3/5

Barking MC

Havering MC/Redbridge MC

9/7

Barry MC

Cardiff MC

10

Bicester MC

Banbury MC

21

Bishop Auckland CC

Durham CC

12

Bishop Auckland MC

Newton Aycliffe MC/Darlington MC

7/14

Blandford Forum MC

Weymouth MC

27

Blaydon MC

Gateshead MC

7

Brentford MC

Ealing MC/Feltham MC/Uxbridge MC

3/7/12

Bridgwater MC

Taunton MC

13

Burton upon Trent CC

Derby / Stafford CC

13/37

Camborne MC

Truro MC

17

Cardigan MC

Aberystwyth MC/Haverfordwest MC

39/27

Cheltenham CC

Gloucester CC

10

Chepstow CC

Newport CC

18

Chepstow MC

Newport MC/Cwmbran MC

18/22

Chorley CC

Preston CC

12

Cirencester MC

Gloucester MC/Stroud MC

21/13

Coalville MC

Hinckley MC

15

Coleford MC

Gloucester MC

20

Consett CC

Durham CC

14

Cromer MC

Norwich MC/Great Yarmouth MC

23/34

Daventry MC

Northampton MC

16

Denbigh MC

Prestatyn MC

14

Dewsbury CC

Huddersfield CC

10

Dewsbury MC

Huddersfield MC

9

Didcot MC

Oxford MC

15

Ely MC

Cambridge MC

18

Epping MC

Harlow MC/Chelmsford MC

7/19

Epsom CC

Redhill CC

10

Epsom MC

Redhill MC

10

Evesham CC

Worcester CC

17

Flint MC

Mold MC

6

Frame MC

Yeovil MC/Bath MC

32/15

Goole CC

Doncaster CC

24

Goole MC

Beverley MC/Hull MC

31/29

Gosforth MC

Newcastle upon Tyne MC

4

Grantham CC(1)

Boston CC

31

Gravesend CC

Dartford CC

8

Grays MC

Basildon MC/Southend MC

11/22

Guisborough MC

Middlesbrough MC

10

Halesowen MC

Dudley MC

6

Harlow CC(1)

Chelmsford CC

20

Harrow MC

Brent MC

7

Haywards Heath CC

Brighton CC

17

Haywards Heath MC

Crawley MC/Horsham MC

12/13

Hemel Hempstead MC

Watford MC

8

Hexham MC

Newcastle upon Tyne MC

22

Highgate MC

Highbury Comer MC

3

Hitchin CC

Luton CC

10

Honiton MC

Exeter MC

17

Houghton Le Spring MC

Sunderland MC

8

Huntingdon CC(1)

Peterborough CC

24

Ilford CC

Romford CC

5

Ilkeston MC

Derby MC

11

Keighley CC

Bradford CC

6

Keighley MC

Bradford MC

6

Kidderminster CC(1)

Worcester CC

15

Kingston upon Thames MC

Wimbledon MC

7

Knowsley MC

Liverpool MC

7

Lewes MC

Brighton MC

9

Liskeard MC

Bodmin MC

14

Llandovery MC

Llanelli MC

31

Llangefni MC(1)

Holyhead MC

17

Llwynpia MC

Pontypridd MC

7

Lowestoft CC(1)

Norwich CC

30

Ludlow CC

Telford CC

42

Ludlow MC

Telford MC

42

Lyndhurst MC

Southampton MC

11

Market Drayton MC

Shrewsbury MC

22

Market Harborough MC

Leicester MC

15

Melton Mowbray CC

Leicester CC

17

Melton Mowbray MC

Loughborough MC

18

Newark CC

Nottingham CC

15

Newark MC

Nottingham MC

20

Newbury CC(1)

Reading CC

21

Northwich CC

Crewe CC

15

Northwich MC

Chester MC/Crewe MC

25/15

Oswestry CC

Telford CC

34

Oswestry MC

Oswestry MC

22

Penrith CC

Carlisle CC

22

Penrith MC

Carlisle MC

22

Penzance CC

Truro CC

29

Penzance MC

Truro MC

28

Pontefract CC

Wakefield CC

12

Pontefract MC

Wakefield MC

14

Pontypool CC

Blackwood CC

10

Poole CC(1)

Bournemouth CC

8

Pwllheli MC

Caernarfon MC/Dolgellau MC

21/38

Rawtenstall CC

Burnley CC

8

Rawtenstall MC

Burnley MC

8

Redditch CC(1)

Worcester CC

27

Retford MC

Worksop MC

10

Rhyl CC

Prestatyn CC

4

Rochdale MC

Bury MC

7

Rugby CC

Nuneaton CC

19

Rugby MC

Leamington Spa MC

17

Runcorn CC

Warrington CC

9

Rutland MC

Loughborough MC

13

Salford CC

Manchester CC

2

Salford MC

Manchester MC

1

Selby MC

York MC

15

Shrewsbury CC(1)

Telford CC

14

Sittingbourne MC

Chatham MC/Canterbury MC

10/17

Skegness CC(1)

Boston CC

23

Southport CC

Liverpool CC

20

Southport MC

Bottle MC

17

Stoke on Trent MC

Newcastle under Lyme MC

4

Stourbridge CC

Dudley CC

5

Stratford-Upon-Avon CC

Warwick CC

10

Sudbury MC

Bury St Edmunds MC

17

Sutton Coldfield MC

Birmingham MC

8

Sutton MC

Croydon MC

3

Swaffham MC

Kings Lynn MC

16

Tamworth CC

Stafford CC

30

Tamworth MC

Burton MC

13

Thetford MC

Norwich MC/Bury St Edmunds MC

33/13

Totnes MC

Torquay MC

10

Towcester MC

Northampton MC

17

Tower Bridge MC

Camberwell Green MC

4

Trowbridge CC

Chippenham CC

14

Wellingborough CC

Kettering CC

8

West Bromwich MC

Warley MC

2

Whitehaven CC

Workington CC

9

Whitehaven MC

Workington MC

9

Wimborne MC

Bournemouth MC

10

Wisbech MC

Peterborough MC/Kings Lynn MC

22/14

Witney MC

Oxford MC

13

Woking MC

Guildford MC/Staines MC

7/14

Woolwich MC

Greenwich MC

6

Worksop CC(1)

Mansfield CC

14

(1) Hearings to be retained.
Note:
Distances are rounded to nearest mile.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 178W

10 Jan 2011 : Column 179W
Table 2: Completed proceedings in selected magistrates courts, Local Justice Areas, 2009
Local Justice Area containing court(s) proposed for closure Closing magistrates court(s) within LJA Number of completed proceedings within overall LJA

Alnwick

Alnwick

899

Anglesey (Ynys Mon)

Llangefni

2,922

Ashby-de-la-Zouch

Coalville

3,352

Barking

Barking

11,954

Batley and Dewsbury

Batley and Dewsbury

10,349

Bromley

Woolwich

19,435

Burnley Pendle and Rossendale

Rawtenstall

19,136

Central Buckinghamshire

Amersham

8,286

Central Devon

Honiton

12,230

Central Kent

Sittingbourne

20,430

Central Norfolk

Swaffham

173

Ceredigion

Cardigan

2,368

City of Salford

Salford

14,130

Cynon Valley

Aberdare

3,219

Daventry

Daventry

1,939

Denbighshire

Denbigh

6,886

Dinefwr

Ammanford

1,414

Dudley and Halesowen

Halesowen

3,134

Ealing

Acton

9,844

East Cambridgeshire

Ely

4,149

East Cornwall

Liskeard

7,409

East Dorset

Wimborne

20,887

East Kent

Ashford

25,712

Eden

Penrith

2,970

Flintshire

Flint

6,360

Gateshead

Blaydon

11,581

Goole and Howdenshire

Goole

2,880

Gwent

Abertillery

31,333

Gwynedd

Pwllheli

6,334

Haringey

Haringey (Highgate)

9,601

Harrow

Harrow

12,231

Hounslow

Brentford

12,738

Keighley

Bingley (Keighley)

7,760

Kingston-upon-Thames

Kingston upon Thames

4,860

Knowsley

Knowsley

7,927

Lambeth and Southwark

Tower Bridge

31,984

Langbaurgh East

Guisborough (East Langbaurgh)

2,900

Melton, Belvoir and Rutland

Melton Mowbray

2,279

Miskin

Llwynypia

10,334

New Forest

Lyndhurst

7,348

Newark and Southwell

Newark

2,790

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Gosforth

33,097

North East Hampshire

Alton

9,984

North Norfolk

Cromer

867

North Sefton

Southport (north Sefton)

3,448

North Staffordshire

Stoke-on-Trent

24,058

North West Essex

Epping

11,502

North West Hampshire

Andover

9,890

North West Surrey

Woking

7,659

Northern Oxfordshire

Bicester, Witney

14,090

Peterborough

Wisbech

16,746

Pontefract

Pontefract

10,447

Rochdale, Middleton and Heywood

Rochdale

14,067

Sandwell

West Bromwich

4,715

Sedgemoor

Bridgwater

3,095

Selby

Selby

2,122

Shrewsbury and North Shropshire

Market Drayton, Market Harborough, Oswestry

6,739

South Devon

Totnes

10,301

South Durham

Bishop Auckland

14,968

South East Staffordshire

Tamworth

9,174

South Norfolk

Thetford

222

South Somerset and Mendip

Frome

5,984

South West Essex

Grays

4,441

Southern Derbyshire

Ilkeston

24,870

Southern Oxfordshire

Didcot

1,951

Sunderland and Houghton-le-Spring

Houghton-le-Spring

20,382

Sussex (Central)

Lewes

18,623

Sussex (Northern)

Mid-Sussex (Haywards Heath)

14,652

Sutton

Sutton

9,658

Sutton Coldfield

Sutton Coldfield

11,248

Telford and South Shropshire

Ludlow

10,565

Towcester

Towcester

1,282

Tynedale

Tynedale (Hexham)

