2012-13: £4. l million.

18 July 2013 : Column 811W

The full cost of running the Court of Protection (including allocated overhead costs) has been calculated as part of the workings for a fees and charges note to the HMCTS annual report and accounts, and the HMCS predecessor reports, since 2009-10. Equivalent data are not available prior to 2009-10.

Courts: Shropshire

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what reason changes to the low-level courts structure are being initiated in Shropshire in advance of his Department's review of the future shape of HM Courts and Tribunals Service. [159324]

Mrs Grant: A consultation document has been issued on possible changes to local justice areas (LJA) covering the West Mercia area. There is no centrally-driven policy to alter LJAs. These are local initiatives and this consultation has been issued on behalf of the Justices' Issues Group (JIG)—a group comprising the chairmen of the six magistrates' benches covered by the JIG, representatives of the Magistrates' Association for the area, the district judge (magistrates courts) and Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service managers. The consultation process has not yet concluded, and no decisions have been made. LJAs are defined in secondary legislation and any changes will therefore require the amendment of that legislation.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many applications for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme hardship fund were rejected due to being received after the four- week eligibility cut-off point since the new scheme was established. [160475]

Mrs Grant: None of the hardship fund applications sent to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority have been rejected due to being received after the four- week eligibility cut-off point.

Criminal Proceedings

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what the average length of time was between a crime being committed and an offender being sentenced in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012; [165937]

(2) what the average time taken was from sentencing to appeal hearing in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012; [165938]

(3) what the average time taken was from the end of a trial to sentencing in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012; [165939]

(4) what the average time taken was from charge to the commencement of a trial in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012. [165950]

Mrs Grant: Data relating to the timeliness of cases which result in a trial and/or sentencing occasion are not currently published by the Ministry of Justice. The creation and quality assurance of unpublished breakdowns of existing timeliness datasets would be disproportionate to costs.

18 July 2013 : Column 812W

Published breakdowns for data related to the timeliness of criminal court cases in England and Wales for the period 2010 to 2012 can be found as part ‘Chapter 3—Criminal cases’ of the Ministry of Justice statistics bulletin ‘Court Statistics Quarterly’.

Published tables (Tables 3.6—3.9, 3.23 and 3.24) can be found at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207806/court-stats-q1-main-tables.xls

Death

Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many convictions or reported offences there have been under the amended section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 offence of causing the death or serious physical harm of a child or vulnerable adult which came into force on 2 July 2012; and where such statistics are reported on the Office for National Statistics website. [165680]

Jeremy Wright: There were no convictions for the offence of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, as amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012, in England and Wales, between 2 July 2012 and the end of 2012 (latest available). This offence only came into effect in July 2012, thus could explain why there have not been any convictions to date. We will continue to monitor the new offence.

There were three convictions for the offence of causing the death of a child or vulnerable adult under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, in England and Wales, in calendar year 2012.

Annual statistics for convictions are reported by the justice statistics analytical services (MOJ) as part of its ‘Criminal Justice Statistics’ publications. The most recent publication is the quarterly update to December 2012, which can be accessed at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly-update-to-december-2012

Convictions and sentencing data, by offence type, are available in ‘Volume 5—All Courts’, which is an Excel spreadsheet within a zip file of 371KB. Within the spreadsheet in tab ‘s5.1’ convictions and sentencing data for offence type ‘4.7 Causing death of a child or vulnerable adult’ are available. In future, when convictions and sentences are recorded for the offence of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm, they will be separately identified within this table, which will be under the identifier 4.11.

Annual criminal justice statistics for 2013 are planned for publication in May 2014.

Additionally, the Home Office collects data for offences recorded under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 as amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012. However, from the statistics collected centrally it is not possible to separately identify the number of child or vulnerable adult victims who died from those who suffered serious physical harm. Data for both these offences are recorded under Home Office offence classification 4.7 and are available from the Office for

18 July 2013 : Column 813W

National Statistics website in table A4 of the appendix tables to ‘Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending December 2012’. The table can be accessed at:

http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-december-2012/rft-appendix-tables.xls

Domestic Violence

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what definition of the term domestic violence his Department uses for court operational purposes; and which relationships are covered by that term. [165421]

Mrs Grant: The Government use the following non-legislative definition of domestic violence as part of their strategy for raising awareness of and tackling domestic violence against women and girls, which was revised on 31 March 2013:

“Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass but is not limited to the following types of abuse: psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional.”

The courts in England and Wales are responsible for operating civil, family and criminal proceedings during which issues of domestic violence may arise. In such situations the independent judiciary will interpret and apply the relevant law to the individual circumstances of the case. A Home Office circular issued in February 2013, however, drew attention to the cross-Government definition and recipients included the judiciary and lay magistracy.

In relation to domestic violence and the definition of family relationships, the courts will apply the definitions contained in part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 when considering an application for a protective measure such as a non-molestation or occupation order. Section 62 of the Act defines relationships by reference to “cohabitants”, “relevant child” and “associated persons” and in section 63 defines “relative” as mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister and grandparents whether directly related, in-laws or step-family.

