15 Jun 2011 : Column 835W
Transport: Regional Planning and Development
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the status is of the interim regional transport authority; and through what mechanism its functions are being exercised. [55307]
Norman Baker: The North East Interim Regional Transport Board (NEIRTB) was a non-statutory body which agreed the regional funding advice provided to Government in 2006 and 2009 on the prioritisation of transport major schemes in the North East. The NEIRTB currently has no functions, but it is possible that such a non-statutory body could have a role in future in prioritising local authority major transport schemes.
Following the 2010 spending review, an announcement has already been made on the Highways Agency major schemes programme to 2015 and the remaining decisions on funding for local authorities major transport schemes in “the Development Pool” will be made following submission of best and final offers by scheme promoters.
In line with greater localism, the Government have already devolved many aspects of transport policy and funding to the local authority level. The Government will announce later this year how they intend to take forward such devolution with respect to local authority major transport schemes for the next spending review period.
Justice
Asylum: Appeals
Mr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether arrangements are in place to restrict eligibility to appeal against asylum judgements in the same way as restrictions are placed on eligibility for legal aid for the general public. [59689]
Mr Djanogly: The Government recently conducted a consultation on proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales, which closed on 14 February 2011.
Currently legal aid can be provided for asylum matters. Before funding is granted, the applicant must satisfy a means test, and a test of the merits of the case. The means test for asylum cases is the same as for other types of case.
We are considering the consultation responses, and will publish the Government response shortly.
Civil Proceedings: Insolvency
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent representations he has received on his proposals for reform of civil litigation funding and costs for insolvency cases; what response he has made to such representations; and if he will make a statement. [59836]
Mr Djanogly:
Annex A of ‘Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales—Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson's Recommendations: The Government Response,’ set out the list of those who responded to the consultation. This included the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, the Insolvency Lawyers
15 Jun 2011 : Column 836W
Association and the Insolvency Service. Ministry of Justice officials are in ongoing contact with officials at HMRC and the Insolvency Service to discuss the impact of the reforms on insolvency proceedings.
Coroners
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of the costs of appeal against a coroner's decision (a) to a Chief Coroner and (b) by means of judicial review. [59774]
Mr Djanogly: An impact assessment for part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 was published in December 2008 and summarised the full costs and benefits of implementing the coroners provisions in the Act, including those relating to appeals. This estimated overall set up costs of £10.9 million and running costs of £6.6 million per annum. I placed a further, more detailed, breakdown of those figures in the Library of the House on 20 May. This estimated that approximately £2.2 million of the running costs would be needed to fund appeals to the chief coroner. No further analysis has been conducted.
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he has made an assessment of the potential cost to the public purse of carrying out functions that would have been undertaken by the Chief Coroner. [59775]
Mr Djanogly: As announced in the written ministerial statement on 14 October 2010, Official Report, column 36WS, changes to coroners' services from partial implementation of Part One of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 will be cost-neutral. The decision to transfer Chief Coroner functions without fully implementing Part One of the Act means that the estimated £10.9 million set-up costs, and £6.6 million running costs per annum would no longer be incurred by the public purse.
Debt Collection
Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what percentage of (a) successful enforcements and (b) funding recovered from the original outstanding debt were made by High Court enforcement officers in each of the last five years. [59309]
Mr Djanogly: High Court enforcement officers are obliged to provide the Ministry of Justice with annual Statistics on the writs they receive and execute. Figures are only available since 2008:
| Writs cleared in year | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
15 Jun 2011 : Column 837W
Successful enforcement is defined as those cases paid either by instalment or by a single payment.
HMCTS does not have statistics on the fees recovered by the High Court enforcement officers.
Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the monetary value is of his Department's contract with Sherforce for High Court enforcement services. [59310]
Mr Djanogly: HM Courts and Tribunals Service does not have any contracts with Sherforce or, in fact, any other High Court enforcement officer. Enforcement in the civil courts is a matter for the creditor. It would be for the creditor to request the High Court enforcement officer to enforce on their behalf.
Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many cases have been passed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service to each High Court enforcement officer in each year since 2006. [59652]
Mr Djanogly: HM Courts and Tribunals Service have not passed any cases to High Court enforcement officers. Enforcement in the civil courts is a matter for the creditor. It would be for the creditor to request the High Court enforcement officers to enforce on their behalf.
