Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

225972
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-03-09more like thismore than 2015-03-09
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Youth Custody: Travellers more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Roma, Gypsy and Traveller young people were held in (a) young offenders' institutions, (b) secure training centres and (c) secure children's homes in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what proportion of the total number of inmates each of these are. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 226667 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-03-12more like thismore than 2015-03-12
answer text <p>The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is undertaking joint work with its partner agencies to ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach to address the issue of minority groups in the youth justice system.</p><p>The YJB and HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) commissioned and published the annual report 'Children in Custody 2013-14’ in December 2014. The report includes the results of surveys undertaken in Secure Training Centres (STCs) and Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) in 2013/14, which showed that:</p><ul><li>In YOIs, of 729 young people surveyed, 6% of young people considered themselves to be a Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT).</li></ul><ul><li>In STCs, of 231 young people surveyed, 11% considered themselves GRT.</li></ul><p>As not all young people returned a completed survey, we are unable to determine the actual number of GRT young people held in those establishments, or if this sample is representative.</p><p>Administrative data on the number of young people who considered themselves to be GRT in STCs and Secure Children’s Homes is not held centrally.</p><p>Data on ethnic background, including GRT, is collected for young people in under-18 YOIs. However, due to recording issues, figures for GRT are not considered to be of sufficient quality.</p>
answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire more like this
answering member printed Andrew Selous more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-03-12T15:50:35.913Zmore like thismore than 2015-03-12T15:50:35.913Z
answering member
1453
label Biography information for Andrew Selous more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this
179041
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-02-10more like thismore than 2015-02-10
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Prisons: Restraint Techniques more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many incidents of use of force there were in each private prison in England and Wales in each year since 2010. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 224125 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-23more like thismore than 2015-02-23
answer text <p>Unfortunately it has not been possible to fully extract the relevant data with regards to this question in the given timeframe. I will write to the Hon. Member when I am able to provide a response.</p> more like this
answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire more like this
answering member printed Andrew Selous more like this
grouped question UIN
224006 more like this
224126 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-23T17:17:51.143Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-23T17:17:51.143Z
answering member
1453
label Biography information for Andrew Selous more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this
177796
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-02-04more like thismore than 2015-02-04
answering body
Department for Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept id 7 more like this
answering dept short name Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept sort name Communities and Local Government more like this
hansard heading Compulsory Purchase more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what the circumstances were of each occasion when his Department went against the advice of its independent inspector when approving a compulsory purchase order in the last four years. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 223452 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-23more like thismore than 2015-02-23
answer text <p>Since the Department’s National Planning Casework Unit took over responsibility for issuing Compulsory Purchase Order decisions in May 2012, the Secretary of State has issued decisions on 76 opposed Compulsory Purchase Orders. 73 decisions went along with the Inspector’s recommendation, and 3 did not.</p><p> </p><p>In the case of Liverpool City Council and Welsh Streets, the Secretary of State disagreed with the Inspector’s report that recommended confirming the Order. The reasoning is summarised in the Written Ministerial Statement of 16 January 2015, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 35WS.</p><p> </p><p>In the case of the Northumberland Development Project the Inspector recommended that the Order should not be confirmed or that, in the event that the Secretary of State is minded to confirm the Order, he should confirm the Order with modifications subject to receipt of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement. Following receipt of the Inspector’s Report the Secretary of State deferred his decision on the Order and in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendation wrote to all parties seeking representations. The Secretary of State subsequently confirmed the Order with modifications on 11 July 2014.</p><p> </p><p>In the case of the Shepherd’s Bush Market area the Inspector recommended that the Order should not be confirmed or, if the Secretary of State is minded to confirm the Order, it should be modified by deleting some of the Order lands. In confirming the Order the Secretary of State considered that the proposed purpose of the Order would significantly contribute to the wellbeing of the area and fitted in with the adopted planning framework for the area. He was satisfied that sufficient safeguards were in place to protect traders and shopkeepers and that the potential financial viability of the scheme had been demonstrated, and that no adequate alternatives existed in terms of achieving the purpose of the proposal, particularly in light of the urgent need to redevelop the Market. The Secretary of State confirmed the Order with modifications on 10 October 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Each case is considered on its individual merits, with due process.</p><p> </p><p>Copies of the Secretary of State’s decision letter and the Inspector’s Report in each case have been placed in the Library of the House.</p>
