NHS: PFI
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS in each of the next five years of financing the hospital contracts entered into under the private finance initiative in the last 15 years. [51454]
Mr Simon Burns: The most recent estimate of the total annual payments for national health service bodies under signed private finance initiative (PFI) contracts for hospital building schemes for 2011-12 to 2015-16 are shown in the following table.
|
|
Total annual estimated PFI payments (£ million) |
The payment figures include not just the financing costs for the initial construction but all the other services such as building maintenance and support services (cleaning, catering, portering etc.) provided over the lifetime of the contract. The figures also include an annual uprate assumption for inflation of 2.5%.
26 Apr 2011 : Column 123W
NHS: Public Expenditure
Mr Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason there is a difference between the departmental expenditure limits for the NHS (Health) for 2010-11 in (a) the 2010 spending review and (b) the 2011 Budget. [50946]
Mr Simon Burns: The 2010-11 resource departmental expenditure limit for the NHS (Health) baseline in the 2010 spending review is £98.7 billion (Table 1 on page 10—CM 7942).
The 2010-11 NHS (Health) estimate in the 2011 Budget is £98.4 billion (Table 2.4 on page 48—HC836).
The reduction of £300 million between the 2010 spending review and the 2011 Budget has occurred because the 2011 Budget reflects the Department's latest forecast of expenditure for 2010-11, an underspend of around £300 million.
The 2010-11 capital departmental expenditure limit for the NHS (Health) baseline in the 2010 spending review is £5.1 billion (Table 2 on page 11—CM 7942).
The 2010-11 NHS (Health) estimate in the 2011 Budget is £4.5 billion (Table 2.4 on page 48—HC836).
The reduction of £550 million between the 2010 spending review and the 2011 Budget is due to:
the figures in the 2011 Budget Report reflecting the Department's latest forecast of expenditure for 2010-11, an underspend of around £350 million; and
HM Treasury having adjusted the 2010-11 capital DEL to include fiscal stimulus and Warm Front funding in the 2010 spending review baseline. This funding had been transferred from the Department's 2010-11 DEL.
By way of comparison, the resource underspend in 2009-10 was £1.407 billion and the capital underspend in 2009-10 was £230 million.
NHS: Reorganisation
Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the costs to the NHS of his announcement of 4 April 2011 of a delay in the implementation of NHS reforms; and if he will make a statement. [51947]
Mr Simon Burns: The cost of the Government’s modernisation proposals were published in the impact assessment for the Health and Social Care Bill. The estimated national cost is £1.4 billion. These figures are our best estimates at this time, but may change in light of the outcome of the current listening exercise.
The impact assessment is available at:
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsLegislation/DH_123583
A copy has already been placed in the Library.
Office of Health Professions Adjudicator
Owen Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent from the public purse on the establishment of the Office of Health Professions Adjudicator. [51355]
26 Apr 2011 : Column 124W
Anne Milton: The amount spent on the establishment of the Office of Health Professions Adjudicator is shown in the following table.
|
|
Spend (£) |
| (1) Indicative 2010-11 year end accounts will be published 7 April 2011, so this figure may be subject to change. | |
Owen Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish each submission to his Department’s consultation on the future of the Office of Health Professions Adjudicator. [51356]
Anne Milton: In line with a commitment made to the Health and Social Care Bill Committee on 29 March 2011, submissions to the Department’s consultation on “Fitness to Practice Adjudication for Health Professionals: Assessing Different Mechanisms for Delivery” will be published on the Department of Health website as soon as practicable, after the redaction of personal data where necessary in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Department’s Information Charter.
This will be subject to two instances where, in line with the express wishes of the respondents, the identities of those respondents, and the terms of the response of one of them, cannot be published.
Physiotherapy
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of introducing GP-led commissioning on access to (a) physiotherapy and (b) community-based therapeutic exercise for people recovering from fragility fractures. [51091]
Mr Simon Burns: Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill through Parliament, general practitioners (GPs) will be given real responsibility to ensure that commissioning decisions are underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare needs. GPs, in partnership with other local healthcare professionals such as therapists and community nurses, are best placed to understand the health needs of local populations and how to work with their local populations to design services that meet those needs.
Prescriptions: Bassetlaw
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued in Bassetlaw constituency in 2010. [51378]
Mr Simon Burns: The information is not available in the format requested.