However the number of High Court monetary writs issued by creditors since 2006 is:
15 Jun 2011 : Column 838W
|
|
Writs issued |
Statistics for 2010 have not yet been published.
Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what the monetary value was of each of his Department's contracts for High Court enforcement services in each of the last three years; and who held each such contract; [59654]
(2) what the monetary value is of each of his Department's contracts for High Court enforcement services in Liverpool; and who held each such contract. [59655]
Mr Djanogly: HM Courts and Tribunals Service does not have any contracts with any High Court enforcement officers. Enforcement in the civil courts is a matter for the creditor. It would be for the creditor to request the High Court enforcement officer to enforce on their behalf.
Departmental Responsibilities
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what strategic framework his Department has developed for the delivery of its core functions during the comprehensive spending review period. [59725]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Departmental Business Plan 2011-15 sets out the strategic vision of the Department during the spending review period. We have organised our reform work into the five Structural Reform Priorities that make up the Business Plan.
The delivery arms (National Offender Management Service, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, the Legal Services Commission and the Office of the Public Guardian) have drawn up business plans that tie in to the overall strategic direction of the Department. The plans are available through the following website:
www.justice.gov.uk
To support this framework, business areas that support front line delivery have produced Corporate Delivery Plans. These include the strategies that are needed to deliver change, as well as delivery actions and resources.
Domestic Violence: Legal Aid
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent representations he has received on his proposals for legal aid for private family cases involving victims of domestic violence; what response he has made to such representations; and if he will make a statement. [59834]
Mr Djanogly: The Government recently conducted a consultation on proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales, which closed on 14 February 2011.
The Government have received consultation responses and representations from representative bodies and members of the public about legal aid for private family cases involving victims of domestic violence, and our
15 Jun 2011 : Column 839W
proposals in this area have been raised in parliamentary debates. We have been carefully considering responses. The Government's response to the consultation will be published shortly.
Drugs: Convictions
Nicola Blackwood:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people have been convicted of (a) possession and (b) supply of illegal drugs of each classification level in each year since 2007; and how
15 Jun 2011 : Column 840W
many such people received (i) a custodial sentence and (ii) the maximum possible sentence in each case. [59758]
Mr Blunt: Persons found guilty at all courts and sentenced, given immediate custody and the statutory maximum sentence for possession, supply and possession with intent to supply a controlled drug, by classification, in England and Wales from 2007 to 2010, can be viewed in the tables as follows:
| Number of persons found guilty at all courts and sentenced for possession, supply and possession with intent to supply a controlled drug and maximum sentence, England and Wales, 2007 to 2010 (1, 2, 3) | ||||||||||
| 2007 | 2008 | |||||||||
| Drug offences | Found guilty | Total sentenced | Other sentences | Immediate custody | Maximum sentence | Found guilty | Total sentenced | Other sentences | Immediate custody | Maximum sentence |
| 2009 | 2010 | |||||||||
| Drug offences | Found guilty | Total sentenced | Other sentences | Immediate custody | Maximum sentence | Found guilty | Total sentenced | Other sentences | Immediate custody | Maximum sentence |
15 Jun 2011 : Column 841W
15 Jun 2011 : Column 842W
| (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 )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. (3 )Sentenced may exceed those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty, and committed for sentence at the Crown court, may be sentenced in the following year. (4 )Cannabis was re-classified to a class B drug on 26 January 2009 * Not applicable Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice. | ||||||||||
Legal Aid: Education
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent representations he has made on his proposals for legal aid for legal help and advice on education matters; what response he has made to such representations; and if he will make a statement. [59835]
Mr Djanogly: The Government recently conducted a consultation on proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales, which closed on 14 February 2011.
We proposed that all education matters be removed from the scope of legal aid. We took the view that education issues are generally of less importance to the individual than cases concerning an individual's immediate physical safety or liberty, and therefore proposed that funding does not continue, other than for discrimination education matters that are currently within the scope of the scheme.
We are currently considering the responses to the consultation and will publish our response in due course.
Payments: Natural Resources
Graeme Morrice: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will bring forward legislative proposals to make it compulsory for oil, mining and gas companies based in the UK to publish details of any payments they make to foreign Governments. [59799]
Mr Gauke: I have been asked to reply.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), made clear following the G20 Finance Minister's meeting in February 2011, the Government believe that development of new rules to require oil, gas and mining companies to report the payments they make to Governments should take place at the international level.