Driving Offences: Insurance

Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much was raised from fines for driving whilst uninsured in (a) Barnsley Central constituency, (b) South Yorkshire and (c) England in each of the last 10 years. [160458]

Mrs Grant: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost as it would require a manual search of all live and closed fine accounts.

Driving: Disqualification

Mr Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what redress is available to a person whose driving licence is revoked as a result of a court wrongly notifying the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency that the person has been disqualified from driving. [166176]

18 July 2013 : Column 814W

Mrs Grant: When complaints are received, HMCTS conducts an investigation to determine the cause of the problem. Any remedial action is taken, including in this case notifying the DVLA so that it can return the driving licence to the driver in question. The court will apologise where something has gone wrong and, where appropriate, a compensation payment is made.

Mr Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on what date East London magistrates court notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency that the court had wrongly identified Mr Byrne of Christchurch as the person disqualified from driving by the court on 1 July 2013 for an offence on 19 January 2013. [166177]

Mrs Grant: East London magistrates court notified the DVLA of the error on 5 July 2013.

Mr Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice for what reason East London magistrates court did not write to Mr Byrne of Christchurch reinstating his driving licence as soon as it realised on 5 July 2013 that it had made an error in instructing the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to revoke his licence. [166178]

Mrs Grant: HMCTS is aware that a number of errors have occurred in this case and I will be writing to the hon. Member to provide a more detailed response to explain what happened. HMCTS will be writing to Mr. Byrne to apologise for the mistakes that have occurred in his case.

Electronic Tagging

Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how his Department plans to monitor the effectiveness of GPS-style tagging of offenders by private companies; [155604]

(2) what estimate his Department has made of the cost of introducing GPS tagging of offenders; [155605]

(3) what research his Department has undertaken into the effectiveness of GPS-style electronic tagging of offenders. [155606]

Jeremy Wright: The electronic monitoring contracts are currently being competed and new contracts are due to come into force next year. These contracts will include monitoring the effectiveness of new technology, including GPS capability, as part of the contract management process. As part of the competition we will test the effectiveness of the new technology before full deployment.

The extent of the use of GPS technology under the new contracts, and hence the cost, will depend on a range of factors including the relevant provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the outcome of the technical testing, and the outcome of the competition itself. However, we intend the competition to achieve significant cost savings compared with the cost of current provision.

The Ministry of Justice published an evaluation of the earlier pilots of satellite tracking of offenders in August 2007. This is available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100505212400/http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/satellite-tracking-of-offenders.pdf

18 July 2013 : Column 815W

The numbers quoted in this report are based on pilot data from 2004 to 2006, and do not provide a basis for extrapolating figures for the new contracts.

Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what steps his Department has taken to monitor the effectiveness in reducing re-offending of the electronic tagging of offenders currently undertaken by each of the private sector companies contracted to provide such a service; [155607]

(2) what research his Department has undertaken into the effectiveness of electronic tagging in reducing reoffending rates. [155608]

Jeremy Wright: The Ministry of Justice has undertaken research to determine the relative effectiveness of community order requirements, including curfews (which are enforced by electronic monitoring), at reducing re-offending, for offenders with similar characteristics. This found that offenders who received a punitive requirement (unpaid work or curfew) in addition to supervision were less likely to re-offend and committed fewer re-offences within a two-year period compared to those who only received supervision.

In addition, we have also undertaken separate research into the effect of release on home detention curfew (HDC), which is also enforced using electronic monitoring, on recidivism. Compared to similar offenders, this showed that those released on HDC were no more likely to engage in criminal behaviour during the first two years after release from custody than those who were not eligible for release on HDC, even factoring in the additional time spent in the community.

This research is published on the MOJ website and can be located on the following webpages:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research-and-analysis/moj/effectiveness-community-order-requirements

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/162338/effect-early-release-hdc-recidivism.pdf.pdf

We have not made any assessment as to the impact individual providers of electronic monitoring have had on reoffending for the offenders whom they work with.

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many of those who breached the conditions of their tagging and were due to be recalled to prison failed to be recalled in 2012. [165794]

Jeremy Wright: Data on the number of prisoners released from custody on licence who have been recalled and returned to prison are published quarterly in a Ministry of Justice statistical bulletin. This may be found at the following web address:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offender-management-statistics-quarterly--2

By the end of 2012, since 1984, there were 994 prisoners who had been recalled and not returned to custody by the police. Of these, 97 were on home detention curfew, which was introduced in 1999, at the time of recall, broken down in the following table.

18 July 2013 : Column 816W

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many incidents there were of tags being incorrectly removed from offenders in 2012. [165795]

Jeremy Wright: We are not aware of any cases in 2012 where tags were incorrectly removed from offenders.

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many incidents there were of tags being incorrectly fitted to the wrong person in 2012. [165796]

Jeremy Wright: We are aware of three cases in 2012 where a tag was initially fitted to the wrong person. In each instance, the investigation report revealed that there had been a deliberate attempt to deceive the field officer responsible for fitting the tag. Immediate follow-up action was taken to ensure that the correct individuals were dealt with appropriately.

Jenny Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will direct his Department to halt the process of contracting out probation services until the forensic audit by PwC and investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into electronic tagging providers have been completed. [166294]

Jeremy Wright: Our transforming rehabilitation reforms will see the extension of statutory supervision and rehabilitation to an additional 50,000 offenders who are sentenced to less than 12 months in custody. It is vital that we move ahead now to change the system so that these offenders can begin to receive the support they need and the much needed reductions in reoffending rates can begin to be achieved.

The Department has taken steps to ensure that we have the best processes and people in place to manage these contracts and to deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), made clear in his statement to the House on 11 July 2013, Official Report, columns 573-75, the Department is auditing all contracts it holds with G4S and Serco. We will not be awarding any further contracts to these companies unless the audits reach a satisfactory outcome.

18 July 2013 : Column 817W

Employment Tribunals Service

Ian Murray: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what cost to the public purse has been incurred in the last financial year arising from employment tribunal cases involving claims for equal pay where an expert was instructed. [166182]

Mrs Grant: It is not possible to provide information on the cost of particular types of cases within the employment tribunal system. In particular, information on equal pay (equal value) litigation in which an independent expert is instructed is not collated centrally and could be identified only at disproportionate cost by manually trawling through tribunal files.

However using official statistics published by the Ministry of Justice, it is possible to report on the number of receipts and disposals in relation to equal pay complaints in the financial year 2012-13. Tables 1 and 2 set out this information.

Table 1 provides the number of equal pay jurisdictional complaints presented and disposed of by employment tribunals during the financial year 2012-13.

The employment tribunals disposed of more complaints than have been received during the year 2012-13.

Table 2 provides the number of equal pay complaints that have been disposed of, broken down by type of disposal, where that disposal was by judicial determination (rather than by ACAS conciliation, withdrawal or otherwise).

The tables show that the vast majority of equal pay complaints are disposed of by withdrawal, ACAS conciliation or otherwise and are not disposed of at hearing.

Equality

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much has been spent by his Department (a) in total and (b) on staff costs on promoting equality and diversity in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and how many people are employed by his Department for this purpose. [165414]

Mrs Grant: The Ministry of Justice, across its business areas, is working to ensure that equality of opportunity and diversity are a normal part of everyday business. As an employer, the Ministry seeks to ensure that its policies

18 July 2013 : Column 818W

are fair and accessible to all. In addition, the Ministry seeks to provide its services in a way that complies with the aims of the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010.

The information requested however is not collected or held centrally and could not be provided other than at a disproportionate cost as it would mean contacting every establishment and agency to request what is potentially wide ranging information.

Family Courts: Rhyl

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what progress has been made on the closure of Rhyl family courts. [162907]

Mrs Grant: As announced in the written ministerial statement of 18 October 2012, Official Report, column 36WS, Rhyl county court will be closed no earlier than April 2014. The intention remains to relocate work to Prestatyn.

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has to dispose of the Rhyl family court building. [163975]

Mrs Grant: Rhyl county court will close no earlier than April 2014, therefore currently there are no plans to dispose of the building.

Family Law

Mr Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what steps he has put in place to promote the availability of new legal aid-funded family mediation since 1 April 2013; [163980]

(2) what assessment he has made of the level of enquiries to all legally aided family mediation services since 1 April 2013; [163981]

(3) what proportion of cases have been heard in the family division before a district judge where an FM1 form has not been completed between April 2012 and March 2013; and if he will make a statement. [163988]

Jeremy Wright: Legal aid for family mediation has been available since 1997 and this continues as a result of the reforms to legal aid implemented in April 2013. This includes the provision of legal advice, where appropriate, to support the mediation process.

The coalition Government are making full use of communication channels available to them to ensure that the public have access to information when they need it, including the availability of legal aid to fund family mediation. The ‘Sorting Out Separation’ web app launched in November 2012 provides the key gateway for separating parents and couples to access help, advice and services.

We are also continuing to work with organisations such as Citizens Advice to ensure accurate information continues to be given to the public about family mediation following legal aid changes. As part of the Government's commitment to promote family mediation we recently launched a short animation film which has been posted on YouTube and on a number of partner websites.

A court guide for separated parents has just been published and will shortly be accompanied by three

18 July 2013 : Column 819W

videos explaining key stages of the court process. The guide makes clear the need to consider family mediation and contains links to the family mediation service tender website from which the public can locate a qualified and assured family mediator.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) collates data on the number of publicly funded mediation information and assessment meetings (MIAMs) attended and on mediation starts. Monthly figures from April 2012 are set out in the following table. Referrals to publicly funded MIAMs rose 42% in March 2013 due to a large surge in applications for legal aid ahead of the changes implemented from 1 April 2013. LAA data show a decrease in such MIAMs of 30% in April based on the same period in 2012, and provisional figures for May show a further significant decrease. It is still too early to assess the steady-state position given that there were an additional 10,000 applications for legal aid certificates, most of which occurred in the final weeks of March.