answering member constituency Great Yarmouth more like this
answering member printed Brandon Lewis more like this
grouped question UIN 223453 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-23T17:34:32.8Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-23T17:34:32.8Z
answering member
4009
label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis more like this
previous answer version
43619
answering member constituency Great Yarmouth more like this
answering member printed Brandon Lewis more like this
answering member
4009
label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this
177797
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-02-04more like thismore than 2015-02-04
answering body
Department for Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept id 7 more like this
answering dept short name Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept sort name Communities and Local Government more like this
hansard heading Compulsory Purchase more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, on how many occasions his Department has gone against the advice of its independent inspector when approving a compulsory purchase order. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 223453 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-23more like thismore than 2015-02-23
answer text <p>Since the Department’s National Planning Casework Unit took over responsibility for issuing Compulsory Purchase Order decisions in May 2012, the Secretary of State has issued decisions on 76 opposed Compulsory Purchase Orders. 73 decisions went along with the Inspector’s recommendation, and 3 did not.</p><p> </p><p>In the case of Liverpool City Council and Welsh Streets, the Secretary of State disagreed with the Inspector’s report that recommended confirming the Order. The reasoning is summarised in the Written Ministerial Statement of 16 January 2015, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 35WS.</p><p> </p><p>In the case of the Northumberland Development Project the Inspector recommended that the Order should not be confirmed or that, in the event that the Secretary of State is minded to confirm the Order, he should confirm the Order with modifications subject to receipt of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement. Following receipt of the Inspector’s Report the Secretary of State deferred his decision on the Order and in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendation wrote to all parties seeking representations. The Secretary of State subsequently confirmed the Order with modifications on 11 July 2014.</p><p> </p><p>In the case of the Shepherd’s Bush Market area the Inspector recommended that the Order should not be confirmed or, if the Secretary of State is minded to confirm the Order, it should be modified by deleting some of the Order lands. In confirming the Order the Secretary of State considered that the proposed purpose of the Order would significantly contribute to the wellbeing of the area and fitted in with the adopted planning framework for the area. He was satisfied that sufficient safeguards were in place to protect traders and shopkeepers and that the potential financial viability of the scheme had been demonstrated, and that no adequate alternatives existed in terms of achieving the purpose of the proposal, particularly in light of the urgent need to redevelop the Market. The Secretary of State confirmed the Order with modifications on 10 October 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Each case is considered on its individual merits, with due process.</p><p> </p><p>Copies of the Secretary of State’s decision letter and the Inspector’s Report in each case have been placed in the Library of the House.</p>
answering member constituency Great Yarmouth more like this
answering member printed Brandon Lewis more like this
grouped question UIN 223452 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-23T17:34:32.967Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-23T17:34:32.967Z
answering member
4009
label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis more like this
previous answer version
43620
answering member constituency Great Yarmouth more like this
answering member printed Brandon Lewis more like this
answering member
4009
label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this
176721
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-29more like thismore than 2015-01-29
answering body
Department for Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept id 7 more like this
answering dept short name Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept sort name Communities and Local Government more like this
hansard heading Housing Associations: Finance more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when the Government plans to consult on ways to increase the borrowing capacity of housing associations in relation to the valuation of properties transferred from local authorities. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 222688 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-03more like thismore than 2015-02-03
answer text <p>The Government intends to issue a consultation document in due course.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Great Yarmouth more like this
answering member printed Brandon Lewis more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-03T17:20:48.933Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-03T17:20:48.933Z
answering member
4009
label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this
175010
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-21more like thismore than 2015-01-21
answering body
Department for Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept id 7 more like this
answering dept short name Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept sort name Communities and Local Government more like this