The Government have committed to arguing for a European agreement that matches the new standards set in the US, and the UK will be engaging with EU partners on this issue.
Prison Sentences
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders have served an indeterminate sentence for public protection and been released (a) in total and (b) in respect of each offence; and what length of time was spent in prison in each case where an offender has been released from prison. [59444]
Mr Blunt:
The data record that the total number of prisoners released from an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection between 2006 and
15 Jun 2011 : Column 843W
2010 was 202. These data were published in the Offender Management Statistics 2010 tables on the Ministry of Justice website in April 2011.
|
|
Releases | Average time served (years) |
The number of releases by offence group in 2010 is shown in the following table:
|
|
Releases |
Detailed data on offences before 2010 are not held centrally in an electronic format. A manual trawl of prisoner files would be required to obtain these data; this would incur disproportionate cost.
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Prisoners’ Release
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many and what proportion of those convicted of (a) rape, (b) sexual offences and (c) violent offences have been recalled to prison after being released on licence in each of the last 10 years; [59430]
(2) how many people convicted of sexual offences against children are on licence; and how many such offenders were released on licence in each of the last 10 years; [59431]
(3) how many persons convicted of (a) rape, (b) sexual offences against children, (c) other sexual offences and (d) a violent offence were released from prison after serving custodial sentences of (i) less than one year, (ii) between one and two years, (iii) between two and three years, (iv) between three and four years, (v) between four and five years, (vi) between five and six years, (vii) between six and seven years, (viii) between seven and eight years, (ix) between eight and nine years, (x) between nine and 10 years, (xi) between 10 and 11 years, (xii) between 11 and 12 years, (xiii) between 12 and 15 years, (xiv) between 15 and 20 years and (xv) over 20 years in each of the last 10 years; [59445]
(4) how many persons convicted of (a) rape, (b) sexual offences and (c) violent offences are released on licence; and how many were released on licence in each of the last 10 years; [59446]
(5) how many and what proportion of persons convicted of (a) rape, (b) sexual offences against children, (c) other sexual offences and (d) a violent offence were released from prison having been in custody (i) less than 50 per cent., (ii) between one-half
15 Jun 2011 : Column 844W
and two-thirds, (iii) between two-thirds and three-quarters, (iv) between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent., (v) between 80 per cent. and 85 per cent., (vi) between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent., (vii) between 90 per cent. and 95 per cent., (viii) between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. and (ix) 100 per cent. of their sentence in each of the last 10 years. [59447]
Mr Blunt: Under a determinate sentence of 12 months or more imposed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (for offences committed after 4 April 2005) the legislation requires that prisoners must be released automatically at the half way point with the rest of the sentence served on licence in the community and subject to recall to prison. If recalled to prison, the offender may serve some or all of the rest of his sentence in custody.
For some, lower risk offenders serving sentences of less than four years, release may be granted at the discretion of the prison governor earlier than the half-way point on Home Detention Curfew (HDC), where the offender is subject to an electronically monitored curfew (or "tagging"). All registered sex offenders and violent offenders serving extended sentences are excluded from HDC, and prisoners who are eligible to be considered must pass an individual risk assessment before HDC may be granted.
Offenders convicted of serious violent or sexual offences committed before 4 April 2005 and subject to a sentence of four years or more remain subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Under such a determinate sentence the offender may be released between the half way and two-thirds point of the sentence by the Parole Board, with release automatic at the two thirds point. Once released, the offender is on licence and subject to recall to prison up to the three quarters point of the sentence.
Adults serving a determinate sentence of less than 12 months serve half the sentence in custody and are then ‘at risk' for the remainder of their sentence, which means that if they commit a further offence during this period they may have to serve the outstanding part of the sentence. However, offenders aged 18 to 21 who are subject to a sentence of Detention in a Young Offender Institution (DYOI) of less than 12 months are subject to a minimum period of three months supervision following release from custody.
Offenders may be detained in custody beyond the automatic release date if they are subject to added days imposed under disciplinary proceedings for behaviour in prison.
Under an indeterminate sentence, the offender must serve in full the minimum term imposed by the court before being considered for release by the Parole Board. If and when the offender is released he or she is subject to licence conditions and recall to prison. If the offender is serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection the licence period is a minimum often years. The licence period under a life sentence lasts for the whole of the offender's natural life.
