---

Safe Cells

Mr. Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safe cells will be installed in prisons in the next financial year. [112590]

Mr. Boateng [pursuant to his reply, 13 March 2000, c. 76W]: Rye Hill prison is scheduled to open in January 2001 and will provide 576 cells all of which incorporate the key elements of the Prison Service's new improved standard cell or "safe" cell.

Two new prisons, Ashfield and Forest Bank, opened in this financial year providing 1,088 improved standard cells.

All new prisons are required to provide cells which reflect the design requirements of the Prison Service's new improved standard cell or "safe cell".

Home Detention Curfew

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners released to date under the Home Detention Curfew scheme have (a) breached the conditions of the curfew, (b) disappeared, (c) had their curfew revoked and (d) re-offended whilst on the scheme; what offences were committed by those who re-offended whilst on the scheme; what was the (i) average and (ii) maximum sentence received by a prisoner for an offence committed whilst on the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [112728]

Mr. Boateng [pursuant to his reply, 3 March 2000, c. 448-49W]: I am now in a position to provide further information regarding the breach and revocation of Home Detention Curfew licences. In addition, my

17 Mar 2000 : Column: 379W

previous reply included a number of inaccurate figures, arising from administrative errors. These figures have now been corrected.

As at 29 February 2000, 17,792 prisoners had been placed on the Home Detention Curfew scheme. At this date, there had been 625 breaches of curfew. Unauthorised absences from the place of curfew during the curfew period, tampering with the equipment and violence directed at the monitoring contractors' staff count as violations. There are different levels of violations. The most serious violations, or an accumulation of less serious violations, constitute a breach of the curfew.

Those subject to Home Detention Curfew may be recalled to prison if:

there is a breach of the curfew;

their whereabouts can no longer be electronically monitored;

it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm; and

they commit an offence or breach any requirement of probation supervision.

As at 29 February 2000, 832 of those placed on Home Detention Curfew have had their licences revoked by the Secretary of State, as opposed to the figure of 862 published in my earlier reply. As previously indicated, breaches of non-curfew related conditions by curfewees whose original offences were committed prior to 1 January 1999 are dealt with by the courts. Information on these cases is not held centrally.

As my previous reply made clear, the vast majority of those curfewees whose licences are revoked by the Secretary of State are quickly arrested and returned to custody. Fifty were unlawfully at large on 29 February 2000. While the priority to be given to pursuing individual cases will be an operational matter for local police forces, Home Office Circular 1/1999 made clear that Home Detention Curfew recalls should be regarded as "urgent action" cases. In addition, the National Identification Service at New Scotland Yard issues "The Police Gazette" weekly to all police forces, including details of curfewees who are unlawfully at large. The Prison Service regularly monitors police progress in apprehending those curfewees who are unlawfully at large. When curfewees are apprehended following a period unlawfully at large, they are required to serve the full period of time outstanding at the point their licence was revoked.

As of 29 February, the Prison Service had received notification of 182 curfewees who had been charged with an offence committed while subject to the Home Detention Curfew scheme, rather than the figure of 194 given in my previous reply.

A revised breakdown of the offences with which the curfewees were charged is shown in the table. This breakdown has been prepared from information supplied by police forces and drawn from the police national computer. As previously indicated, further analysis of re-offending by those subject to Home Detention Curfew, including the procedures for notification of further charges to the Prison Service by the police, is currently under way as part of a long-term evaluation of the scheme.

The purpose of Home Detention Curfew is to help prisoners bridge the transition from custody to the community through the structure and discipline imposed

17 Mar 2000 : Column: 380W

by the curfew. The scheme only applies to short-term prisoners and no prisoner can be granted Home Detention Curfew without first passing a risk assessment. Overall, the Home Detention Curfew scheme has an impressive success rate of 95 per cent. of curfewees completing their period of curfew licence. However, as I made clear in my previous reply, we are not complacent about any re-offending on curfew and the scheme is strictly enforced.