hansard heading Legal Costs more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how much the Government spent on legal fees in the case of Moore and Coates v the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in which ruling was made on 21 January 2015. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 221613 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-02-23more like thismore than 2015-02-23
answer text <p>Planning casework is a quasi-judicial function of the Department, and as was the case under the last Administration, it attracts a high volume of legal challenges which end up in the courts. This is particularly the case in light of the long-term growth of judicial review and the growing creep of European Union directives, regulations and case law; equality law and human rights law.</p><p> </p><p>Costs to date in these two claims are £68,825 excluding VAT.</p><p> </p><p>The Government makes no apologies for seeking to safeguard Green Belt protection and trying to bring a sense of fair play to the planning system. The Government’s planning policy is clear that both temporary and permanent traveller sites are inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The judgment does not question that principle.</p><p> </p><p>Indeed, there have been a number of recent legal cases where the planning appeal decisions of the Secretary of State have succeeded in relation to traveller development in the Green Belt and awarded costs in favour of DCLG, including:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Mulvenna v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government</li><li>Barney-Smith v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government</li><li>Dear v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government</li><li>Connors, Connors, Sines, Lee, and Doran v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – five separate claims heard together.</li></ul><p> </p><p>Hence, any payment of costs in Moore vs Coates needs to be seen in this context as my Department has successfully defended the eight claims above and costs are due to my Department.</p><p> </p><p>To place the Department’s spending in context more broadly, I would observe that the Department spent £1.7 million in external lawyers’ fees in 2009-10 (excluding Treasury Solicitors), in 2013-14, the figure had fallen to £699,000.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
answering member constituency Great Yarmouth more like this
answering member printed Brandon Lewis more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-02-23T17:09:33.993Zmore like thismore than 2015-02-23T17:09:33.993Z
answering member
4009
label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis more like this
previous answer version
41181
answering member constituency Great Yarmouth more like this
answering member printed Brandon Lewis more like this
answering member
4009
label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this
172867
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-09more like thismore than 2015-01-09
answering body
Attorney General more like this
answering dept id 88 more like this
answering dept short name Attorney General more like this
answering dept sort name Attorney General more like this
hansard heading Government Departments: Judicial Review more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Attorney General, what amount each Government department has spent on external legal fees relating to each case involving substantive judicial review hearings since May 2010; and what the outcome of the proceedings was in each such case. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 220247 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-01-14more like thismore than 2015-01-14
answer text <p>The Treasury Solicitor conducts most, but not all, litigation on behalf of government departments. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally conducts its own litigation. In 2014 the Treasury Solicitor acted in about 17846 judicial reviews.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Treasury Solicitor’s Department does not hold central records on the external legal fees paid in each individual case or on the outcome of each such case. Such information could not be created without examining every case file and thus incurring disproportionate costs.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In relation to external fees, the Attorney General maintains five panels of junior counsel to undertake civil and EC work for all Government Departments. There are three London panels (an A panel for senior juniors, a B panel for middle juniors and a C panel for junior juniors) together with a Regional panel and a Public International Law panel. This is in addition to First Treasury Counsel (FTC) who exclusively does Government work, and to the Standing Counsel to certain Departments. <br></p><p> </p><p>The hourly rates for panel counsel are as follows:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>First Treasury Counsel - £230</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A panel - £120</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>B panel - £80</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>C panel - £60 if under 5 years call and £80 if over 5 years call.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In relation to outcomes, the Ministry of Justice publish figures on the number of Judicial Reviews by each Department up to 2012:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>See Table 4.3 at the link below:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>This shows the number of cases each year where Government departments were named as first defendant and where the judicial review was granted following a substantive hearing.</p><p> </p>
answering member constituency South Swindon more like this
answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-01-14T17:46:29.857Zmore like thismore than 2015-01-14T17:46:29.857Z
answering member
4106
label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this
172739
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-08more like thismore than 2015-01-08
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Driving: Disqualification more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many convictions there have been for driving while disqualified in each year since 2010. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 220161 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-01-13more like thismore than 2015-01-13