2,220

Vale of Glamorgan

Barry

7,031

Vale Royal

Northwich

11,329

Wandsworth

Balham youth court

22,047

Warwickshire

Rugby

22,530

West Cornwall

Camborne, Penzance

7,560

West Dorset

Blandford Forum

8,514

West Hertfordshire

Hemel Hempstead

25,858

West Suffolk

Sudbury

13,884

Whitehaven

Whitehaven

2,829

Worksop and Retford

Retford

6,486

Notes:
1. Figure include Criminal, Civil and Family proceedings, Means Inquiries, and Rights to Representation.
2. Information is only available at Local Justice Area; the figures provided in the table include completed proceedings at all the magistrates courts within each LJA, not just at those magistrates courts listed in the middle column.
3. The data comes from an internal management system. The data are subject to our minimal levels of quality assurance and is based on the data currently available.
Source:
Completed Proceedings, HM Courts Service Performance Database (OPT)


10 Jan 2011 : Column 180W
Table 3: Total number of civil (non-family) cases heard in the selected county courts, 2009
County court Number of cases heard

Aberdare County

265

Ashford County

647

Bishop Auckland County

436

Burton Upon Trent County

659

Cheltenham County

486

Chorley County

329

Consett County

373

Dewsbury County

1,393

Epsom County

743

Evesham County

253

Grantham County

295

Harlow County

739

Haywards Heath County

373

Hitchin County

886

Huntingdon County

407

Ilford County

1,646

Keighley County

339

Kidderminster County

431

Lowestoft County

601

Ludlow County

76

Melton Mowbray County

145

Newark County

185

Newbury County

303

Northwich County

386

Oswestry County

100

Penrith County

79

Penzance County

382

Pontefract County

641

Pontypool County

493

Poole County

738

Rawtenstall County

211

Redditch County

534

Rhyl County

516

Rugby County

324

Runcorn County

351

Salford County

1,827

Shrewsbury County

337

Skegness County

189

Southport County

507

Stourbridge County

539

Stratford County

209

Tamworth County

358

Trowbridge County

655

Wellingborough County

579

Whitehaven County

363

Worksop County

432

Notes:
1. 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.
2. The county courts for which data has been provided were announced to be closed by the courts' Minister on 14 December 2010.
Source:
HM Courts Service CaseMan system and Possession Claim On-Line system


10 Jan 2011 : Column 181W
Table 4: Private and Public Law orders made in selected county courts, 2009
County court Order made

Consett County

312

Runcorn County

163

Penrith County

16

Rawtenstall County

94

Keighley County

339

Bishop Auckland County

116

Salford County

277

Pontefract County

417

Ilford County

629

Penzance County

38

Whitehaven County

197

Rhyl County

508

Lowestoft County

201

Dewsbury County

785

Hitchin County

210

Burton Upon Trent County

229

Southport County

252

Trowbridge County

421

Epsom County

140

Shrewsbury County

320

Harlow County

257

Notes:
1. Figures relate to the number of children subject to each application.
2. Public law refers to child protection cases where a local authority is stepping in to protect a child from harm. Private law refers to cases where there is a dispute between two or more private individuals regarding a child. For example, over where he/she is to live or whether someone should have contact with him/her. Both are cases brought under the Children Act 1989.
3. Figures include orders made in the county courts and the district registry of the High Court.
Source:
HM Courts Service FamilyMan system

Table 5: Completed family proceedings in selected county courts, 2009
County court Order made

Consett County

273

Runcorn County

182

Penrith County

170

Rawtenstall County

196

Keighley County

413

Chorley County

330

Bishop Auckland County

415

Salford County

586

Pontefract County

487

Ilford County

1,130

Penzance County

391

Whitehaven County

454

Rhyl County

495

Lowestoft County

722

Dewsbury County

770

Hitchin County

698

Burton Upon Trent County

928

Southport County

741

Trowbridge County

952

Epsom County

814

Shrewsbury County

902

Harlow County

1,135

Notes:
1. Figures include orders made in the District Registry of the High Court, and exclude public and private law cases.
2. Figures include cases related to domestic violence injunctions, dissolution and nullity of marriage and ancillary relief.
3. One case may include more than one type of ancillary relief order.
Source:
HM Courts Service FamilyMan system

Departmental Press Releases

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many occasions his Department has provided embargoed media briefings prior to an oral statement to the House since 26 May 2010; in respect of how many such briefings his Department was informed that the embargo had been breached; what steps were taken as a result of each such breach; and on how many occasions his Department has provided media briefings without an embargo prior to an oral statement to the House since 26 May 2010. [31925]

Mr Djanogly: One embargoed briefing was given by Ministers to the media ahead of an oral statement. No embargoes have been breached and no briefings without an embargo have been held ahead of an oral statement.

All Ministers obey the ministerial code and ensure all important policy announcements are made to Parliament-by oral statement or WMS.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 182W

Departmental Public Expenditure

Hywel Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent estimate he has made of the effect of the increase in the standard rate of value added tax on his Department's annual expenditure. [31180]

Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Ministry of Justice currently estimates that the net effect of the increase in standard rate value added tax for the last quarter of the 2010-11 financial year will be £19 million; for 2011-12 the effect is estimated to be £75 million. The Ministry of Justice recovers VAT incurred on certain contracted out services and the £75 million estimate is net of VAT recoveries. Departmental spending review settlements are set on a tax-inclusive basis, including the increase to the standard rate of VAT.