The number of prescription items dispensed in the community within the United Kingdom, which were written in the Bassetlaw primary care trust area in 2010 was 2,230,849.
Notes:
1. This information was obtained from the Prescribing Analysis and CosT tool (PACT) system, which covers prescriptions prescribed by general practitioners, nurses, pharmacists and others in England and dispensed in the community in the United Kingdom. For data at primary care trust (PCT) level, prescriptions written by a
26 Apr 2011 : Column 125W
prescriber located in a particular PCT but dispensed outside that PCT will be included in the PCT in which the prescriber is based. Prescriptions written in England but dispensed outside England are included. Prescriptions written in hospitals or clinics that are dispensed in the community, prescriptions dispensed in hospitals, dental prescribing and private prescriptions are not included in PACT data.
2. Prescriptions are written on a prescription form known as a FP10. Each single item written on the form is counted as a prescription item.
Source:
Prescribing Analysis and CosT tool (PACT) system.
Primary Care Trusts: Finance
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the change in the level of expenditure which will arise from allocating the functions of primary care trusts to other organisations under his proposals for NHS reform. [50836]
Mr Simon Burns: It is intended that the National Health Service Commissioning Board would take responsibility from the Department of Health for commissioning guidelines and the allocation of resources for NHS services. In addition, the board would be responsible for commissioning certain services, including specialised services, worth around £10 billion, primary medical services, worth around £8 billion and other family health services, worth over £3 billion.
26 Apr 2011 : Column 126W
Work is continuing to refine these estimates, as well as estimates of the value of other services, such as the public health responsibilities that would transfer from primary care trusts to Public Health England, including its grants to local authorities.
The proposed restructuring will enable the costs of administration across the health system to be reduced by one third in real terms, delivering savings of over £5 billion by 2014-15 and £1.7 billion every year thereafter. All of these savings will be available to re-invest in patient care.
Primary Care Trusts: Redundancy
Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalent staff have been made redundant in each primary care trust in 2010-11; and what the overall cost of such redundancies has been in each primary care trust. [51948]
Mr Simon Burns: The information requested is not held centrally.
The number of staff made redundant in each primary care trust (PCT) by headcount is available for the first three quarters (April 2010 to December 2010) of 2010-11. This is shown in the following table. A breakdown by each PCT has been placed in the Library.
| Quarter 1 2010-11 | Quarter 2 2010-11 | Quarter 3 2010-11 | |||||||
|
|
April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December |
| Source: Data extracted from electronic staff record and validated by strategic health authorities with trusts | |||||||||
The data for quarter 4 (January 2011 to March 2011) 2010-11 will be published at the end of June 2011.
From 2010-11, there is a HM Treasury financial reporting manual requirement for the NHS audited summarisation schedules to further analyse termination benefits into the number and cost of compulsory and other exit packages by cost banding.
This data will be available once audited final accounts are published in late summer. Other exit packages will include voluntary redundancies and voluntary early retirements, however, these will not be separately identifiable from the data.
Primary Care Trusts: Re-employment
Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that no one who took early voluntary retirement from a primary care trust in 2010-11 will be re-employed by a primary care trust as a result of the delays to the implementation of NHS reforms announced on 4 April 2011; and if he will make a statement. [51944]
Mr Simon Burns: Payment of an NHS pension is made under the regulations of the scheme. Members of the scheme who take voluntary early retirement from the national health service have an actuarial reduction applied to their pension as they have retired before their normal pension age of 60 for members of the 1995 section, and 65 for members of the 2008 section. There are no restrictions on a member who has retired with an actuarial reduction subsequently returning to work in the NHS. Retired members of the 1995 section are unable to rejoin the scheme, whereas members who retired from the 2008 section are able to rejoin the scheme.
26 Apr 2011 : Column 127W
Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that no one who was made redundant from a primary care trust in 2010-11 will be re-employed by a primary care trust as a result of the delays to the implementation of NHS reforms announced on 4 April 2011. [51945]
Mr Simon Burns: Under NHS Agenda for Change Terms and Conditions, when a person obtains suitable alternative employment with the same or another national health service employer within four weeks of their date of redundancy, they lose their right to a redundancy payment or pension.
No penalty is incurred if a person obtains further NHS employment after a period of four weeks has passed from their date of redundancy. This is a long- standing provision confirmed when the redundancy provisions were renegotiated in 2006.
The national Mutually Agreed Resignation Scheme, which was introduced in 2010 to provide a cost effective means of delivering change in the NHS, includes “clawback” arrangement so that if an employee returns to work for the NHS within six months of their last day of employment they will be required to repay any un-expired element of their compensation.
Primary Care Trusts: Retirement
Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff took early voluntary retirement in each primary care trust in 2010-11; and what the overall cost of such early voluntary retirements was in each primary care trust. [51946]
Mr Simon Burns: The information requested on the number of early voluntary retirements in primary care trusts is not held centrally.
From 2010-11, there is a HM Treasury Financial Reporting Manual requirement for the national health service audited summarisation schedules to further analyse termination benefits into the number and cost of compulsory and other exit packages by cost banding.
This data will be available once audited final accounts are published in late summer. Other exit packages will include voluntary redundancies and voluntary early retirements, however these will not be separately identifiable from the data.
Surgery
Ian Swales: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 28 March 2010, Official Report, column 194W, on surgery, what proportion of operations cancelled were urgent operations in each year since 2002-03. [52290]
Mr Simon Burns: Information is not collected centrally on all operations cancelled by the national health service. The Department only collects information on the number of urgent operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons and the number of elective operations cancelled “at the last minute” for non-clinical reasons. These figures are shown in the following table.
| Financial year | Number of urgent operations cancelled (1) | Number of elective operations cancelled at the last minute (2) |
26 Apr 2011 : Column 128W
| (1 )The number of urgent cancellations apply to both emergency and elective operations. (2 )The number of elective operations cancelled at the last minute includes operations cancelled on the day of operation or day of admission. Other cancellations are not captured in these figures. (3 )Data for 2010-11 up to February 2011 only (urgent operations cancelled) and up to December 2010 (for elective cancellations). | ||
Tobacco: Retail Trade
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to announce whether regulations will be revoked under the Government's one-in, one-out policy as a result of the introduction of a tobacco display ban. [50815]
Mr Simon Burns: The Department scrutinises all measures, as part of the flow of regulation, to identify outs for the one-in, one-out regulatory management system. This is a continuous process.
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the capacity of supermarkets to comply with proposals for a tobacco display ban. [50816]
Anne Milton: The Impact Assessment included in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Display) (England) Regulations 2010, sets out the Department's assessment of the likely impact on retailers of implementing the legislation to end displays of tobacco products in shops in England.
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 21 March 2011, Official Report, column 775W, on tobacco: sales, with which representatives of retailers his Department is working to develop guidance. [51357]
Anne Milton: The legislation ending tobacco displays in shops in England will come into effect in the first instance for large shops on 6 April 2012 and for other shops on 6 April 2015. Departmental officials are currently developing guidance for large shops. The Department will continue to engage with the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores as representatives of large retailers, as well as the supermarket chains Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Waitrose and the Co-operative.
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2011, Official Report, column 775W, on tobacco: sales, whether the appropriate Government Ministers included the members of the Reducing Regulation Committee. [51358]
Anne Milton: The appropriate Government Ministers did include the Reducing Regulation Committee.
26 Apr 2011 : Column 129W
Transplant Surgery
Mr Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his Department's policy is on support for fully independent transplant units; and what fully independent transplant units there are in England and Wales; [51987]
(2) what the name is of each transplant centre in England and Wales; and which such centres have been subject to investigation by his Department arising from concern over clinical outcomes in the last five years for which figures are available. [51988]
Anne Milton: Transplantation is undertaken in national health service and private hospitals across the United Kingdom. There are no fully independent transplant centres as such, as all centres in England and Wales, whether they undertake transplants from living or deceased donors, are required to comply with the provisions of the Human Tissue Act 2004; ensure all living donation is authorised by the Human Tissue Authority and notify all procurement and transplantation of organs to NHS Blood and Transplant. From August 2012, all centres undertaking transplantation will also need to be licensed to meet the requirements of the EU Organ Directive 2010/53/EU. The centres, and the town or city in which they are based, are detailed in the following table.