The Ministry of Justice does not routinely collate data on whether or not a Form FM1 has been filed in any cases heard in the family division.

Research commissioned by this Department to commence shortly will include a court file-based study of cases and include an assessment of the level of compliance in filing Form FM1 and the type of responses entered.

A clause in the Children and Families Bill currently before Parliament would require all applicants to the court in relevant family proceedings (with exemptions) to first attend a MIAM before issuing proceedings to find out about and consider mediation. We expect this measure to increase the volume of MIAMs attended.

Grant Thornton

Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department has spent on contracts with Grant Thornton in each year since 2008. [165696]

Mrs Grant: The Ministry of Justice has spent the following on the provision of services with Grant Thornton since 2008. Spend is for the calendar year and is exclusive of VAT.

18 July 2013 : Column 820W

Homicide

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of (a) male and (b) female victims of homicide were acquainted with the principal suspect in their murder in each of the last five years. [165179]

Mr Hurd: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Cabinet Office.

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Glen Watson, dated July 2013:

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Justice asking for the proportion of (a) male and (b) female victims of homicide who were acquainted with the principle suspect in their murder in each of the last five years. (165179)

Data provided in the table below are sourced from the homicide index, which is a database separate from the main recorded crime dataset which contains detailed record-level information about each homicide recorded by the police in England and Wales. It is continually updated with revised information from the police and courts and, as such, is a richer source of data than the main recorded crime dataset. The data refer to the position as at 1 November 2012, when the Homicide Index database was ‘frozen’ for the purpose of analysis presented in the ONS statistical bulletin published in February 2013.

The table below shows the percentage of victims acquainted with the principle suspect for male and female victims. The definition of acquaintance is: son or daughter, parent, partner or ex-partner, other family member and friend or acquaintance.

These data have been published by ONS and have been extracted from Table 2.05 in ‘Appendix tables-Focus on: Violent crime and Sexual offences 2011/12’

http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime/rft-appendix-tables.xls

Updated England and Wales figures for 2012/13 are due to be published in February 2014.

Crime statistics for Scotland and Northern Ireland are collected and published separately, and can be downloaded from:

Scotland:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice

Northern Ireland:

http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/statistics-research/stats-research-publications/northern-ireland-crime-survey-s-r/

18 July 2013 : Column 821W

Homicide: Bail

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many people have been given court bail after being charged with (a) murder and (b) attempted murder in each of the last three years; [164616]

(2) how many people on 8 July 2013 were on bail for (a) murder and (b) attempted murder. [164627]

Jeremy Wright: Bail may not be granted to someone charged with murder unless the court is of the opinion that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause injury to another person.

A change introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 allows the CPS to appeal in cases where the Crown Court grants bail in the face of representations from the prosecution.

The number of defendants remanded on bail at magistrates courts and the Crown Court for the offences of murder and attempted murder, in England and Wales, in each year between 2010 and 2012 (latest currently available), is shown in the table.

The table presents data based on the final date on which the defendants appeared in court and proceedings were concluded. The date on which the court made remand decisions on those defendants is not held centrally, with remand decisions potentially made at an earlier stage during proceedings in previous months.

Judicial Review

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he has taken to stop weak judicial review cases. [162950]

18 July 2013 : Column 822W

Mrs Grant: With effect from 1 July we have removed the right to an oral renewal hearing in applications for judicial review where a judge has certified that the case is totally without merit. We have also, from that date, reduced the time limit for applying for permission to bring a planning or a procurement judicial review from three months to six weeks in planning cases and 30 days in procurement cases. In addition the Government intend to introduce a fee for an oral renewal in due course.

Legal Aid Scheme

John Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much legal aid has been spent on each of the top 10% of the most costly criminal cases in the last three years. [159116]

Jeremy Wright: The amount of legal aid spent on each of the top 10% of the most costly cases in the last three years is shown in the following table. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) has calculated this information based on the most expensive cases where the final payments were made in the referenced year. The payments in the referenced year and previous years have been aggregated to obtain the full case costs.

John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the Government's proposed reforms to legal aid funding on provider choice in rural areas. [160520]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the ‘Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system’ consultation. This included a proposed model of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services. We have been clear we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, including the £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent on criminal legal aid a year, to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer.

Five impact assessments have been written in relation to this consultation and they address the numbers of legal aid recipients that would potentially be affected by these proposals. The impact assessments are as follows:

1) Civil Credibility Impact Assessment

2) Crime Credibility Impact Assessment

3) Civil Fees Impact Assessment

4) Crime Fees Impact Assessment

5) Criminal Litigation Price Competition Impact Assessment.

