To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that
the successful bidder for Compliance and Enforcement Service Project offers value
for money.
<p>The final bids submitted by the remaining three bidders on 5 January 2015 for the
competition for Compliance and Enforcement Services are going through a robust evaluation
process and HMCTS will award the contract based upon the bidder which submits the
most economically advantageous tender. The evaluation criteria takes into account
price and non price factors and the overall achievability and financial viability
of the bids.</p><p> </p><p>In addition to this the agreement that will be put in place
with the selected service provider will deliver value for money through a combination
of the payment mechanism which incorporates a Payment By Results element based upon
performance, Key Performance Indicators and penalties for underperformance.</p><p>
</p>
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when the next meeting between officials
of his Department, Urban Vision and Stoke-on-Trent City Council to discuss Fenton
Town Hall will take place.
<p /> <p>Ministry of Justice officials met, including telephone conferences, with
Urban Vision on one occasion and with Stoke on Trent City Council on three occasions
in the last three months. There are no further meetings scheduled to take place. The
MoJ is now in commercial discussions for the sale of the property to a private bidder.</p><p>
</p><p>Members of the community in Stoke-on-Trent have made their views on the court
building clear to us, and we have engaged in constructive dialogue with Urban Vision
as they developed their business case.</p><p> </p><p>Following those discussions,
we offered to transfer ownership of the building to Stoke-on-Trent City Council, for
a peppercorn rate so they could work with Urban Vision and others on the long term
future of the building. Unfortunately the council has declined that offer and sadly
now we will be looking to sell the court.</p><p> </p><p>We were keen to explore solutions
that suited the community but we have a duty to get best value for the taxpayer when
disposing of surplus property and this building had been empty for over two years.</p><p>
</p><p>We will be paying for three of the war memorials to be carefully relocated
to the nearby Fenton Christ Church. There will be a legal duty for whoever buys the
building to preserve the Minton Memorial which cannot be safely moved.</p>
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the (a) number of convictions, (b)
conviction rate as a percentage of prosecutions brought and (c) rate of convictions
as a percentage of crimes reported was for (i) murder, (ii) grievous bodily harm,
(iii) sexual offences, (iv) burglary, (v) robbery, (vi) theft, (vii) criminal damage,
(viii) public order offences, (ix) drug offences, (x) driving offences and (xi) all
offences in (A) Elmbridge, (B) Surrey, (C) the South East of England and (D) England
in each of the last five years.
<p>Crime is falling and is at its lowest level since records began in 1981, as per
the Crime Survey in England and Wales. Since 2010 those who do offend are more likely
to go to prison and for longer than ever before. For the first time in ten years,
an immediate prison sentence is the most common disposal for indictable offences.<br>
<br>This follows a series of measures by the Government to toughen up sentencing and
make sure those who commit these crimes face a significant term in prison, including
an automatic life sentence for a second serious sexual or violent offence. <br><br>There
are also several measures to strengthen sentencing in the Criminal Justice and Courts
Bill, which has completed its passage through Parliament and awaits Royal Assent.
These include ensuring that all dangerous offenders who receive the tough Extended
Determinate Sentence (EDS) are no longer automatically released two-thirds of the
way through their custodial term. The Government has also banned the use of simple
cautions for serious offences. <br> <br>We are also determined that our justice system
delivers the right outcomes for victims of crime and the public as a whole, and we
have made great strides in recent years – not least through smarter use of technology,
and joined-up working.<br><br>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’
courts and found guilty, along with conviction ratio at all courts of the offences
specified in the question from 2009 to 2013 can be viewed in the tables as detailed
below:-<br><br>Figures for Surrey can be viewed in Table 1<br>Figures for the South
East of England can be viewed in Table 2<br>Figures for England as a whole can be
viewed in Table 3<br><br>There are no courts in the Borough of Elmbridge; hence the
figure for that portion of the question is zero. The Ministry of Justice court proceedings
database cannot specifically identify the exact location of offences. These figures
are based on the location of the court hearing the case.<br><br>Conviction ratio is
provided in place of conviction rate as a case can be commenced in one year and concluded
in a subsequent year.<br><br>A defendant may be convicted in a different year to that
in which they were proceeded against. Variation in the conviction ratio can be caused
either by a change in the percentage of cases that end in conviction or by a change
in the percentage of cases that end in a conviction in the same year as the original
proceeding. Therefore fluctuations in data, particularly in the last year for which
figures are available can be misleading. <br><br>Rates of convictions as a percentage
of reported crime cannot be provided. The Home Office collects data on the number
of notifiable offences recorded by the police. Of these, some crimes may be subsequently
‘no crimed’ (for example if it is believed a crime did not actually take place or
was incorrectly recorded as a crime).<br><br>Therefore, conviction rates as a percentage
of recorded crime could therefore present a misleading picture.<br><br>Court proceedings
data for 2014 are planned for publication in Spring 2015.</p>
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, on how many occasions officials from his
Department have met (a) Urban Vision and (b) Stoke-on-Trent City Council to discuss
Fenton Town Hall in the last three months.
<p>Ministry of Justice officials met, including telephone conferences, with Urban
Vision on one occasion and with Stoke on Trent City Council on three occasions in
the last three months. There are no further meetings scheduled to take place. The
MoJ is now in commercial discussions for the sale of the property to a private bidder.</p><p>
</p><p>Members of the community in Stoke-on-Trent have made their views on the court
building clear to us, and we have engaged in constructive dialogue with Urban Vision
as they developed their business case.</p><p> </p><p>Following those discussions,
we offered to transfer ownership of the building to Stoke-on-Trent City Council, for
a peppercorn rate so they could work with Urban Vision and others on the long term
future of the building. Unfortunately the council has declined that offer and sadly
now we will be looking to sell the court.</p><p> </p><p>We were keen to explore solutions
that suited the community but we have a duty to get best value for the taxpayer when
disposing of surplus property and this building had been empty for over two years.</p><p>
</p><p>We will be paying for three of the war memorials to be carefully relocated
to the nearby Fenton Christ Church. There will be a legal duty for whoever buys the
building to preserve the Minton Memorial which cannot be safely moved.</p>