Departmental Responsibilities

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many requests have been received by Ministers in his Department for meetings with the President of the Law Society since 6 May 2010; and how many meetings on what dates have taken place between Ministers in his Department and the President of the Law Society. [32014]

Mr Kenneth Clarke: All requests for ministerial meetings by the President of the Law Society are honoured by me and my Ministers wherever possible. Since the 6 May 2010, I have had one meeting with the President of the Law Society, Linda Lee, on 19 October 2010, and one with her predecessor, Robert Heslett, on 8 June 2010; Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Jonathan Djangoly has had three meetings each with Linda Lee on 27 July 2010, 14 October 2010, and 16 November 2010, and Robert Heslett on 8 June 2010, 30 June 2010, and 14 July 2010; and Minister of State Lord McNally has had one meeting with Linda Lee on 17 November 2010.

Family Courts: Legal Aid

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice who attended the meeting on 15 January 2010 between the Legal Services Commission and the Law Society on the family tendering exercise. [32010]

Mr Djanogly: The meeting was attended by two members of the LSC's Family Policy Team, and one representative from each of the Law Society, Resolution and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group.

Legal Aid Scheme

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of the population will have access to legal aid following the implementation of his Department's proposed reforms; and what proportion of the population had access to legal aid in (a) 1998, (b) 2005 and (c) the latest period for which figures are available. [32477]

Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has not made an assessment of the impact the legal aid reforms may have on the proportion of the population that have access to legal aid. However, the MOJ made an estimate on the number likely to be affected by the reforms.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 183W

The proposed legal aid reforms will affect access to civil legal aid; however, they do not affect access to criminal legal aid. The estimated impact of the proposed legal aid reforms on the number that would not have had access to legal aid in 2008-09 has been published in the legal aid reform impact assessments on the Ministry of Justice website.

The following table outlines the number of people that claimed legal aid in 2009-10 and 2005-06. However, data is not available for 1998-99 as this pre-dates central recording of legal aid claimant data.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 184W

The figures are recorded separately for civil and criminal legal aid. Civil legal aid is split between legal help (advice) and legal representation. Criminal legal aid is split between crime lower (work at police stations and in the magistrates court) and crime higher (representation in Crown court).

Clients can also access civil legal advice from the community legal advice telephone line which is excluded from these figures.

Total civil legal representation Total civil legal help Total crime lower Total crime higher

1998-99

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2005-06

151,333

744,267

1,488,900

121,500

2009-10

138,933

793,240

1,407,700

126,100


Legal Aid Scheme and Universal Credit

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the proposed timetable for the (a) reform of legal aid and (b) introduction of the universal credit; and if he will make a statement. [32474]

Mr Djanogly: Discussions have taken place at official level on the timetable for reform of legal aid and the introduction of the universal credit.

We will work together closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the legal aid passporting provisions for income are appropriately aligned with the proposed reforms to the system of financial support for people of working age, including the proposal that combines income related benefits and tax credits.

Legal Aid Scheme: Telephone Services

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the implications of his proposals for a single telephone gateway for civil legal aid services, on people who (a) do not have access to a telephone, (b) have a health condition that prevents them from using a telephone and (c) have English language difficulties; and if he will make a statement. [32475]

Mr Djanogly: Clients who do not have access to a telephone (either personally or through family or friends) can obtain e-mail advice through the Community Legal Advice (CLA) service. Access to the internet is available free of charge in many public locations such as libraries. In addition, many voluntary and community sector organisations allow clients access to their telephone services or would ring the helpline on their behalf. The CLA helpline also offers a call-me-back service for clients concerned about the cost of their call.

Many clients with health conditions find it difficult to travel to their advice provider or sit in waiting rooms and often find that telephone advice services are more convenient. The CLA helpline accepts calls from clients using systems such as Minicom and Typetalk that aid communication with or between deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech-impaired people. Clients with hearing or speech impairments may also access advice through the e-mail service or through the British Sign Language service offered by the helpline in partnership with the Royal Association for the Deaf.

The CLA helpline offers a free translation service in 170 languages through Language Line for clients seeking advice in a language other than English or Welsh.

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether individuals who are referred for specialist advice will have a choice of provider following the implementation of his proposals for a single telephone gateway for civil legal aid services; and if he will make a statement. [32476]

Mr Djanogly: In cases referred to face-to-face advice, CLA call agents will offer clients details of a number of providers that are geographically closest to their home or place of work dealing with cases in the category of law in question. Clients will be able to request details of additional providers and to choose which provider to visit.

Legal Aid: Contracts

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what terms of agreement were reached between the Law Society, the Legal Services Commission and his Department arising from the judgment of the Court of Appeal decision of November 2007 on the Law Society's Judicial Review of the civil legal aid contract; when and by what means the terms of the agreement were published; what statements were made by his Department on the Legal Services Commission on that subject in April 2008; and what information was provided about the extent of the power to amend the contract. [32012]

Mr Djanogly: The terms of agreement reached between the LSC, Law Society and MoJ arising from the judgment of the Court of Appeal decision of November 2007 on the Law Society's Judicial Review of the Unified Civil Contract (2007) were included in the Deed of Settlement, which was made and published on the LSC website in
10 Jan 2011 : Column 185W
April 2008. A copy of the deed and further details about it are available on the LSC website:

On 2 April 2008 the Ministry of Justice tabled a written ministerial statement which was laid in both Houses along with a press release (see following link for the press release).