18 July 2013 : Column 823W

They are all available to download from the consultation webpage which can be found here:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid

The analysis supporting this was undertaken at the national level, rather than at the regional level.

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of public confidence in the legal aid system. [161369]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation. This included proposals for improving public confidence in the legal aid scheme.

The proposals include reforms to prison law to ensure that legal aid is not available for matters that do not justify the use of public funds such as treatment issues; the introduction of a household disposable income threshold above which defendants would no longer receive criminal legal aid; a residence test for civil legal aid claimants; reforms to reduce the use of legal aid to fund weak judicial reviews; and amendments to the civil merits test to prevent the funding of any cases with less than a 50% chance of success.

These are anomalies that exist in the system which we believe undermine the credibility of the scheme and we are seeking to address these issues. Against a backdrop of continuing pressure on public finances, we need to continue to scrutinise everything we do and every pound we spend to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer. When almost every other area of Government spending is being further reduced, legal aid cannot be immune if we are to ensure a sustainable and credible system.

Meg Munn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will take steps to ensure that solicitors working with children are adequately trained in communicating with children in his proposals for legal aid. [161856]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation.

Children in family cases are appointed a guardian and it is that guardian who usually instructs the solicitor on behalf of the child. The main control in this area is exercised by the Law Society which requires that any solicitor representing a child is a member of the Law Society Children Panel. The Law Society sets the applicable standards and the accreditation process. The proposals on which we consulted would not affect this process.

The current crime contract includes provisions for accepting applications for crime contract work on behalf of a child or protected party and accepting instructions directly from a child (paragraphs 4.24-4.29 of spec: part A). However, any specific skills and competence of a solicitor dealing with a child are not covered by the crime contract. We have asked for views from respondents on the factors they feel we should consider when designing the criteria for any future procurement process, which could include the skills and experience necessary for

18 July 2013 : Column 824W

dealing with children. We are carefully considering all responses to the consultation on these issues.

Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the optimum distance of travel to legal firms to enable people to be able to access legal aid. [162073]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the ‘Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system’ consultation. This included a proposed model of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services. We have been clear we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, including nearly £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent on criminal legal aid a year, to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer.

Travel times between the provider of legally aided services and the client would be most heavily influenced by the size and geography of the proposed procurement area. We have explored how best to divide England and Wales into procurement areas (areas within which we would invite tenders to provide the full range of services), which would be the areas within which services would be delivered. We based our assessment of the options set out in the consultation paper on data from October 2010 to September 2011 on the volume and value of the criminal legal aid defence work which exists in each specified areas. The decision on the size of the procurement area would influence the number of providers in that area.

We considered four options for the size of the procurement areas, outlined on page 47 of the consultation paper, and proposed that—with the exception of London, Warwickshire and Gloucestershire—procurement areas should be set by the current criminal justice system areas.

In the consultation, specific questions were asked about the suitability of the proposed procurement areas. We asked respondents for their views on what factors should be taken into consideration in designing the criteria against which to test applicants for a new contract. We set out a number of proposed conditions including a requirement to have or commit to acquiring premises that are accessible for clients. Officials are analysing the responses now with a view to publishing the Government response in the autumn.

Meg Munn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he will take to ensure that children have access to appropriately qualified solicitors under his proposals for criminal legal aid. [162340]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation. This included a proposed model of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services. We have been clear we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, including the £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent on criminal legal aid a year, to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer.

We are clear we will continue to uphold everyone's right to a fair trial. Quality assured lawyers will still be available—just as they are now. The Legal Aid Agency

18 July 2013 : Column 825W

would ensure as part of the tendering process that all providers are capable of delivering the full range of criminal legal aid services under contract across their procurement areas.

The current crime contract includes provisions for accepting applications for crime contract work on behalf of a child or protected party and accepting instructions directly from a child (paragraphs 4.24-4.29 of spec: part A). However, any specific skills and competence of a solicitor dealing with a child are not covered by the crime contract. We have asked for views from respondents on the factors they feel we should consider when designing the criteria for any future procurement process, which could include the skills and experience necessary for dealing with children. We are carefully considering all responses to the consultation on these issues.

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the representation sent to him on 25 June 2013 by the campaign group Liberty, setting out its concerns about the proposals announced in his Department's consultation, “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system”; and if he will make a statement. [163009]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation. This included a proposed model of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services. We have been clear we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, including the £1 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on criminal legal aid a year, to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer.

The consultation itself has received around 16,000 responses, including from the campaigning organisation Liberty. Officials are currently considering all the responses before final decisions are taken. The Government response is due to be published in the autumn.

Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will publish an age impact assessment of the proposals contained in his Department's consultation, “Transforming Legal Aid”. [163371]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation. We have been clear we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, including nearly £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent on criminal legal aid a year, to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer.

The Government are mindful of the importance of considering the impact of the legal aid proposals on different groups. In accordance with our duties under the Equality Act 2010 we considered the impact of the proposals on individuals sharing protected characteristics in order to give due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful conduct, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations.

