My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, in seeking the right person for this role, the qualifications will include knowledge of the radio spectrum and the universal mail service, and not former experience as a newspaper editor?

The Ministry of Justice is committed to improving the quality and access to apprenticeships.

The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) currently employs one externally recruited apprentice. For data protection reasons, NOMS is not able to give any age information of this member of staff.

From 1 April 2013 to 1 November 2013, a total of 370 existing NOMS staff enrolled onto an apprenticeship qualification as part of our on-going up-skilling programme.

Apprenticeship figures are collated for the Ministry of Justice as a whole. From 1 April 2008 to 1 November 2013, 3,430 existing Ministry staff have enrolled on an apprenticeship programme. Information on the age ranges requested for existing staff is not kept.

To provide the full information requested would require analysing individual records for the members of staff concerned and would incur disproportionate costs

The gross accumulated resource savings accrued from the closure of magistrates’ and county courts since the start of the 2010 review (the Court Estates Reform Programme) to 30 September 2013 is £31.3m. The programme anticipates savings of £97.2m over the Spending Review period.

The gross capital receipts produced from the sale of the buildings as at 5 December 2013 is £19.8m. Gross capital receipt does not include deductions for the cost of sale.

The Government has agreed in the context of the Coalition Agreement that the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights will continue to be enshrined in British Law. While political parties have expressed views on policy directions they may wish to consider in the future, the Coalition Agreement makes it clear there will be no major changes to the human rights framework before the election.

Individuals may petition the European Court of Human Rights in respect of any alleged violation of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights committed by a party to the Convention. The European Union is not currently a party to the Convention, although its accession to the Convention is currently under negotiation in line with the obligation in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.

Monthly management information is produced by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). The Executive Committee (ExCo), which comprises all Directors General; the Chief Executives of NOMS, HMCTS and LAA; and is chaired by the Permanent Secretary, reviews the MoJ Performance Dashboard monthly. This contains performance information on MoJ overall and each of the Department’s agencies in relation to service delivery, finance and efficiency, people and capability, reform and reputation. In addition ExCo reviews the Transforming Justice Portfolio Status Report on a monthly basis. This sets out progress against milestones, issues and risks on the Department’s Ministerial priority programmes and other major programmes included in the Government Major Projects Portfolio.

The Departmental Board (comprising Ministers, ExCo and MoJ Non-Executives from outside Government, and chaired by the Secretary of State) which meets six-weekly also receives the Performance Dashboard and Portfolio pack.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to improving the quality of and access to apprenticeships.

FIMCTS currently employs six apprentices as part of the Civil Service Fast Track apprenticeship scheme. All six started in September 2013 and are between the ages of 18-21. In total the MoJ took on 11 Fast Track Apprentices in September 2013; all between the ages of 18-21. The scheme aims to attract ta1en.ed school

leavers to the Civil Service and the Ministry is committed to on-going support for the scheme by offering places each year where possible.

In addition, from 1 April 2013 to 1 November 2013, a total of 461 existing HMCTS staff enrolled onto an apprenticeship qualification as part of our on-going up-skilling programme.

To provide the full information requested for existing staff apprenticeships would require obtaining and analysing individual records for the members of staff concerned and would incur disproportionate costs.

It is for the Information Commissioner to investigate alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998; and if appropriate, take any necessary enforcement action, which could include criminal prosecution.

There is no centrally allocated budget within HMCTS for recruitment of lay magistracy. Magistrates are recruited and selected by 47 local advisory committees and any recruitment costs would be met from local budgets.

I refer the noble Lord to my Written Statement of 25 April 2013, Official Report, column WS178. The position remains that we intend to introduce legislation to amend the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 as soon as parliamentary time permits and to commence the Act as amended as soon as reasonably possible thereafter on the same day across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Implementation of the Act was delayed initially by work on other priorities and more recently by the need to amend it. The principal aim of the proposed amendments is to bring within the scope of the Act claimants to whom it does not apply but who would have been covered by the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 or the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 (Northern Ireland).

There is no centrally allocated budget within HMCTS for recruitment of lay magistracy. Magistrates are recruited and selected by 47 local advisory committees and any recruitment costs would be met from local budgets.