In the last five years the National Commissioning Group has undertaken two investigations where concerns have arisen over clinical outcomes. These are an external review of the heart and lung transplant service at Papworth hospital in 2007 and a review of outcomes in the heart transplant service at Harefield hospital in 2008.
|
|
Centre |
| (1) Paediatric Designated Centre. | |
26 Apr 2011 : Column 130W
Mr Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mortality rate at (a) 30 days and (b) one year was for patients at each transplant unit in England in the latest period in which figures are available. [52039]
Anne Milton: To estimate patient survival rates following transplant, patients are followed up until either death or the 30th day, one year or five year time point is reached. The mortality rates at 30 days are only held for cardiothoracic transplants. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted survival rates and 95% confidence intervals are given for each centre in the following tables based on data from the UK Transplant Registry maintained by NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT).
The risk-adjusted rate gives an estimate of what the survival rate at a centre would have been if they had had the same mix of patients as that found across all centres.
The confidence interval rate gives an indication of the uncertainty or precision of an estimate, and is influenced by the number of transplants a particular centre undertakes. Estimates from larger data sets tend to be more precise and meaningful than those from smaller data sets. Confidence intervals are calculated with a stated probability, usually 95%.
Survival rates are not presented if there are five or fewer transplants at a centre in a given time period. Where there were no transplant failures or patient deaths within the post-transplant period of interest, the survival estimate is shown as 100% and a confidence interval is not shown as it cannot be estimated.
| Table 1: One year patient survival rates: deceased (kidneys), risk adjusted | |||
| Centre | Number of transplants | Survival estimate (%) | 95% confidence interval |
26 Apr 2011 : Column 131W
26 Apr 2011 : Column 132W
| Table 2: One year patient survival (pancreas) | |||
| Centre | Number of transplants | Survival estimate (%) | 95% confidence interval |
| Table 3: One year patient survival (liver) | |||||
| Centre | Number of transplants | Survival estimate (%) | 95% confidence interval | Risk adjusted survival estimate | Risk adjusted survival estimate 95% confidence interval |
| Table 4: 30 day patient survival (heart) | |||||
| Centre | Number of transplants | Survival estimate (%) | 95% confidence interval | Risk adjusted survival estimate | Risk adjusted survival estimate 95% confidence interval |
| Table 5: 30 day patient survival (lung) | |||||
| Centre | Number of transplants | Survival estimate (%) | 95% confidence interval | Risk adjusted survival estimate | Risk adjusted survival estimate 95% confidence interval |
| Table 6: One year patient survival (heart) | |||||
| Centre | Number of transplants | Survival estimate (%) | 95% confidence interval | Risk adjusted survival estimate | Risk adjusted survival estimate 95% confidence interval |
| Table 7: One year patient survival (lung) | |||||
| Centre | Number of transplants | Survival estimate (%) | 95% confidence interval | Risk adjusted survival estimate | Risk adjusted survival estimate 95% confidence interval |
26 Apr 2011 : Column 133W
26 Apr 2011 : Column 134W
Justice
Alternatives to Prison
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 29 March 2011, Official Report, columns 234-5W, on alternatives to prison, in what circumstances probation services would prepare a pre-sentence report to assist magistrates with their sentencing decision where a curfew or unpaid work would be appropriate for an offender but where he or she (a) has no fixed abode and (b) has advised the court of plans to leave the UK for a long time or permanently. [52341]
Mr Blunt: Probation Trusts will provide a pre-sentence report if requested by the court. The pre-sentence report will provide information on the offender that will help the court to decide whether to impose a community order and, if so, whether particular requirements are suitable for an individual offender.
Animal Welfare: Convictions
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many convictions there were for offences under section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in each year since 2005. [51708]
Mr Blunt: There were two defendants found guilty at all courts for offences under section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in England and Wales for the year 2006, and there were no defendants found guilty for the years 2005, and 2007 to 2009 (latest available).
Court proceedings data for 2010 are planned for publication on 26 May 2011.