The equalities assessment, annex K of the main consultation document, contains our analysis of the potential impact of the proposals were they to be

18 July 2013 : Column 826W

implemented, including, where information is available, the impact on different age groups. We are now considering all responses to the consultation and will update our assessment in light of any additional information.

Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will publish an equality impact assessment of the proposals contained in his Department's consultation, “Transforming Legal Aid”. [163372]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation. We have been clear we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, including nearly £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent on criminal legal aid a year, to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer.

The Government are mindful of the importance of considering the impact of the legal aid proposals on different groups. In accordance with our duties under the Equality Act 2010 we have considered the impact of the proposals on individuals sharing protected characteristics in order to give due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful conduct, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations.

This equalities assessment was published as a part of the main consultation document. It is annex K and starts on page 142. We are now considering all responses to the consultation and will update our assessment in light of any additional information.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what meetings with legal aid consultees he has planned; and if he will make a statement on the response to the consultation. [163519]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation.

Ministers and I will continue to meet with individuals and organisations from across the legal professions in relation to our “Transforming Legal Aid” policy proposals.

The consultation received around 16,000 responses which officials are currently analysing. We will carefully consider all responses before final decisions are taken and the Government response is published in the autumn.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will list all meetings he and Ministers have held as part of the legal aid consultation; and on what dates these meetings took place. [163521]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation. This included a proposed model of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services. We have been clear we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, including nearly £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent on criminal legal aid a year, to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer.

18 July 2013 : Column 827W

For a list of meetings my ministerial colleagues, officials, and I have undertaken since October 2012 I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), PQ 158068, 1 July 2013, Official Report, columns 480-84W.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will list all submissions received in response to his recent consultation on legal aid changes and ensure that they are all published. [163522]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation. This included a proposed model of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services. We have been clear we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, including nearly £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent on criminal legal aid a year, to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer.

It is a long standing practice that responses to Government consultations are not published. Many individuals and organisations (such as the Bar Council and Law Society) choose to share their responses with MPs or make their responses public and many are usually available online to that end.

I also understand, from the Justice Select Committee's (JSC) meeting on 3 July, that the JSC has been sent copies of many of the responses.

We will publish a summary of the responses to the consultation questions along with the Government response—as we did with our last legal aid consultation.

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if his Department will publish all responses to the recent legal aid consultation. [165775]

Jeremy Wright: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) today, PQ 163522.

Legal Aid Scheme: Wales

Simon Hart: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what impact assessment he has made of the financial effects of price competitive tendering on legal service provision in Wales. [158124]

Jeremy Wright: Between 9 April and 4 June 2013 the Government consulted on a number of proposals to reform legal aid via the “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system” consultation. This included a proposed model of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services. We have been clear we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid, including the £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent on criminal legal aid a year, to ensure we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer.

The impact assessments published alongside the consultation paper detail the potential impacts of the proposals. However, these do not consider any specific geographic areas, and there is no intention to conduct such an assessment. The full impact assessment of the price competitive tendering model can be viewed on the Ministry of Justice's website at the following address:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid

18 July 2013 : Column 828W

Legal Profession: Payments

Julian Sturdy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average length of time a member of the publicly-funded criminal bar waits for payment of invoiced funds; and what the longest length of time such a member has had to wait for payment in the last three years. [163727]

Jeremy Wright: Central records relating to the advocate graduated fee scheme do not allow the average time of payment to be easily calculated, and this could be done only at disproportionate cost. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) processed 90% of invoices under this scheme within 30 working days last year. The following table shows equivalent figures since 2011-12.

From 1 July 2013 our target has tightened further to 90% in 25 working days. Since the beginning of July 2013, LAA is currently processing the majority of claims at 23 days, so is within the revised target.

Figures on the longest length of time taken to process closed claims could be generated only at disproportionate cost. However, the oldest dates for payment of cases awaiting processing are as follows. There will be instances when we require further information, as a bill needs further scrutiny to ensure we are using taxpayers' money appropriately. This is entirely the correct thing to do.

On 3 July 2011, the oldest claim awaiting processing was dated 21 February 2011

On 1 July 2012, the oldest claim awaiting processing was dated 8 February 2012

On 4 July 2013, the oldest claim awaiting processing was dated 2 April 2013.

Life Imprisonment

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent estimate he has made of the average length of time served by people sentenced to a life term in prison. [165408]

Jeremy Wright: A life sentence comprises a minimum term of imprisonment, which is determined by the court and must be served in full, after which the offender may be released on life licence when the Parole Board determines it is safe to do so. For the most exceptionally grave offences the court may impose a whole life term which means that the offender is never subject to Parole Board release. The average time served in custody by offenders discharged from a life sentence in 2012 was 14 years.