Between 4 December 2012 and 3 December 2013:

1,083 magistrates retired.

329 magistrates were appointed.

The need for recruitment to the judiciary in the magistrates’ courts, including District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) is determined in accordance with a protocol agreed in December 2012 by a group led by the now Senior Presiding Judge. The ‘Protocol to support Judicial Deployment in the Magistrates’ Courts’, requires a local assessment of judicial needs to be made annually. The decision to recommend the recruitment of additional District Judges and Magistrates

rests with the relevant Presiding Judge and HMCTS Delivery Director, following local consultation with the judiciary. The recruitment of District Judges (Magistrates’ Court) will therefore continue subject to business need.

There is no fixed proportion of courts where such appointments are made; appointments are determined in accordance with business need.

Among recruitment exercises which were completed in 2012/13, eleven candidates were Salaried District Judges at the time of application for these posts. The results do not include fee-paid deputy district judges. Some of these candidates may have applied for more than one position during this time-period.

These figures exclude exercises where initial recommendations were made during 2012/13 but are not fully completed, such as the 2012 Circuit Judge recruitment.

Results from April 2013 to date were published the 5th December at http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/about-jac/823.htm and will not be included in this PQ.

This information derives from information provided by the candidates themselves. There is no way to independently confirm the completeness or accuracy of this data.

The figures quoted in the Prison Reform Trust’s “Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile” for Autumn 2013 date back to 2008/09.

Currently the Government contracts for the delivery of 25 hours of educational, developmental and other productive activity for young people detained in the only private sector young offender institution, Parc YOI.

The National Offender Management Service and education providers are contracted to provide 25 hours a week of broadly equivalent services in publicly run YOIs.

We will shortly be responding to the Transforming Youth Custody consultation. This work will aim to ensure that education is clearly at the heart of custody, to equip young offenders with the skills, qualifications and self-discipline they need to engage in education, training and employment upon release and enable them to turn their backs on offending.

The figures quoted in the Prison Reform Trust’s “Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile” for Autumn 2013 date back to 2008/09.

Currently the Government contracts for the delivery of 25 hours of educational, developmental and other productive activity for young people detained in the only private sector young offender institution, Parc YOI.

The National Offender Management Service and education providers are contracted to provide 25 hours a week of broadly equivalent services in publicly run YOIs.

We will shortly be responding to the Transforming Youth Custody consultation. This work will aim to ensure that education is clearly at the heart of custody, to equip young offenders with the skills, qualifications and self-discipline they need to engage in education, training and employment upon release and enable them to turn their backs on offending.

Sentencing and decisions about whether to grant bail are entirely matters for the courts, taking account of all the circumstances of each case.

When considering the appropriate sentence, the judge will take into consideration a number of factors; including the circumstances of the case; the impact that the crime has had on the victim, relevant case law and guidelines from the Sentencing Council. The judge will equally take into account any mitigation, which might include difficult personal circumstances, expressions of remorse. A guilty plea may also result in a reduction in sentence. Whilst the sentencing framework and guidelines apply equally to everyone, the differences in sentencing may therefore occur for a number of reasons including the types of crimes committed and the seriousness of the offence. The ethnicity of the defendant should not, of course, be a consideration.

I refer the Noble Lord to the answer I gave on 25 November 2013, col WA248, and to the Government's written ministerial statement of 4 December, WS28, which announced the outcome of our review under section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. That review concerned the likely effect of applying the Government's 'no win no fee' reforms to the funding of litigation for diffuse mesothelioma damages claims.

In conducting that review, the Government focused its consideration on matters relevant to such proceedings. The provisions of the Mesothelioma Bill relate to sufferers who cannot trace a defendant to sue for compensation and not those who are able to litigate. The Government has not therefore taken the Bill into account in relation to litigated cases when deciding the substance of the section 48 review. However, the Mesothelioma Bill is relevant to the timing of the application of sections 44 and 46 to diffuse mesothelioma claims, since the Government has always intended to implement any such decision in a synchronised manner with other reforms directed to improving the position of mesothelioma sufferers.