Civil Proceedings: Legal Costs
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) with reference to his Department's response to the consultation on proposals for the reform of civil litigation funding and costs, how he expects costs arising from expert reports in cases of injuries of maximum severity on the cost of future accommodation, care costs, rehabilitation and medical reports outside the Association of Medical Reporting Organisations agreement to be met; [52199]
(2) how the cost of expert reports on liability and medical reports outside the Association of Medical Reporting Organisation's agreement will be funded in cases of occupational disease under his proposals for reform of civil litigation funding; [52221]
(3) how the cost of expert reports on liability for accidents at work will be funded under his proposals for civil litigation funding; [52222]
(4) how the cost of medical reports outside the Association of Medical Reporting Organisation's agreement will be funded under his proposals for civil litigation funding. [52223]
Mr Djanogly: The Government will continue to engage with claimant and defendant representatives to ensure that joint expert reports can be commissioned wherever possible. Under our proposals, claimants would also have the option of paying the disbursement costs themselves, or taking out after the event insurance to cover disbursements, paying the premium themselves except in clinical negligence claims. As announced in Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales—Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson's Recommendations: The Government Response Cm 8041, March 2011, the Government intend to permit the ATE insurance premium limited to the costs of expert reports to remain recoverable in clinical negligence claims where claimants have no alternative option for funding those reports.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what reports he has received of the cost of obtaining medical reports outside the Association of Medical Reporting Organisation’s agreement; [52224]
(2) what information his Department holds on the cost of expert reports for (a) future accommodation, (b) future care costs and (c) rehabilitation; [52449]
(3) what information his Department holds on the cost of expert reports on liability for (a) accidents at work and (b) occupational disease. [52450]
Mr Djanogly: We do not routinely collect data on expert reports as it forms part of wider expenditure on solicitors’ disbursements. In general, we do not have sufficient information to estimate the cost of expert reports for types of cases, nor for different types of report. This in part stems from the fact that for some types of personal injury cases for which we have data (notably the dataset referred to in annex A to the Jackson impact assessment), we only have data on disbursements paid by defendants, which may not equal the full cost of the disbursements.
The Legal Services Commission (LSC) hold more substantive data on disbursements for legal aid cases. This can be found in the LSC’s published statistical information (2009-10) at:
http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/how/strategic_publications.asp
The Government will continue to engage with claimant and defendant representatives to ensure that joint expert reports can be commissioned wherever possible.
Mr Slaughter:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) with reference to the Government response to Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations for
26 Apr 2011 : Column 135W
reforming civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales, whether the proportionality test would take precedence over fixed recoverable fee arrangements; and if he will make a statement; [52446]
(2) with reference to the Government response to Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations for reforming civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales, Cm 8041, March 2011, by what mechanism he will ensure that defendants’ legal costs are proportionate. [52451]
Mr Djanogly: The Government intend to introduce a new proportionality test in relation to recoverable costs, as recommended by Lord Justice Jackson. This test will apply to defendants in the same way as it applies to claimants. The details will be set out in due course.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the Government response to Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations for reforming civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales, Cm 8041, March 2011, (1) what incentive is provided for claimants' solicitors to pursue or defend appeals on points of law; [52452]
(2) what plans he has for the funding of claimants' costs in appeal cases on points of law. [52453]
Mr Djanogly: Claimants will be able to fund appeals in the same way that they fund cases at first instance.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the Government response to Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations for reforming civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales, Cm 8041, March 2011, in respect of the recovery of fees from claimants' general damages for past losses, whether recovery will be permitted from past special damages. [52454]
Mr Djanogly: As set out in the Government Response, the maximum success fee that a lawyer may agree with a client under a conditional fee agreement—or the payment under a damages based agreement—in personal injury cases will be subject to a cap. The cap will be 25% of damages, excluding those for future care and loss which will be protected.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the Government response to Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations for reforming civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales, Cm 8041, March 2011, in respect of the recovery of fees from claimants' general damages for pain and suffering of up to 25 per cent. against what damages recovery will be permitted in fatal accident cases where there are no such general damages. [52455]
Mr Djanogly: The 25% cap on damages, which a lawyer may agree with their clients as a success fee under a conditional fee agreement, is calculated as a percentage of all damages, excluding those for future care and loss which will be protected. The proceedings to which it applies will be set out in regulations in due course.