answer text <p>I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.</p><p> </p><p>The Government takes driving offences extremely seriously and wants to ensure that we are doing everything we can to keep our roads safe. That is why we are legislating to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by driving whilst disqualified from two to 10 years, and create a new offence of causing serious injury by driving whilst disqualified. We are also changing the law to allow the commencement of provisions which will ensure that courts must take account of any time in prison in setting the length of a driving disqualification.</p><p> </p><p>The number of people found guilty for driving while disqualified in England and Wales, from 2010 to 2013 (the latest data available) can be viewed in the table.</p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="8"><strong>Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court, found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to driving while disqualified<sup>(1)</sup>, England &amp; Wales, 2009-2013<sup>(2)(3)</sup></strong></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Offence</td><td> </td><td>Outcome</td><td>2009</td><td>2010</td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="17">Driving while disqualified</td><td> </td><td>Proceeded against</td><td>13,924</td><td>11,122</td><td>9,379</td><td>8,191</td><td>7,619</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Found Guilty</td><td>13,217</td><td>10,465</td><td>8,869</td><td>7,676</td><td>7,083</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td><em>Conviction ratio<sup>(4)</sup></em></td><td><em>94.9</em></td><td><em>94.1</em></td><td><em>94.6</em></td><td><em>93.7</em></td><td><em>93.0</em></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Sentenced</td><td>13,260</td><td>10,500</td><td>8,917</td><td>7,684</td><td>7,099</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td><em>Of which:</em></td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Absolute discharge</td><td>47</td><td>43</td><td>45</td><td>67</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Conditional discharge</td><td>236</td><td>143</td><td>134</td><td>121</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Fine</td><td>963</td><td>895</td><td>820</td><td>755</td><td>795</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Community sentence</td><td>5,688</td><td>4,483</td><td>3,626</td><td>3,099</td><td>2,580</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Suspended sentences</td><td>2,558</td><td>2,111</td><td>1,924</td><td>1,639</td><td>1,704</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Otherwise dealt with</td><td>100</td><td>93</td><td>68</td><td>41</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Immediate custody</td><td>3,668</td><td>2,732</td><td>2,300</td><td>1,962</td><td>1,785</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td><em>Custody rate<sup>(5)</sup></em></td><td><em>27.7</em></td><td><em>26.0</em></td><td><em>25.8</em></td><td><em>25.5</em></td><td><em>25.1</em></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Average fine (£)</td><td>267.65</td><td>246.26</td><td>278.35</td><td>283.06</td><td>284.67</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Average custodial sentence length (months)<sup>(6)</sup></td><td>3.3</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(1) An offence under S 103 (1) of the Road Trafic Act 1988</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">(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.</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">(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.</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">(3) The number of offenders sentenced can differ from those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty in a particular year, and committed for sentence at the Crown Court, may be sentenced in the following year.</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">(4) Conviction ratio is calculated as the number of convictions as a proportion of the number of proceedings.</td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">(5) The proportion of offenders sentenced who are sentenced to immediate custody.</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(6) Excludes life and indeterminate sentences.</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Ref: PQ 220161</td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table>
answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead more like this
answering member printed Mike Penning more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-01-13T10:33:23.313Zmore like thismore than 2015-01-13T10:33:23.313Z
answering member
1528
label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this
172603
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-01-07more like thismore than 2015-01-07
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name Justice more like this
answering dept sort name Justice more like this
hansard heading Employment Tribunals Service more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the target for collection of employment tribunal fees was in each quarter since the introduction of such fees; what sum was collected in such fees; what the costs of such collection were; what value in such fees was waived under remission; what the cost of setting up the remission scheme was; and what overall net sum was received in such fees. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 220109 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-01-12more like thismore than 2015-01-12