A life sentence is mandatory for murder, and this Government have introduced a new mandatory life sentence for a second very serious sexual or violent offence. In addition, Parliament has put in place a maximum penalty of a life sentence for other very serious offences. When imposing a life sentence it is for our independent courts to determine the minimum term to be served in custody for the purposes of punishment

18 July 2013 : Column 829W

and deterrence. There is statutory guidance to the courts on determining the minimum term under a life sentence for murder. Once the minimum term has been served in full, it is for the Parole Board to determine whether or not the offender is safe to be released on licence, which lasts for the rest of the offender's life with the possibility of recall to custody at any time. Many offenders serve longer than their minimum term, and some are never released.

This information is published annually in April and can be found in Table A3.5 of the Annual Discharges tables 2012 via the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194275/OMSQ_Annual_tables_2012.zip

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.

Magistrates' Courts: Salford

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how the theft of a network server from Salford magistrates' court in January 2012 took place; who stole the server; what the value of the server was; how it was recovered; what action has been taken against the thief; what documents were on the server; whether such documents (a) related to court staff, defendants, victims or witnesses and (b) included personal or confidential matters or matters related to evidence; what steps have been taken to inform those affected; for what reasons he believes that the information has not been accessed; for what reasons the theft was not reported to the police and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) until June 2012; when he expects the ICO to report; and if he will make a statement. [165660][Official Report, 2 September 2013, Vol. 567, c. 3MC.]

Mrs Grant: The theft of a network server from Salford magistrates’ court occurred during the IT decommissioning process undertaken by contractors during the closure of the court. Following a police investigation, there was insufficient evidence to identify who stole the server and secure a conviction and no charges were brought. The estimated value of the server was £1,200.

The theft came to light on 3 May 2012 when the server was put up for sale on eBay still bearing the contractor's logo/asset tag. Arrangements were made by the contractor to recover the server on 9 May 2012. Once the facts were established, the incident was reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on 14 June 2013.

Files recovered from non user-accessible areas of the server contained personal and sensitive data, including court documents and e-mails, but a detailed forensic analysis and audit did not identify any access to the files during the time the server was not under the control of MOJ and therefore no action has been taken to inform those affected.

The matter is still under investigation by the ICO and we await its report.

Missing Persons

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what plans he has to review the law relating to presumption of death provisions; [163506]

(2) what practical assistance is given to those whose loved ones are missing presumed dead; [163507]

18 July 2013 : Column 830W

(3) what arrangements are in place to allow all lines of police enquiry and evidence to be pursued before any decision regarding presumption of death can be made; and if he will make a statement. [163508]

Mrs Grant: I refer my hon. Friend to my written statement of 20 June 2013, Official Report, column 40WS, announcing that the Ministry of Justice and the General Register Office are working to create the necessary rules of court and registration regulations and the associated procedures to implement the Presumption of Death Act 2013, which will create a single certificate of presumed death effective for all purposes. Last year, the Ministry of Justice and the Missing Persons Bureau prepared a factsheet about existing procedures for presuming a person to be dead to assist families of missing people in resolving their affairs.

Any application under existing procedures or under the new Presumption of Death Act 2013 will need to be supported by evidence as to the probable death of the missing person or of the person having been missing for seven years. What is required in any given case will depend on the circumstances but is likely to include the outcome of any police investigation.

MITIE Group

Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department spends on contracts with MITIE; and how much was spent on contracts with MITIE in each year since 2008. [162469]

Mrs Grant: The annual spend with MITIE for each financial year from 2008 through to 2013-14 (year to date) is as follows:

Years 2008 to 2011 show a steady trend of spend, in line with the contracts MITIE held with the MOJ at that time. Primarily, this spend was through the provision of security guarding services across courts and tribunals in England and Wales.

The MOJ changed the delivery model for contracting for security services in 2012 to a total facilities management model which included, among other facilities management requirements, the provision of security services. MITIE were awarded two out of the three contracts tendered at this time. As a result the value of spend with MITIE has shown an upward trend since 2012, following commencement of the new contracts.

Northcote House

Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department used the facilities at Northcote House, Sunningdale Park, Berkshire in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12 and (iii) 2012-13; and if he will make a statement. [164826]

18 July 2013 : Column 831W

Mrs Grant: Information on how many Ministers and officials of the Department have used the facilities at Northcote House, Sunningdale Park, Berkshire is not available centrally. It would require a Ministry-wide exercise to collect the information. This would incur disproportionate costs.

Until the end of March 2012, Northcote House was part of the Civil Service College, later the National School of Government. The Ministry of Justice did support and use the training provided by the National School.

Oakwood Prison

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many complaints from (a) prisoners and (b) prison staff there have been about conditions at HM Prison Oakwood since it first opened. [165798]

Jeremy Wright: I have asked HMP Oakwood to provide the requested information and will write to the right hon. Member as soon as possible.