Mr Slaughter:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the Government response to Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations for reforming
26 Apr 2011 : Column 136W
civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales, Cm 8041, March 2011, (1) what certainty a claimant will have as to their potential costs liability when commencing a claim; [52456]
(2) what steps he is taking to avoid the means testing of claimants' income and capital. [52457]
Mr Djanogly: A regime of qualified one way costs shifting will be introduced for personal injury cases, including clinical negligence. The Government Response makes clear that we will continue to discuss with interested parties how the rules should be drafted. Qualified one way costs shifting will not be extended beyond personal injury at this stage, so the normal costs shifting rules will continue to apply in other cases.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what responses his Department received to its consultation on proposals to reform civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales on the viability of a market for after the event insurance to cover risks related to (a) disbursements only and (b) residual liability under qualified one way costs shifting; and if he will make a statement. [52458]
Mr Djanogly: As set out in the Government Response, the views of respondents to the consultation were clearly divided between general liability insurers and defendant representatives who supported the proposals, and claimant representatives and after the event (ATE) insurers who argued that recoverability of success fees and ATE insurance premiums should remain. Some respondents did express concern about the viability of the ATE market if recoverability of ATE insurance premiums is abolished. We will continue to engage with interested parties on the detail of how qualified one way costs shifting should be implemented and how expert reports can be jointly commissioned and funded.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the Government response to Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations for reforming civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales, Cm 8041, March 2011, what steps he intends to take to ensure that defendants do not exploit the caps on claimants’ costs by outspending the ability of a claimant to pursue their claim. [52459]
Mr Djanogly: The package of measures the Government are taking forward is designed to make the costs of civil litigation more proportionate. In personal injury claims, a regime of qualified one way costs shifting will be introduced, which will mean that the majority of defendants will not recover their costs in cases which they win. In other areas, the proportionality test will mean that if a winning defendant has spent a disproportionate amount on the case, they will only be able to recover a proportionate sum. Finally, it is not the claimant’s costs which will be capped by the reforms. It is the amount of damages which may be taken as part of the lawyer’s fee. In personal injury cases this will be subject to a cap of 25% of damages, excluding those for future care and loss.
Mr Slaughter:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to paragraph two of the foreword to the Government response to Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations for reforming civil litigation funding
26 Apr 2011 : Column 137W
and costs in England and Wales, Cm 8041, March 2011, what information his Department holds on the existence of a compensation culture. [52531]
Mr Djanogly: The Government believe that the current no win no fee arrangement have made it too easy to bring claims and too expensive to defend them. This has led to many examples of the compensation culture which were referred to by right hon. and hon. Members during the oral statement on 29 March 2011, Official Report, columns 173-74, and have been referred to, among others, by Lord Young of Graffham in ‘Common Sense, Common Safety’, his report last October on the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the Government response to Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations for reforming civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales, Cm 8041, March 2011, what estimate he has made of the extent to which the profits of liability insurance companies will change as a result of his proposals. [52532]
Mr Djanogly: A revised impact assessment was published alongside the Government Response document. As set out in Annex A of that impact assessment, the limitations of the data available mean that a full quantitative assessment of the impacts is not possible.
Convictions: Females
Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many and what proportion of women with a previous conviction have children aged under (a) 18, (b) 16, (c) 10 and (d) five years; and if he will make a statement. [52215]
Mr Blunt: While the Ministry of Justice holds information on the convictions of female offenders it does not hold information on the number of children these female offenders have.
Courts: Interpreters
Mr MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) if he will estimate the cost to the public purse of the provision of interpretation services for court hearings in each of the last three years; [51700]
(2) what recent assessment he has made of the quality of interpretation services provided in court hearings; and if he will make a statement. [51701]
Mr Blunt: We estimate that the annual cost of interpretation and translation services in the magistrates, crown, civil and family courts, excluding the costs of the Crown Prosecution Service and defence, is approximately £17 million.
In a written ministerial statement I made to this House on 15 September 2010, Official Report, columns 46-47WS, I announced our intention to engage with the market to explore how interpretation and translation services could be delivered more efficiently whilst ensuring that appropriate quality standards are met. The work has moved forward and we are now seeking the views of interested parties, including interpreters and interpreter organisations, on our proposals. We are clear that
26 Apr 2011 : Column 138W
maintaining the quality of the work delivered in the courts is essential. We will consider the comments we receive before making a decision on the best way forward.
Departmental Accountancy
Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether any ministerial directions have been issued to the accounting officer of his Department since his appointment. [51991]
Mr Djanogly: No ministerial directions have been issued to the accounting officer at the Ministry of Justice since the appointment of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).
