To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee
on the Electoral Commission, on how many occasions Electoral Registration Officers
did not meet the Electoral Commission performance standards; how many directions were
issued by the Commission in response to such occasions; and on how many such directions
Ministers have acted.
<p>The number of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) who did not meet one or more
of the Commission’s performance standards in each year since their introduction in
2008 is as follows:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>2008</p></td><td><p>299</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>185</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>60</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>67</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>32</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>23</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>
</p><p>In 2013 the Commission introduced a new performance standards framework for
EROs to support them in preparing for and delivering the transition to Individual
Electoral Registration. In March 2014 we reported that no EROs failed to meet the
first of these standards.</p><p>More detailed information on the performance of EROs
in each year is available on the Commission’s website.</p><p>The Commission has not
to date made any recommendations to the Secretary of State to issue a direction to
individual EROs.</p><p>Where an ERO does not carry out their duties in full, the Commission’s
priority is to take action to ensure that the ERO makes improvements to their performance
in the discharge of their functions. In doing this, the Commission considers the full
range of available options, taking into account the facts in each particular case.
This could include making a recommendation to the Secretary of State to issue a direction
to the ERO to require them to make improvements.</p>
<p>Due to a technical error, the answer to question 205841 was not processed, as had
been believed. I apologise and can confirm to the Rt. Hon. Member that the question
has now been answered.</p>
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 24 October 2014
to Question 211297, when he expects to write to the hon. Member for Tooting.
<p /> <p>Currently the number of unrepresented defendants is not separately identifiable
from defendants where no legal representation is known.</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry
of Justice is actively working to identify these defendants. Analysis across the department
is currently underway which is seeking to improve data quality and establish a robust
methodology to identify parties at court without legal representation.</p><p> </p><p>I
expect to be able to write to the Rt Honourable Member in the New Year. A copy of
the letter will be placed in the House Library.</p>
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, How many (a) suspended sentences, (b) cautions
and (c) custodial sentences were handed down in each year since 2010 for (i) burglary,
(ii) sexual assault, (iii) grievous bodily harm, (iv) rape, (v) manslaughter, (vi)
attempted murder, (vii) forgery, (viii) fraud, (ix) theft of a motor vehicle, (x)
theft from a person, (xi) robbery, (xii) sexual activity with a child under 16, (xiii)
sexual activity with a child under 13, (xiv) sexual assault of a female, (xv) rape
of a male, (xvi) rape of a female, (xvii) sexual assault on a male, (xviii) child
abduction, (xix) abandoning children aged under two years, (xx) cruelty or neglect
of children, (xxi) wounding or other acts endangering life, (xxii) causing death by
aggravated vehicle-taking, (xxiii) causing death by driving while unlicensed or uninsured,
(xxiv) causing death of a child or a vulnerable person, (xxv) causing death by careless
driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, (xxvi) manslaughter due to diminished
responsibility, (xxvii) causing death by reckless driving, (xxviii) threat or conspiracy
to murder, (xxix) perverting the course of justice, (xxx) violent disorder, (xxxi)
kidnapping, (xxxii) blackmail, (xxxiii) intent to supply a controlled drug, (xxxiv)
possession of a controlled drug, (xxxv) criminal damage, (xxxvi) arson, (xxxvii) common
assault, (xxxviii) dangerous driving and (xxxix) firearms offences.
<p>Whilst crime is falling, since 2010 offenders are more likely to go to prison,
and for longer. In 2013, of all offenders sentenced for indictable offences, 27% were
sentenced to immediate custody, 23% to community sentences, 18% to a fine, and 12%
to a Suspended Sentence Order. In 2013, for the first time in the period between 2003
and 2013, immediate custody was the most common disposal given for indictable offences.</p><p>
</p><p>This Government is creating a tough justice system with severe penalties available
for serious offenders. We have already introduced automatic life sentences for a second
serious sexual or violent offence, and we are legislating to end automatic early release
for child rapists, terrorists and dangerous offenders. Our radical reforms to rehabilitation
will mean for the first time every offender leaving prison spends at least 12 months
under supervision, where currently around 50,000 are released each year with no statutory
support. This will start to address the scandalous gap that allows our most chaotic
offenders to leave prison with no support or supervision to turn their lives around.</p><p>
</p><p>Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts, within the maximum
penalty set by Parliament for the offence. Courts have discretion to suspend an adult
custodial sentence and since December 2012 have been able to suspend a sentence of
two years or less, where previously only a sentence of 12 months or less could be
suspended.</p><p> </p><p>The Government is clear that serious offences should always
be brought to court and to ensure that there is increased public confidence in the
justice system announced in November last year changes to police guidance. This revised
guidance states simple cautions should not be given for indictable only offences,
certain serious either way offences or repeat offenders unless there are exceptional
circumstances and a senior police officer, as well as the CPS for certain cases, has
agreed that a caution should be administered. We have legislated in the Criminal Justice
and Courts Bill to put statutory restrictions on the use of cautions for serious offences
and repeat offenders.</p><p> </p><p>The number of people cautioned and offenders sentences
at all courts for the requested offences, in England and Wales, in each year from
2010 to 2013 (latest data available) are published on the Ministry of Justice website
and can be viewed at the following link:-</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly-december-2013"
target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly-december-2013</a></p><p>
</p><p>From the above link select “Outcome by offence” noting that: grievous bodily
harm offences can be viewed under assault with intent to cause serious harm; causing
death by reckless driving can be viewed under causing death by dangerous driving;
and wounding or other acts endangering life can be viewed under other acts endangering
life.</p>
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many times and to which prisons (a)
Tornado Teams and (b) the National Tactical Response Group has been called out in
each month since January 2014; how many Gold Command prison incidents there have been
in each month since January 2014; and on how many occasions (i) police stations and
(ii) court cells have been used to accommodate prisoners in each month since January
2014.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much his Department has spent on external
legal fees relating to the case at the European Court of Justice on the cap on bankers'
bonuses.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which organisations in each community rehabilitation
company area bid for Transforming Rehabilitation programme contracts but were unsuccessful
in becoming preferred bidders.
<p>Only one bidder has withdrawn from the Transforming Rehabilitation competition
having submitted a bid – Geo Mercia Willowdene, which included a probation staff mutual,
Mercia Community Action. We received Geo Mercia Willowdene’s letter confirming their
withdrawal on 4 November.</p><p> </p><p>None of those who submitted bids are unsuccessful
at this stage as the competition is ongoing and notification of contract award is
still pending.</p>
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which mutual organisations have withdrawn
bids for Transforming Rehabilitation contracts; and when his Department was notified
in each case.
<p /> <p>Only one bidder has withdrawn from the Transforming Rehabilitation competition
having submitted a bid – Geo Mercia Willowdene, which included a probation staff mutual,
Mercia Community Action. We received Geo Mercia Willowdene’s letter confirming their
withdrawal on 4 November.</p><p> </p><p>None of those who submitted bids are unsuccessful
at this stage as the competition is ongoing and notification of contract award is
still pending.</p>
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much his Department provided to which
Community Rehabilitation Companies to support the development of mutual bids for Transforming
Rehabilitation.
<p /> <p>The Cabinet Office procured support for probation trust staff to develop
mutual bids in the Transforming Rehabilitation competition.</p><p> </p><p>A full breakdown
of all Cabinet Office Mutuals Support Programme contract awards, including to probation
trust staff, can be found at: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/suppliers-information-and-contract-opportunities"
target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/suppliers-information-and-contract-opportunities</a></p><p>
</p><p>The total value of the support contracts was £1,127,238. This included both
bid support and, where applicable, mobilisation support to those that were named as
Preferred Bidders. Bid support included commercial and legal advice, consultancy services
and technical advice. Support committed during the bidding stage totalled £971,764.</p>
<p /> <p>Bail and remand decisions are quite rightly for the independent courts to
make, based on the facts of the particular case.</p><p> </p><p>In making remand decisions,
courts must balance the risk that release on bail might pose to the public or to the
administration of justice, against the detention of a person who may prove to be innocent.
Defendants who are dangerous and pose a threat to society should always be remanded
in custody.</p><p> </p><p>The requested information is provided in the table below.</p>