| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Youth Justice
Mr. Dawson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement nationally the youth justice provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which have been piloted; and if he will make a statement. [111906]
Mr. Straw: Pilots of most of the youth justice provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been operating in 10 areas since September 1998. They cover the operation of the multi-agency youth offending teams; the final warning scheme, which will replace cautioning for young offenders; and the reparation order, action plan order, child safety order and parenting order. The pilots have helped to identify good practice in delivering these measures and are being evaluated by a team from Sheffield, Hull and Swansea Universities. A copy of their most recent report, published in December, is in the Library. Building on the experience of the pilots, the Government have decided to implement the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provisions for youth offending teams on 1 April 2000 and for the final warning scheme and four community-based orders on 1 June 2000.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to public funds of issue 2 of the Youth Justice Board's newsletter, "Preventing Youth Offending"; and how many copies have been (a) printed and (b) distributed. [111523]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
The cost to the public funds of issue 2 of the Youth Justice Board's newsletter "Preventing Youth Offending' was £10,000. 11,000 copies were printed and 10,000 have so far been distributed. One of the Board's tasks is to provide information to professions and the public about the changes being made to the youth justice system. The newsletter is one means of providing that information.
22 Feb 2000 : Column: 863W
Mr. Kidney:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about requests for additional funding for the Global Cultural Diversity Congress. [111905]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
On 11 January 2000, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) asked the Home Office for authority to provide funding to enable the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, in Cardiff on 20-23 March to go ahead as planned and subsequently asked for additional funding from the Home Office Vote. This international conference was being organised under the auspices of the CRE following decisions they made in 1998 but by a separate company limited by guarantee, Global Cultural Diversity Congress (GCDC) 2000 Ltd. At the time they first decided to proceed in 1998, it was made clear that the Government could not offer substantial financial support for the Conference.
The Government have supported the aims of the Congress, which was a potentially important forum for serious debate about issues of race and diversity, and was widely welcomed by many with an interest in these issues both in this country and worldwide.
In the light of the CRE request in January this year for Government funding, the Government thought it right to seek advice from independent consultants on the viability of the conference at this late stage, including from forensic accountants who examined the affairs of GCDC 2000 Ltd.
The conclusions of the accountants' report raised serious questions about the quality of the management and financial controls in GCDC 2000 Ltd. as well as confirming that very significant additional funds, in the order of £1.5 million, would be required to enable the Congress to go ahead, not least because less than 500 tickets had been sold for a congress initially planned to attract 2,000.
Given the report's findings, it would not be justifiable to use substantial public funds to support this event. Yesterday, the Directors of the company were advised of the report's findings and our decision. I understand that the Directors of GCDC 2000 Ltd. decided late yesterday to put the company into liquidation.
The decision to set up GCDC 2000 Ltd. was a collective one of the Commissioners for Racial Equality, taken in September 1998. I have asked the incoming Chair of the CRE, Gurbux Singh, to consider urgently the lessons to be learned from all of this and to provide us with a report.
Mr. Burstow:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate (a) the number of community sentences, (b) the number returned to court as a result of breach proceedings and (c) the number of breach proceedings (i) that were not proven and (ii) where the community sentence was revoked and the offender re-sentenced. [111491]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
The available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is given in the table.
22 Feb 2000 : Column: 864W
| 000s | |
|---|---|
| Number | |
| Offenders given a community sentence(7) for all offences | 149,400 |
| Proceedings for a breach of a community sentence(7)(8) | 28,500 |
| of which: | |
| Sentence given for breach(8) | 28,100 |
(7) Includes probation, supervision, attendance centre, community service, combination and curfew orders.
(8) Statistics as to the proportion found not proven; and the proportion where the breached order is revoked and the offender resentenced are not recorded centrally.
Hendon Police College
Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the size of the training intake at Hendon Police College (a) for each of the last three months and (b) in January (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [111525]
Mr. Charles Clarke: The information requested is given in the table, provided by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police:
| Intake | |
|---|---|
| (a) | |
| November 1999 | 94 |
| December 1999 | 0 |
| January 2000 | 101 |
| (b) | 83 |
| (i) January 1997 | 83 |
| (ii) January 1998 | 95 |
| (iii) January 1999 | 147 |
Note:
Intakes are five weekly, so some months have no intake
Jury Trial
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications of the Government's proposals to abolish the right to elect trial by jury. [109646]
Mr. Charles Clarke: Giving the courts rather than defendants the power to decide whether either-way offences should be heard in the Crown Court would reduce delays and secure a more efficient system of justice. Our proposals would be to the benefit of the public, victims and witnesses, but would nevertheless protect the interests of the accused.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the experience of the trial without jury system in Scotland. [109649]
Mr. Charles Clarke: The main difference with the Scottish jury system is that there is no right for the accused to choose trial by jury. The decision on mode of trial is made by Crown Counsel on the recommendation of the procurator fiscal, who has a wide discretion. I am not aware that this has led to any unfairness to defendants in Scotland.
Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 20 most common triable either way offences in the past year; and if he will make a statement. [111321]
Mr. Straw: The information is given in the table.
(9) Defined by number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts in 1998
22 Feb 2000 : Column: 865W
22 Feb 2000 : Column: 865W
Mr. Simon Hughes:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any criminal offences related to arson are triable either-way; and if he will make a statement. [111323]
Mr. Charles Clarke:
Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, destruction or damage by fire is charged as arson and is triable either-way. If there is intent to endanger life or recklessness as to whether life would be endangered, the offence must be tried in the Crown Court.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |