Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Valerie Vaz

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter, which continues to spur the Government into action. As he knows because he understands the subject, it is a difficult and multifaceted exercise to get serving prisoners to return to their own country. Every avenue is being explored, from entry into the system, through examination of conditional cautions and the individual bilateral relationships that we have with countries, to the operation of the European Union prisoner transfer arrangements and the European Council’s protocol on the subject. No effort will be spared between us and the UK Border Agency to achieve success and improve performance in this area.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Constituents of mine who are interpreters have given me a dossier about Applied Language Solutions and its failings. Court hearings have been adjourned and costs have been incurred. Will the Minister update the House on what action he is taking against ALS—for breach of contract?

[Mr Blunt]

On 24 May, we will publish a full statistical analysis of the performance of ALS up to 30 April. Since the contract went national after a successful regional pilot in the north-west on 30 January, there were significant problems with the exercise of that contract, both related to the administration by ALS and to the attitude of interpreters engaging with ALS. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that the performance of ALS and its owner Capita has considerably improved in this area. The position has improved further since 30 April, and it is achieving very nearly now the performance required under the contract.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Valerie Vaz

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

Of course.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Forensic Science Service provides impartial evidence to the courts. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with it to secure its future and ensure that its primary duty remains to the court, not to shareholders?