answer text <p>There has not been a target for the collection of employment tribunal fees since the introduction of such fees. The impact assessment for the introduction of fees estimated that £10m of fee income would be generated annually. With new claim volumes reducing in 2013/14, HM Courts &amp; Tribunals Service (HMCTS) estimates fee income will be approximately £9m in 2014/15.</p><p> </p><p>The fee income collected in each quarter since July 2013 is:</p><table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3"> </td><td colspan="4"><p>2013/14</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>2014/15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Q1</p></td><td><p>Q2</p></td><td><p>Q3</p></td><td><p>Q4</p></td><td><p>Q1</p></td><td><p>Q2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Fees Collected</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0.5</p></td><td><p>1.6</p></td><td><p>2.4</p></td><td><p>2.1</p></td><td><p>2.3</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>It is not possible to separate out many costs of collection from the wider costs of employment tribunals, which have fallen in 2013/14 and 2014/15. The estimated running and support costs for administering the fee collection process in Employment Tribunals are shown below:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3"> </td><td colspan="4"><p>2013/14</p></td><td colspan="2"><p>2014/15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Q1</p></td><td><p>Q2</p></td><td><p>Q3</p></td><td><p>Q4</p></td><td><p>Q1</p></td><td><p>Q2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td><td><p>£m</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Additional ongoing BAU Costs</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0.0</p></td><td><p>0.0</p></td><td><p>0.4<sup>1</sup></p></td><td><p>0.3</p></td><td><p>0.3</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><em><sup>1</sup>In practice staff costs in 2013/14 would have been incurred before quarter 4 with the figures shown representing costs recorded to the relevant cost centres for the fee collection teams. All IT costs in 2013/14 are included in the set up costs described below.</em></p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to disaggregate the cost of establishing new (and revising existing) IT systems to handle remission applications in the employment tribunals system, from that work in relation to the systems for collecting fees. The figure provided below is a combined total.</p><p> </p><p>The capital investment made by HMCTS in respect of IT systems to support the collection of fee receipts and remission applications across the employment tribunals system was £4.4m. A further £0.6m resource was spent on the project to implement fees giving a total £5.0m project cost.</p><p> </p><p>HMCTS estimates that £8.9m of fee income was collected from July 2013 to the end of June 2014. The full cost of operating the employment tribunals for 2013/14 was £76.3m gross expenditure and £71.8m net of fee income, a reduction of £14.9m from the £86.7m full cost of operating the employment tribunals for the year 2012 /13.</p><p> </p><p>The sum collected in relation to employment tribunal fees for the period 2013-2014 is available from financial information relating to fees and charges, published by HMCTS in its Annual Report and Accounts. The HMCTS Annual Report and Accounts for 2013-14 was published in June 2014 on the Ministry of Justice website and can be found at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/corporate-reports/hmcts.</p><p> </p><p>For the period from April 2014 to 30 November 2014 HMCTS has received a gross total of £5.8m in employment tribunal fees of which £1.4m has been forgone in fee remission, leaving £4.4m in net fees.</p><p> </p><p>I expect to be in a position to publish more detailed data on the number of remission applications made, and awards made, for the employment tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal in the Tribunal and Gender Recognition Certificate Statistics quarterly bulletin by the end of this financial year.</p><p> </p>
answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire more like this
answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-01-12T17:32:03.427Zmore like thismore than 2015-01-12T17:32:03.427Z
answering member
1496
label Biography information for Shailesh Vara more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this
170375
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2014-12-15more like thismore than 2014-12-15
answering body
Department for Education more like this
answering dept id 60 more like this
answering dept short name Education more like this
answering dept sort name Education more like this
hansard heading Department for Education: G4S and Serco more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many tenders from (a) Serco and (b) G4S for contracts let by her Department were successful in each year since May 2010; how much her Department paid to each of those companies for the execution of contracts in each such year; how many contracts which terminate after 2015 each company holds with her Department; and what the monetary value is of all outstanding contracts between her Department and each company. more like this
tabling member constituency Hammersmith more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Andy Slaughter remove filter
uin 218606 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-01-05more like thismore than 2015-01-05
answer text <p>The information, in the form requested, is not held centrally and a full answer could only be provided at disproportionate costs.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>From the information we do hold centrally we have a total of two contracts with Serco, both of which are due to expire on 31 March 2015.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The amount paid to Serco and G4S since May 2010 is as follows:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em>Financial Year ending March</em></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><em>Year</em></p></td><td><p><em>Serco</em></p></td><td><p><em>G4S</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>£22,708,767.65</p></td><td><p>Nil</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>£1,859,328.89</p></td><td><p>Nil</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>£3,937,575.89</p></td><td><p>Nil</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>£2,210,233.65</p></td><td><p>£12,458.31</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>£600,983.28</p></td><td><p>£466.20 <em>(up to end of November 2014)</em></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
answering member constituency Bognor Regis and Littlehampton more like this
answering member printed Mr Nick Gibb more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-01-05T11:53:56.747Zmore like thismore than 2015-01-05T11:53:56.747Z
answering member
111
label Biography information for Nick Gibb more like this
tabling member
1516
label Biography information for Andy Slaughter more like this