On 2 April 2008 the LSC published a news story on its website about this, and included a link to the news story in its regular LSC update e-mail which goes out every two weeks to legal aid providers and anyone else who has registered to receive it.

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what provisions in the Legal Services Commission's Unified Contract (Civil) 2007 provided for subsequent amendment to that contract. [32017]

Mr Djanogly: Clause 13 of the Unified Contract (Civil) 2007 Standard Terms provides for subsequent amendment to it.

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what reasons the Legal Services Commission extended the Unified Contract (Civil) 2007 pursuant to clause 13.4 of the contract's standard terms; and what role the (a) chair, (b) chief executive and (c) legal director had in such decisions. [32018]

Mr Djanogly: There have been several extensions of the Unified Contract (Civil) 2007. It was initially granted for three years from 1 April 2007 (to expire on 31 March 2010 unless lawfully ended or extended before then). On 23 December 2009 the LSC published notification that the contract would be extended to 14 October 2010. This extension was to take account of tenders for 2010 contracts opening in January to March 2010.

The contract required notice of any further extension to be given at least three months before 31 March 2010, therefore it was necessary to revise this provision before any further extension. On 13 September 2010 a further extension of the contract to expire at midnight on 14 November 2010 was announced. This was to preserve the status quo pending the legal challenge brought by the Law Society. The extension provisions were amended pursuant to clause 13.4 of the contract's standard terms to provide for one month's notice for future extensions.

Following judgment in R (On the application of Law Society of England and Wales) v Legal Services Commission [2010] All ER (D) 01 (Oct) which quashed the 2010 family tender two further extensions to the Unified Contract (2007) have been made (details are provided on the LSC website) for only the providers who currently deliver 'family only' and 'family and housing' publicly-funded legal services. The Unified Contract (Civil) 2007 as extended first until midnight on 14 December and then until midnight on 30 November 2011. This was necessary to ensure continued provision of services following quashing of the family law tenders for new contracts.

The extension provisions of the contract were again amended this time pursuant to clause 13.2 (and not 13.4) of the Unified Contract (Civil) 2007 Standard
10 Jan 2011 : Column 186W
Terms, in reliance on the above judgment. This approach was approved by the court at the final hearing.

The decision to extend the contracts in light of the judicial review was made by the LSC Board in October 2010. The board consists of the chair and non-executive members, as well as the chief executive and finance director who have equal decision-making rights. The legal director was present when the decision was taken.

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent steps the Legal Services Commission has taken to (a) record and (b) process complaints made about its tendering exercises; and what have been the results of such steps. [32019]

Mr Djanogly: The LSC is committed to providing the best possible service for all its customers. It strives to maintain the highest standards of customer service and effective complaint handling. If the LSC cannot resolve a complaint internally, then it can be escalated to the parliamentary ombudsman.

Complaints relating to the tender process have come in through several routes; as formal complaints, as claims for judicial review and as questions sent through the eTendering system.

Complaints have been recorded separately, depending on the route through which they have been submitted, and dealt with through the appropriate process for that route.

In early 2011 the LSC will undertake a lessons learned review of the tender process for both civil and crime 2010 contracts, which will consider feedback received from representative bodies and providers.

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps the Legal Services Commission has taken to inform its staff of the implications for them of the judgment of the Divisional Court in the case of R (on the application of Law Society of England and Wales) v Legal Services Commission [2010]; and (a) on what date and (b) by what means such steps were taken. [32116]

Mr Djanogly: Staff have been updated about the developments relating to the tenders through regular communications since the summer. The chief executive, executive directors and the senior management team have kept staff updated via face-to-face briefings, intranet discussion forums and regular written and verbal updates, the exact dates of which have not been recorded.

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what role in the decision of the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to extend the 2007 unified contract under clause 13.4 of that contract was played by the (a) chair, (b) chief executive and (c) legal director of the LSC. [32180]

Mr Djanogly: There have been several extensions of the Unified Contract (Civil) 2007. It was initially granted for three years from 1 April 2007 (to expire on 31 March 2010 unless lawfully ended or extended before then). On 23 December 2009 the LSC published notification that the contract would be extended to 14 October 2010. This extension was to take account of tenders for 2010 contracts opening in January to March 2010.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 187W

The contract required notice of any further extension to be given at least three months before 31 March 2010, therefore it was necessary to revise this provision before any further extension. On 13 September 2010 a further extension of the contract to expire at midnight on 14 November 2010 was announced. This was to preserve the status quo pending the legal challenge brought by the Law Society. The extension provisions were amended pursuant to clause 13.4 of the contract's standard terms to provide for one month's notice for future extensions.