Departmental Manpower
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what public sector job reduction targets have been set for his Department and its non-departmental public bodies for each of the next 24 months; and what steps he plans to take to meet such targets. [51520]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: No job reduction targets have been set for my Department. However, MoJ’s response to the spending review marks the beginning of a programme of radical change which will fundamentally reform the way justice is provided by 2015. I am confident that the process will lead to a transformed Ministry of Justice which is efficient, transparent, and affordable.
Estimates suggest that the Ministry will lose around 14,000 to 15,000 posts, including a significant reduction in our headquarters and administrative areas. Preliminary modelling assumptions split the posts between 10,000 in the National Offender Management Service, 3,000 in Courts and Tribunals Services and 1,000 to 2,000 elsewhere in the Department over the four-year period. Where possible, staff reduction will be through natural turnover and voluntary redundancy, avoiding compulsory redundancies if possible.
Drugs: Females
Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many female inmates have been reprimanded in respect of offences involving the use of drugs while in prison in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [52366]
Mr Blunt: The following table shows the number of proven drug offences committed by females in prison and dealt with under the prison adjudication process in each year from 2000 to 2009. These figures count the number of offences, not the number of individuals; one prisoner may be responsible for more than one offence. Drug offences comprise categories, “unauthorised use of a controlled drug,” “possession of a controlled drug,” “sells/delivers drugs to any person,” “administers any controlled drug” and “receives drugs during a visit.”
|
|
Number of offences |
26 Apr 2011 : Column 139W
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Drugs: Prosecutions
Mr Ruffley:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many and what proportion of those prosecuted
26 Apr 2011 : Column 140W
for offences of
(a)
possession of and
(b)
dealing in cannabis were (i) found not guilty, (ii) fined and (iii) imprisoned in each year since 2006. [52311]
Mr Blunt: The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for possession of cannabis, possession with intent to supply cannabis and dealing in cannabis, and the number and percentage of proceedings ending in acquittal, a fine or immediate custodial sentence, at all courts, in England and Wales for the year 2006 to 2009 (latest available) can be viewed in the following table.
Data for 2010 are planned for publication on 26 May 2011.
| Defendants (1, 2, 3) proceeded against at magistrates courts for possession of cannabis, possession with intent to supply cannabis, and dealing in cannabis, and the number and percentage of proceedings ending in acquittal, a fine or immediate custodial sentence, at all courts, in England and Wales for the year s 2006-09 (4, 5) | |||||
| Offence code | Offence | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 (6) | 2009 |
| (1) The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (2) Defendants proceeded against in one year may not have their final “case outcome” (i.e. found guilty or acquitted) in the same year (e.g. case may be committed for trial at the Crown court). (3) 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. (4) Cannabis was reclassified from a class C drug to a class B drug on 26 January 2009. (5) Statutes and corresponding offence descriptions used: | |||||
26 Apr 2011 : Column 141W
26 Apr 2011 : Column 142W
| Possession of cannabis: S 92/61 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 S.5(2) as amended by Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2008 Having possession of a controlled drug—Cannabis and cannabis resin; Cannabinol; Cannabinol derivatives S 92/66 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 S.5(2) Having possession of a controlled drug—Cannabis or cannabis resin. Possession with intent to supply cannabis: S 92/81 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 S.5(3) as amended by Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2008 Having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply—Cannabis and cannabis resin; Cannabinol; Cannabinol derivatives S 92/86 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 S.5(3) Having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply—Cannabis or cannabis resin Supplying or offering to supply cannabis: 92/41 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 S.4(3) as amended by Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2008 Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug (or being concerned in)—Cannabis and cannabis resin; Cannabinol; Cannabinol derivatives 92/46 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 S.4(3) Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug (or being concerned in)—Cannabis and cannabis resin (6) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008. (7) Acquitted includes disposals: discharged and dismissed at magistrates courts and acquitted at the Crown court. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services: Ministry of Justice. |
Employment Tribunals Service
Natascha Engel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many cases of an unpaid employment tribunal award have been passed to High Court enforcement officers under the fast-track enforcement regime since 6 April 2010; and in how many such cases the unpaid award was (a) fully recovered, (b) partially recovered and (c) not recovered. [51790]
Mr Djanogly: In the period between 6 April 2010 and 31 March 2011 1,495 unpaid employment tribunal awards have been issued under the ACAS and Employment Tribunal Fast Track.