Offence type	Number
Burglary, theft and stealing from shops (including taking without consent/taking and driving away)	65
Assault	31
Driving and traffic offences	16
Drug offences	15
Breach of the peace (including drunk and disorderly)	14
Handling stolen goods/deception	10
Criminal damage	10
Threatening behaviour	8
Possession of an offensive weapon	3
Breach of court injunction or restraining order	3
Rape	2
Harassment	1
Going equipped	1
False imprisonment	1
Arson	1
Indecent exposure	1
Total	182

Note:

Where a curfewee was charged with more than one offence, they appear in the table next to the most serious offence. The table excludes those where, following initial notification, the Prison Service was informed that the charges had been withdrawn.

Roger Crooks

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates in 1993 and 1994 Roger Crooks was interviewed by the Anti-Terrorist Squad. [114953]

Mr. Charles Clarke [pursuant to the reply, 16 March 2000, c. 268W]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that officers of S013, known as the Anti-Terrorist Branch, interviewed Roger Crooks on 21 June 1994.

Press Office

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 821W and the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) of 2 March 2000, Official Report, column 385W, if he will publish the total number of persons employed in the Home Office Press Office broken down by grade, for (a) (i) 1 May 1997, (ii) 1 January 1998, (iii) 1 January 1999 and (iv) 1 January 2000; and (b) as an average for the year ending 1 March over (i) 1996-97; (ii) 1997-98; (iii) 1998-99 and (iv) 1999-2000. [115059]

Mr. Straw: As I said in my reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 2 March 2000, Official Report, column 385W, records of staff numbers are, of necessity,

17 Mar 2000 : Column: 381W

a snapshot of a particular month and cannot take fully into account staff arrivals and departures which are happening on a working basis.

The total number of persons employed in the Home Office Press Office, broken down by grade for the dates in question, were:

1 May 1997: three Senior Information Officers, 10 Information Officers (two part-time), one Assistant Information Officer, a Higher Executive Officer on secondment, one Executive Officer, one Administrative Officer and two Administrative Assistants;

January 1998: three Senior Information Officers, 11 Information Officers (two part-time), one Executive Officer, one Administrative Officer and two Administrative Assistants;

January 1999: two Senior Information Officers, eight Information Officers (two part-time), three Assistant Information Officers, one Higher Executive Officer on secondment, one Executive Officer, one Administrative Officer and two Administrative Assistants; and

January 2000: three Senior Information Officers, six Information Officers, three Assistant Information Officers, one Higher Executive Officer, one Executive Officer, one Administrative Officer and two Administrative Assistants.

For all these periods, the Home Office Press Office was managed by an Assistant Director at either Grade 7 or temporary Grade 6 level.

At virtually no time since May 1997 has the full staff complement been reached. There have been a considerable number of vacancies at various grades at any one time. Attachments and secondees, some at no cost to the Department and some for less than six weeks' duration, make the calculation of average staff levels almost meaningless.

In addition at various times through this period, Chief Immigration Officers were on six month attachment to the Home Office Press Office. It should also be noted that the grades referred to are substantive grades and that at various times press officers may have been on temporary promotion to a higher grade.

The staff details supplied to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report in July 1998 are averages for the years in question and an average for the year to 1 March for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 would vary very little.

It would not be possible to obtain the averages for 1998-99 and for 1999-2000 without disproportionate costs.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to employ members of the Home Office Press Office on special adviser terms; which of his special advisers are authorised to speak to the press on his behalf; if they are required to consult the Home Office Press Office before doing so; if a record is kept; and if he will make a statement. [115036]

Mr. Straw: There are no plans to employ members of the Home Office Press Office on special adviser terms. Of two special advisers at the Home Office, appointed by the Home Secretary under terms and conditions set out in the model contract for special advisers, one (Ed Owen) supports Ministers in the presentational aspects of policy and in doing so has regular direct contact with the media and liaises with the Home Office Press Office.

17 Mar 2000 : Column: 382W

---