Following judgment in R (On the application of Law Society of England and Wales) v. Legal Services Commission [2010] All ER (D) 01 (Oct) which quashed the 2010 family tender, two further extensions to the Unified Contract (2007) have been made (details are provided on the LSC website) for only the providers who currently deliver "family only" and "family and housing" publicly funded legal services. The Unified Contract (Civil) 2007 was extended first until midnight on 14 December and then until midnight on 30 November 2011. This was necessary to ensure continued provision of services following quashing of the family law tenders for new contracts.

The extension provisions of the contract were again amended this time pursuant to Clause 13.2 (and not 13.4) of the Unified Contract (Civil) 2007 Standard Terms, in reliance on the above judgment. This approach was approved by the court at the final hearing.

The decision to extend the contracts in light of the judicial review was made by the LSC Board in October 2010. The board consists of the chair and non-executive members, as well as the chief executive and finance director who have equal decision-making rights. The legal director was present when the decision was taken.

Legal Services Commission

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much the Legal Services Commission spent on (a) professional subscriptions and (b) costs in connection with the employment of its Principal Legal Adviser in (i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09, (iii) 2009-10 and (iv) 2010-11. [32184]

Mr Djanogly: The following table shows the costs of practicing certificates for each of the financial years specified. These are the only subscription costs attributed solely to the Legal Director, although they are a requirement.

£

2007-08

1,050

2008-09

1,045

2009-10

1,310

2010-11

438


The LSC's Legal Director has been employed at Senior Civil Service Band 1 during the time period specified and as such the salary has been in line with the range for this level. Since 1 April 2010 the Legal Director has been a member of the executive team and the salary details for the current financial year will therefore be published in the annual report and accounts for 2010-11. The salary range for this level is currently £58,200 to
10 Jan 2011 : Column 188W
£117,800. In addition, the Legal Director also has a leased car partly funded by the LSC. The net costs to the LSC are as follows:

£

2007-08

3,174

2008-09

5,503

2009-10

5,265

2010-11 to date

1,214


Legal Services Commission: Contracts

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the obligations of the Legal Services Commission are regarding notification as set out in clause 32 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006; and what the responsibilities are of the (a) chair, (b) chief executive and (c) legal director in respect of compliance with such obligations. [32055]

Mr Djanogly: The LSC is under no obligation to comply with regulation 32 of the public contracts regulations (information about contract award procedures) in respect of its legal aid contracts. Regulation 32 does not apply to part B contracts, which include contracts for legal services.

The LSC board is responsible for ensuring that the LSC maintains high standards of governance at all times. The chair and chief executive have equal decision-making rights on the board, and all meetings are usually attended by the legal director.

The chief executive is responsible for the day-to-day operations and management of the LSC. The chief executive is responsible to the chair who is in turn responsible to the Lord Chancellor.

Legal Services Commission: Manpower

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many staff of the Legal, Commissioning and Operational Policy Department of the Legal Services Commission (LSC) with what job title were based in each of the LSC's offices on (a) the latest date for which information is available, (b) 31 March 2007, (c) 31 March 2008, (d) 31 March 2009 and (e) 31 March 2010. [32181]

Mr Djanogly: It is not possible to provide a response in the format requested except at disproportionate cost. The Legal, Commissioning and Operational Policy Department was created in May 2010 and the latest figures show there being 89 full-time equivalent staff members working from a variety of LSC offices.

Legal Services Commission: Training

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice who gave authorisation, and in what form, for the participation of the Principal Legal Adviser to the Legal Services Commission (LSC) in an advanced management programme course; what conditions were set on her participation; what benefit the LSC has received from her participation; and what further benefit it expects to receive from her participation. [32182]


10 Jan 2011 : Column 189W

Mr Djanogly: The LSC's then chief executive, Carolyn Regan, authorised this course with approval from the LSC's HR director. No specific conditions were set on the legal director's participation. The leadership development course was targeted at specialists developing a broader range of management disciplines. The course has been beneficial to the LSC's organisational restructure in that the legal director now has responsibility for a larger department.

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much the Legal Services Commission spent on the provision of education and training courses in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-10 and (d) 2010-11; on what courses the money was spent; and who the provider was in each case. [32183]

Mr Djanogly: Total expenditure on training courses for each of the years specified is provided in the following table. It is not possible to split these costs down further by course or provider as to do so could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

£000

2007-08

l,125

2008-09

756

2009-10

43 8

2010-11 to date

104


Pleural Plaques: Compensation

Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many payments under the Pleural Plaques Compensation Scheme have been made in Tyne and Wear; and how many such claims are being processed. [31995]

Mr Djanogly: A total of 584 applicants with a Tyne and Wear postcode have already been paid under the Pleural Plaques Scheme. There are currently 511 other cases being processed which have Tyne and Wear postcodes.

Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his most recent estimate is of the average amount of time taken to process a claim under the Pleural Plaques Compensation scheme. [31996]

Mr Djanogly: The average time taken to process an application based on completed cases is 41 working days. This includes the time that applicants are given to provide supporting information as well as the time that they are given to consider the offer before advising their acceptance. Separate figures for these stages are not available.