The Fast Track is operated by the High Court Enforcement Officers Association and as such they are responsible for collation of the requested performance data. These data will not be available until 13 May 2011. Thereafter I will write to the hon. Member with those details.
Mr Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many occasions the maximum award for unfair dismissal has been awarded by an employment tribunal in each of the last five years; and what proportion of the total number of claims for unfair dismissal dealt with by the Employment Tribunal such awards represent in each of those years. [52318]
Mr Djanogly: The following table sets out the relevant data for each of the last five financial years for which figures are currently available.
| Unfair dismissal cases received, disposed of and awards made, 2005-10 | |||||||
|
|
Number of claims accepted | Number of claims disposed | Number of unfair dismissal claims successful at hearing (i.e. where an award was made) | The median level of awards made in unfair dismissal claims (£) | The level of maximum compensatory award (£) (1) | Number of awards made equal to or above the maximum award (2) | Percentage of awards equal to or above the maximum award relative to successful awards (2) |
| Source: ET Annual Reports apart from: (1) The maximum award for compensation is limited on 1 February by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills each year to the amount in the table. However awards can be above the maximum when they include a basic award element in addition to the compensatory clement. (2) Values for 2005-06 and 2006-07 are drawn from ET management information on IT systems and marked as provisional because there is no comparative data (i.e. in now destroyed hard copy files) to check them against. | |||||||
Family Courts: Mediation
Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he has any plans to increase the use of dispute resolution in family proceedings in Wales and England. [51776]
Mr Djanogly: The Government are committed to encouraging the public to resolve their issues out of court without recourse to public funds, using simpler, more informal remedies where they are appropriate.
On 23 February I announced that we will be increasing awareness and understanding of family mediation through a new Pre-Application Protocol for Family Mediation Information and Assessment meetings. This will begin to harmonise the position between self-funding and publicly funded individuals.
26 Apr 2011 : Column 143W
In our recent Legal Aid consultation paper we proposed that most family private law proceedings—other than cases where domestic violence or forced marriage is involved and child abduction cases—be removed from the scope of legal aid. Crucially, however, as we believe that supporting families at their most difficult moments is vitally important, it is proposed that free mediation for the types of dispute that previously were in scope will continue to those who are eligible. This will mean that those vulnerable people who need support will be able to benefit from mediation.
In 2009-10, we spent £14.4 million on publicly-funded family mediations. With the proposed legal aid reforms, it is anticipated that, subject to increased demand for publicly funded mediations, an additional £5 million will be spent annually.
We look forward to receiving the final recommendations from the independently-chaired Family Justice Review panel this autumn. This will help us to consider how the use of dispute resolution could be further encouraged across the family justice system.
26 Apr 2011 : Column 144W
Human Rights
Chris Heaton-Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice in which court cases a declaration of incompatibility has been made under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 since the entry into force of that Act; which provision of legislation was declared to be incompatible with which Convention right in each case; what the Government's response was to each declaration; and which such declarations are final. [52421]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: 27 declarations of incompatibility have been made under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 since it came into force on 2 October 2000.
The information requested concerning these declarations of incompatibility is given in the following table.
26 Apr 2011 : Column 145W
26 Apr 2011 : Column 146W
26 Apr 2011 : Column 147W
26 Apr 2011 : Column 148W
26 Apr 2011 : Column 149W
26 Apr 2011 : Column 150W
Chris Heaton-Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice in which court judgments section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been referred to as the main provision determining an interpretation of legislation set down in the judgment since the entry into force of that Act; which provisions of legislation was interpreted on this basis in each such judgment; with which Convention right was the judgment seeking the compatibility of legislation in each such case; and which of these judgments are final. [52427]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The information is not available in the form requested and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.
Chris Heaton-Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice in which court cases subordinate legislation as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998 has been quashed or declared invalid due to incompatibility with a Convention right contained in that Act since the passage of that Act; what the subordinate legislation quashed or declared invalid was in each case; with which Convention right the subordinate legislation was found to be incompatible in each such case; under which Act or Acts the subordinate legislation had been made in each case; what the response of the Government was in each such case; and which of those judgments are final. [52428]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The information requested is not collected and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.