Young people sentenced to detention and training orders serve the first half of their sentence in custody and the second half in the community. Early release allows those young people who meet the criteria to be released from custody either one or two months earlier than their mid point date, depending on the length of
15 Jun 2011 : Column 845W
their sentence. The early release scheme is available to young people serving a DTO, of between eight and 24 months in length. On release, it is a mandatory requirement for the young person to be electronically monitored for the period when they would otherwise have been in custody; until the midpoint. There is a presumption that all young people will be released early unless they are serving a sentence for specific sexual or violent offences, or their behaviour and/or progress against their training plan is unsatisfactory.
Young people aged 10-17 convicted of certain serious offences serve the first half of their sentence in custody up and the second part in the community, subject to supervision requirements. Young people serving terms of between three months and four years may be eligible for earlier release under a home detention curfew, which operates in a similar way to the adult scheme.
The first table shows the number of prisoners released from determinate sentences for (a) rape, (b) other sexual offences, and (c)violence against the person offences, by detailed sentence length band in each year from 2001-10 (except 2009 where the data is not available to this level of detail). From the data held centrally, it is not possible to separately identify those offenders convicted of sexual offences against children; they are included with other sexual offences.
The second table shows the number of prisoners released from prison and subject to supervision in the community for (a) rape, (b) other sexual offences, and (c) violence against the person offences in each year from 2001-10 (except 2009 where the data is not available
15 Jun 2011 : Column 846W
to this level of detail). Again sexual offences against children will be included in the other sexual offences group.
The third table shows the proportion of time served by offenders discharged from determinate sentences for (a) rape, (b) other sexual offences, and (c) violence against the person offences in each year from 2001-10 (except 2009 where the data are not available to this level of detail). All those serving two-thirds or more of their sentence have been grouped together because their time served will include time on recall.
The fourth table shows the number of offenders recalled to custody in 2009 and 2010 who had originally been convicted of (a) rape, (b) other sexual offences, and (c) violence against the person offences. The equivalent data for earlier years is not held centrally. The number of recalls in a given year should not be compared with the number of discharges in that year, because offenders will not necessarily be released and recalled in the same year.
Accessible electronic data on offences are incomplete for recalls before 2009. Offence data are contained within individual prisoner files. However, a manual trawl of each prisoner's record for each year would substantially exceed cost limits.
Figures in all tables are all those aged 15 and over.
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
| Table 1: Prisoners discharged from determinate sentences for rape, other sexual offences and violence against the person, England and Wales, 2001-10 | |||||||||
| 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | |||||||
|
|
Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson |
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | |||||||
|
|
Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the person | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the person |
15 Jun 2011 : Column 847W
15 Jun 2011 : Column 848W
| 2007 | 2008 | 2010 | |||||||
|
|
Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the person | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the person | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the person |
| Table2: Prisoners discharged from determinate sentences on licence for rape, other sexual offences and violence against the person, England and Wales, 2001-10 | |||
|
|
Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the person |
| Table 3: Percentage of time served (including remand) in prison by prisoners discharged from determinate sentences for rape, other sexual offences and violence against the person, England and Wales | |||||||||
| 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | |||||||
|
|
Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the pe rson | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson |
15 Jun 2011 : Column 849W
15 Jun 2011 : Column 850W
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | |||||||
|
|
Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson |
| 2007 | 2008 | 2010 | |||||||
|
|
Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson | Rape | Other sexual offences | Violence against the p erson |
| (1) This includes cases where prisoners were deported or where the prisoner was discharged on the Friday before a weekend release date. Note: All those serving two-thirds or more of their sentence have been grouped together because their time served will include time on recall. | |||||||||
| Table 4: Number of offenders recalled to custody in 2009 and 2010 for rape, other sexual offences and violence against the person, England and Wales | ||
|
|
2009 | 2010 |
Probation: Unpaid Work
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the arrangements for the disclosing party in respect of probation staff to sign confidentiality clauses in respect of the tendering for unpaid work in England and Wales. [59401]
Mr Blunt: All MOJ procurement competitions require the same confidentiality undertaking to be completed by bidders. Probation trusts have non-departmental public body status and are responsible for internal management and assessment of processes involved as a bidder.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what definition of information previously known to the employee he proposes to use for probation staff required to sign confidentiality clauses in respect of the tendering for unpaid work in England and Wales. [59402]
Mr Blunt: The bidder is required to respond with an overall undertaking as an organisation tendering for the service. The detail surrounding management of employee's within that organisation sits with the probation trust. There is no specific reference to information previously known to the employee within the MOJ confidentiality agreement.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effects on the role of union representatives for probation staff of signing confidentiality clauses in respect of the tendering for unpaid work in England and Wales. [59403]
Mr Blunt: All bidding organisations are required to complete the same confidentiality undertaking. It is for the bidder to assess and manage the implications of this for staff.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what reasons it is proposed that confidentiality clauses in respect of the tendering for unpaid work in England and Wales should last for two years. [59404]
Mr Blunt: The normal statutory provisions shall apply to the release of information to tenderers, none of which contains a two year limitation. All information which is not already a matter of public knowledge including written and oral information is subject to a confidentiality clause and this undertaking will continue to apply at all times in the future.
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what reasons probation trusts have been grouped together for the purpose of tendering for unpaid work in England and Wales. [59695]
15 Jun 2011 : Column 851W
Mr Blunt: Six ‘competition lots' have been constructed to cover England and Wales. This reflects the decision to compete Community Payback at a national level rather than at the level of the 35 trusts to maximise economies of scale and promote innovative delivery models. A number of different options for the design of the lots were considered. The final design has achieved balanced lots in terms of volumes, they do not cut across existing probation trust boundaries and do not give advantage to any provider.
Reoffenders
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what powers a private sector operator of the contract for unpaid work in England and Wales will have in relation to offenders who reoffend whilst on placement. [59400]
Mr Blunt: A private sector provider of Community Payback (like a probation trust) would have no specific powers in relation to offenders who reoffend while on placement. Any suspected offence committed on a work placement would be reported to the police.
As a provider of probation services appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice private sector providers of Community Payback would have the same powers in relation to the enforcement and breach of community and suspended sentence orders as a probation trust.
Shoplifting: Fixed Penalties
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what progress he has made in his consideration of fixed penalty notices for shoplifting offences; and if he will make a statement. [59546]
Mr Blunt: Penalty notices for disorder (PNDs) are available to the police to deal quickly and effectively with low-level, antisocial and nuisance offending, including minor instances of retail theft. The scheme allows the police to spend more time on frontline duties and provides an alternative to prosecution in appropriate cases.
Before PNDs were introduced, many low-level instances of retail theft went unpunished or received just a verbal warning. PNDs ensure that retail theft is given the priority that it deserves in terms of punishing offenders immediately and protecting consumers and businesses.
On 7 December 2010 we published the Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle: Effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders”. This included a proposal to create a clearer national framework for the use of out-of-court disposals, of which the PND scheme is a part. The consultation period finished on 4 March and we are considering the comments received. We will publish a formal Government response shortly.
Victims and Witnesses General Fund
Heidi Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which organisations applied for funding from the Victims and Witnesses General Fund (2011-14); how much funding each organisation applied for; and how much each organisation was granted. [59665]
15 Jun 2011 : Column 852W
Mr Blunt: A total of 277 applications for funding from the Victim and Witness General Fund were received from 256 voluntary sector organisations.
The information provided in this answer does not include funding to organisations from either the Homicide Fund or the Rape Support fund. There were separate exercises through which funding was awarded from these funds.
There were 114 successful applications to the General Fund from 110 organisations. Of these, there are 104 organisations to which grants have been awarded and with which the agreement between the organisation and the Ministry of Justice has been signed. Details are provided in the following tables.
There are a further six organisations which have been awarded grants in principle but with which discussions continue and in respect of which it is therefore not yet possible to provide details.
| Antisocial behaviour | ||
| £ | ||
| 3 year funding : | ||
| Organisation | sought | approved |
| Domestic violence | ||
| £ | ||
| 3 year funding : | ||
| Organisation | sought | approved |
15 Jun 2011 : Column 853W
|
North Nottinghamshire Independent Domestic Abuse Services (NNIDAS) |
||
| Hate crime | ||
| £ | ||
| 3 year funding : | ||
| Organisation | sought | approved |
|
Society for the Promotion and Advancement of Romany Culture (SPARC) |
||
| Homicide | ||
| £ | ||
| 3 year funding : | ||
| Organisation | sought | approved |
|
Assistance Support and Self Help in Surviving Trauma (ASSIST) |
||
| (1) Agreed for one year only. | ||