Prisoners' Release: Reoffenders

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which agency will be collecting data in respect of any re-offending by prisoners leaving HM Prison Peterborough under the provisions of the Social Impact Bond; and over what period such data will be collected. [32439]

Mr Blunt: The impact of the Social Impact Bond pilot scheme on reoffending will be evaluated by an independent assessor. A competitive tender process to appoint the independent assessor is under way.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 190W

The independent assessor will use a database compiled and maintained by the Ministry of Justice, based on data recorded on the Police National Computer by police forces in England and Wales.

Evaluations will commence 18 months after each cohort closes. This delay is to allow for any crimes committed by the offenders following their release from prison to be detected, prosecuted and recorded on the Police National Computer.

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the most recent recidivism rate was for prisoners leaving HM Prison Peterborough. [32440]

Mr Blunt: The Ministry of Justice published the latest 'Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis' on 4 November 2010. This publication included the latest available data on reconviction rates for individual prisons, covering the 2007 calendar year.

The one-year reconviction rate of male prisoners discharged from HMP Peterborough in 2007 was 62.9% among those serving sentences of less than 12 months. For male offenders sentenced to 12 months or longer, the one-year reconviction rate was 35.0%.

The one-year reconviction rate of female prisoners discharged from HMP Peterborough in 2007 was 62.9% among those serving sentences of less than 12 months. For female offenders sentenced to 12 months or longer, the one-year reconviction rate was 34.3%.

These reconviction rates relate only to offenders who were discharged from HMP Peterborough at the end of their sentence. They do not take into account the actual proportion of the sentence that was served in the establishment, or those offenders who served part of their sentence in HMP Peterborough before being discharged from another prison.

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what consideration he has given to the merits of extending the Social Impact Bond scheme to (a) high risk, priority and prolific offenders and (b) offenders serving long-term sentences. [32441]

Mr Blunt: The Government have no plans to extend the terms of the current Social Impact Bond pilot at HMP Peterborough.

On 7 December 2010, the Government set out in the Green Paper "Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders" its proposals to establish at least six new payment by results projects for reducing reoffending.

These include two payments by results projects for offenders released from prison, focusing on those offenders who are sentenced to less than 12 months in prison, and two large scale projects for offenders managed on community sentences and those released on licence.

The Government consider that it is not necessarily appropriate to apply a payment by results regime to the management of all offenders. For example, there is a case that those who pose a high risk to the public should be excluded, given that the focus of the supervising agencies participating in multi-agency public protection arrangements is on effectively managing the risk of
10 Jan 2011 : Column 191W
harm which such offenders present. The Ministry of Justice is seeking to test this view as part of the Green Paper consultation process.

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he plans to take to fund social sector organisations participating in the Peterborough pilot of the Social Impact Bond. [32442]

Mr Blunt: Under the Social Impact Bond pilot, Social Finance will commission social sector organisations such as the St Giles Trust to deliver intensive services and mentoring to reduce reconvictions in 3,000 short-sentence (less than 12 months) prisoners released from HMP Peterborough. Social Finance will use significant new resources from social investors to fund this work.

The Government will pay Social Impact Bond investors only if the scheme is successful in reducing reconvictions. Together with the Big Lottery Fund, the Government will pay for results if reconvictions fall by 10% in one of the three 1,000-offender cohorts, or by an aggregate of 7.5% across the three cohorts together. If these thresholds are not achieved, no payment will be made.

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps the Prison Service will take in respect of prisoners in HM Prison Peterborough who are eligible for the Social Impact Bond scheme and decline to participate in the pilot. [32443]

Mr Blunt: All adult male offenders serving a sentence of less than 12 months at HMP Peterborough will automatically be included in the Social Impact Bond scheme upon their arrival at HMP Peterborough, until the pilot reaches capacity at 3,000 offenders.

There is no mandatory requirement for prisoners to participate in the Social Impact Bond pilot. However, qualifying prisoners who decline participation, or disengage after initially taking part, will be able to join the programme and access services at any point later on, including after their discharge into the community.

For the purposes of evaluating the success of the Social Impact Bond pilot, offenders who decline to participate will remain within the cohort and the frequency of the reconviction of non-participants will be taken into account by the independent assessor.

Remand in Custody: Prison Sentences

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) men and (b) women were remanded in custody in each of the last three years; and how many were given a custodial sentence in each such year. [31690]

Mr Blunt: The estimated number of males and females remanded in custody who went on to receive a custodial sentence at magistrates courts and the Crown court in England and Wales 2007 to 2009 (latest currently available) is shown in the table.

Data for 2010 are planned for publication in spring 2011.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 192W
Persons remanded in custody( 1) who subsequently received a custodial sentence( 2) at magistrates courts( 3) and the Crown court( 4) , by sex, England and Wales 2007-09
Persons (thousand)
2007( 5) 2008( 6,7) 2009( 7)

Males

Remanded in custody

68.3

78.2

67.6

Of which immediate custody

36.1

40.8

40.6

Females

Remanded in custody

6.2

5.1

5.2

Of which immediate custody

2.7

2.3

2.8

(1) Includes those remanded in custody at any stage of proceedings at magistrates and the Crown court who may also have been given bail at some stage of those proceedings.
(2) Includes detention in a young offender institution, detention and training orders and unsuspended imprisonment.
(3) Magistrates courts figures exclude those committed for trial or sentence at the Crown court.
(4) Crown court cases are not necessarily concluded in the same year as the committal therefore the figures presented may include cases where defendants were remanded in custody during earlier years than under which they are presented in this table.
(5) Includes estimates for those offences omitted from data supplied.
(6) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008.
(7) Data for 2008 and 2009 are estimated.
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 within the Ministry of Justice.