Offenders: Rehabilitation

Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost will be of creating new posts in the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service in relation to implementing the changes outlined in the “Transforming Rehabilitation” paper. [164914]

Jeremy Wright: The proposals set out in “Transforming Rehabilitation—a strategy for reform” will make considerable efficiency savings through the use of competition and the introduction of a wider range of providers. Releasing these efficiency savings will enable us to extend statutory supervision and rehabilitation services to offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in custody.

The Ministry of Justice has a keen interest in ensuring that the reforms are affordable and offer value for money. The Department has been engaging HM Treasury throughout the development of the reforms; the cost of the transition, including any new posts which may be created as a result of the establishment of the National Probation Service, will be affordable within the context of the MOJ commitment to deliver annual savings of over £2 billion by 2014-15.

Personal Independence Payment: Appeals

Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the cost to HM Courts and Tribunal Service of appeals against personal independence payments. [165848]

Mrs Grant: The first-tier tribunal—social security and child support (SSCS), administered by HM Courts and Tribunals Service, hears appeals on an individual's entitlement to social security and child support.

Personal independence payment (PIP) is progressively replacing disability living allowance from April 2013. There are a number of stages a claim made to the DWP must pass through before an appeal reaches the tribunal: an initial decision by a DWP decision-maker must be made; the claimant needs to dispute the initial decision; mandatory reconsideration of that decision must take

18 July 2013 : Column 832W

place; and the claimant must consider whether to appeal to the tribunal, and then submit that appeal. The tribunal is only now starting to receive the first appeals against decisions made about PIP claims, and we are not expecting receipts to flow through to the tribunal in any numbers for several months, and cannot therefore provide firm expectations of cost.

The total cost of the SSCS tribunal to HMCTS in 2012-13 was £115 million. The cost of PIP appeals will be included in the overall cost of the SSCS tribunal from 2013-14.

Prisoner Corruption Unit

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice in which periods the Prisoner Corruption Unit has been without an overall manager since 2008. [164470]

Jeremy Wright: None. The National Offender Management Service Corruption Prevention Unit (CPU) sits within the security group of NOMS HQ. Since 2008 leadership and oversight of the operational delivery of the CPU has been provided by a senior civil servant.

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many full-time equivalent officials worked in the prison corruption unit on 1 June (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012 and (d) 2013. [164471]

Jeremy Wright: The number of staff in the corruption prevention unit has increased since this Government came to office.

The information has been provided in the following table.

Corruption in the Prison Service is not acceptable and it will be sought out and prevented. This Government are committed to ensuring that the agencies are free from corruption and that those who commit illegal acts are dealt with swiftly and reported to the prosecuting authorities.

Prisoners

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his policy is on the extent to which prison governors can exercise discretion in awarding extra privileges to prisoners. [156710]

Jeremy Wright: We want to ensure that prisons operate to a consistent standard when rewarding prisoners for positive behaviour and engaging with efforts to rehabilitate them. We announced an overhaul of the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme on 30 April, with the revised scheme coming into effect from November 2013. The revised scheme will provide consistency across the adult (18 or over) estate, with the introduction of a centralised privileges and facilities list. This will set out what is available at the different IEP levels. Governors

18 July 2013 : Column 833W

of prisons will be able to select privileges from this list to meet local circumstances but will not be able to deviate from it.

Prisoners' Release

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many prisoners wrongly released were still at large in each of the last three years; and what crimes they committed in each such year; [156736]

(2) of those prisoners wrongly released from prison (a) what category of prisoner they were, (b) what offence they had been found guilty of, (c) which prison they were released from, (d) how many were released from public prisons, (e) how many were released from private prisons and (f) how long it took to return them to prison in each of the last three years; [156737]

(3) how many prisoners were wrongly released from prison in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012; [156738]

(4) how many prisoners were mistakenly released early in each of the last five years; from which prisons each such prisoner was released; what crime each prisoner had committed; how long it took to return each prisoner to prison; and how many remain at large. [161682]

Jeremy Wright: Under this Government the number of releases in error has reduced by 37%. In 2012 there were a total of 45 releases in error, which equated to 0.05% of discharges from prison. Releases in error are taken very seriously and action has been taken to tighten processes and focus managers' attention in this area. All incidents are subject to investigation, The majority of prisoners released in error are returned to custody quickly.

The tables provide the information requested on release in error for each of the last three calendar years. It is not possible to provide a similar breakdown of this information prior to 2010 without incurring disproportionate cost as this would involve a manual interrogation of individual incident records. However, table 1 shows overall numbers of releases in error over the last five financial years taken from historic records.

It is not possible to provide details of releases in error by category of prisoner. The category of prisoner at time of release in error is not recorded in incident reports and live data show details of the current security category only. No category A prisoner has been released in error in the last three years. Any crimes that might be committed by prisoners while they are released in error are not recorded in a form that can easily be retrieved and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

18 July 2013 : Column 834W

The following tables are based on releases in error occurring from prisons only.

18 July 2013 : Column 835W

18 July 2013 : Column 836W

18 July 2013 : Column 837W

18 July 2013 : Column 838W