The provisions in Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007 for alternative business structures were commenced by SI 2011/2196 and a full Regulatory Impact Assessment, together with a detailed Equality Impact Assessment, was published on 5 September 2011. There is no specific assessment of the impact on the insurance industry. The Legal Services Board is planning to assess the impact of alternative business structures on the legal services market in 2014.

1: In every prison, a designated manager has lead responsibility for co-ordination of equality work and issues. This would be undertaken at a minimum of pay band 7 but may be a more senior role dependent

on the size and complexity of the prison. This appointment is instructed through Prison Service Instruction 32/2011 Ensuring Equality. This applies to all prison establishments and includes Young Offender Institutions. Secure Training Centres do not have a nominated ‘equality manager’, instead the Director maintains overall responsibility for these important areas

2: There is an expectation that Equality Managers will complete the available training (e.g. Civil Service Learning Equality Modules) but we do not hold records centrally of those who have completed the training. This information can only be collated at a disproportionate cost. This would involve contacting every establishment to find out what training each staff member has completed.

3: Equality training is not mandatory for all prison staff. However, all new entrant Prison Officers will receive an eight hour equality specific module on their new entrant training and non-uniformed staff will receive an equality element within their induction into the prison. Prison Service Instruction 32/2011 - Ensuring Equality states “Governors must ensure that staff are aware of their equalities responsibilities.” A range of Equality Training is available and publicised, including those on Civil Service Learning (CSL) which is accessible online. The courses available for Equalities are: Introduction to Diversity and Equality, Equality and Diversity Essentials, Disability Awareness, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Awareness and Unconscious Bias.

4: NOMS does not mandate that all staff investigating complaints or diversity incidents/complaints attend specific training. DIRFs are investigated in line with the processes for regular complaints where all managers conduct the investigations.

5 & 6: With regards to how many DIRFs relating to the Prison Service were received in October 2013 and how many RIRFs relating to the Prison Service were received in October 2009; this information is not held centrally. It cannot be provided other than at a disproportionate cost. It would mean contacting every establishment and ask them to look through their DIRF paperwork to extract which, if any, were related to the Prison Service. The results would then need to be collated at the centre. A similar situation exists for RIRFs except that many prisons have archived this information, therefore this would take even longer.

1: In every prison, a designated manager has lead responsibility for co-ordination of equality work and issues. This would be undertaken at a minimum of pay band 7 but may be a more senior role dependent

on the size and complexity of the prison. This appointment is instructed through Prison Service Instruction 32/2011 Ensuring Equality. This applies to all prison establishments and includes Young Offender Institutions. Secure Training Centres do not have a nominated ‘equality manager’, instead the Director maintains overall responsibility for these important areas

2: There is an expectation that Equality Managers will complete the available training (e.g. Civil Service Learning Equality Modules) but we do not hold records centrally of those who have completed the training. This information can only be collated at a disproportionate cost. This would involve contacting every establishment to find out what training each staff member has completed.

3: Equality training is not mandatory for all prison staff. However, all new entrant Prison Officers will receive an eight hour equality specific module on their new entrant training and non-uniformed staff will receive an equality element within their induction into the prison. Prison Service Instruction 32/2011 - Ensuring Equality states “Governors must ensure that staff are aware of their equalities responsibilities.” A range of Equality Training is available and publicised, including those on Civil Service Learning (CSL) which is accessible online. The courses available for Equalities are: Introduction to Diversity and Equality, Equality and Diversity Essentials, Disability Awareness, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Awareness and Unconscious Bias.

4: NOMS does not mandate that all staff investigating complaints or diversity incidents/complaints attend specific training. DIRFs are investigated in line with the processes for regular complaints where all managers conduct the investigations.

5 & 6: With regards to how many DIRFs relating to the Prison Service were received in October 2013 and how many RIRFs relating to the Prison Service were received in October 2009; this information is not held centrally. It cannot be provided other than at a disproportionate cost. It would mean contacting every establishment and ask them to look through their DIRF paperwork to extract which, if any, were related to the Prison Service. The results would then need to be collated at the centre. A similar situation exists for RIRFs except that many prisons have archived this information, therefore this would take even longer.