Reparation By Offenders

Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much income was received by probation trusts through community payback schemes in 2009-10. [32252]

Mr Blunt: Each probation trust is responsible for collecting and accounting for its own costs. The probation trust contract does not split out the amounts for each element of the probation service provided by the trust. The National Offender Management Service is currently finalising and agreeing each trust's costs for community payback as part of the specification, benchmarking and costing programme. This work is not yet complete.

Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many staff of the probation service are engaged in delivering the community payback scheme. [32255]

Mr Blunt: The latest available figures on the number of staff in the probation service working in community payback roles are shown in the following table, broken down into job group. It shows that on 31 July 2010 there were a total of 1,646.71 FTE permanent staff in post and an additional 688 casual staff (headcount) in these roles.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 193W
Permanent and casual staff in community payback roles, 31 July 2010
Job group Staff in post (FTE) Casual staff (Headcount)

Area/district manager

3.00

0

Assistant chief officer

2.00

0

Middle manager

92.46

0

Other operational staff

365.27

326

Other staff

79.64

21

Probation officer

40.61

16

Probation services officer

628.22

297

Senior practitioner

11.00

0

Support staff

Administration

403.28

1

Support staff-other

16.23

27

Treatment manager

5.00

0

Total

1,646.71

688


Restraint Techniques: Children

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which organisation has developed the restraint techniques under consideration by the Restraint Accreditation Board; what expertise that organisation has in (a) children's human rights, (b) working with traumatised children and (c) child development; whether any other organisations were invited to make proposals for the development of new restraint techniques for use in children's custody; and what criteria were used in determining which organisation would be asked to develop restraint techniques for use in children's custody. [32277]

Mr Blunt: The Independent Review of Restraint recommended that The National Tactical Response Group, part of the National Offender Management Service, develop a new approach to restraint for use in young offender institutions and secure training centres. Conflict Resolution Training (CRT) is currently being accredited by the Restraint Accreditation Board. The board is made up of child forensic psychiatrists, behaviour management specialists, physiotherapists, paediatricians, pathologists, academics, and operational experts.

CRT has been developed in consultation with behaviour management specialists and experts from a range of settings, including; all sectors of the under-18s secure estate, health, mental health, independent training providers, third sector agencies, and academics.

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many of the restraint techniques currently being considered by the Restraint Accreditation Board contain a component that allows the infliction of pain during the application of the technique. [32278]

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 of harm.


10 Jan 2011 : Column 194W

There are currently a small number of restraint techniques that the Restraint Accreditation Board are considering as part of the proposed new Conflict Resolution Training package that incorporate the use of pain.

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the Restraint Accreditation Board has sought human rights legal advice in its consideration of new restraint techniques for use in children's custody. [32279]

Mr Blunt: The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UN convention on rights of the child together with all other requirements of international and domestic law are taken into account by the Government in determining their policy and practice on the use of restraint in the under-18 secure estate. This will apply when the Government consider advice from the Restraint Accreditation Board on accrediting new restraint techniques.

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he expects identical accredited restraint techniques to be used in (a) young offender institutions, (b) secure training centres and (c) local authority secure children's homes; and if he will make a statement. [32280]

Mr Blunt: The Restraint Accreditation Board is currently considering whether to accredit a new approach to restraint for introduction into secure training centres and young offender institutions. We await their expert advice on whether the needs of young people in each secure estate sector require different approaches.

Supreme Court: Buildings

David Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what timetable has been set for repair of the ground floor windows of the Supreme Court facing Parliament Square. [32429]

Mr Djanogly: During disturbances in Parliament Square and Broad Sanctuary in the afternoon and evening of 9 December, the Supreme Court had panes of glass in 14 ground floor windows broken, including the destruction of original 97 year old leaded lights. All the windows had secondary glazing and none of those was penetrated, albeit that one pane of the secondary glazing was damaged.

The ordinary broken glazing in the 14 windows was replaced on 10 December. The window putty beads will be painted black in a few weeks' time when they have hardened.

The bomb resistant pane of glass for the secondary glazing was replaced on 15 December.

It is expected that the leaded lights will be returned from the restorer's workshop before the end of February 2011. For the time being, the windows have been glazed with plain glass.

Communities and Local Government

Buildings: Community Development

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which community buildings have transferred ownership to parish groups in (a) England and (b) the UK in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [31859]


10 Jan 2011 : Column 195W

Andrew Stunell [holding answer 21 December 2010]: Information on the transfer of community buildings to parish groups is not held centrally. Information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. For further, general information I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 December 2010, Official Report, columns 930-31W.


Next Section Index Home Page