| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Home Detention Curfew Scheme
Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders have been released to date under the home detention curfew scheme; how many offenders convicted of each category of offence have been released; how many offenders convicted of (a) unlawful supply of a controlled drug and (b) possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply have been released on the scheme; how many have re-offended while on the scheme, and what offences have been committed; and if he will make a statement. [115816]
Mr. Boateng: As of 13 March 2000, 17,871 prisoners have been placed on home detention curfew since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999. The original offences committed by these prisoners, and the number of prisoners convicted of each type of offence, are shown in the table.
Of those prisoners released up to and including 13 March 2000, 969 were convicted of unlawful supply of a controlled drug and 1,238 were convicted of drugs possession with intent to supply.
22 Mar 2000 : Column: 560W
| Offence type | Number |
|---|---|
| Burglary, theft and theft from shops(5) | 66 |
| Assault | 32 |
| Driving and Traffic Offences | 18 |
| Drug Offences | 15 |
| Breach of the peace(6) | 15 |
| Criminal Damage | 10 |
| Handling Stolen Goods/Deception | 9 |
| Threatening Behaviour | 7 |
| 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 | 185 |
(5) Including taking without consent/taking and driving away.
(6) Including Drunk and Disorderly.
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table excludes those where, following initial notification, the Prison Service was informed that the charges had been withdrawn. Between 29 February (the date for which the data in this table were last provided) and 13 March, the Prison Service was informed of six cases where the curfewee had been charged with a further offence and three cases where earlier charges had been withdrawn.
Probation Service
Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of his plans to change the name of the probation service. [115856]
Mr. Boateng: Creating a national unified service from the current 54 independent services involves a number of changes, of which the change of name is only one part. Others include structural changes to amalgamate some area services and to make all area services more accountable to the Home Secretary. We estimate that the costs involved in establishing a national identity may require central funding of around £800,000, although the cost of changing the name of itself is minimal.
Orders (Name Changes)
Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of his plans to change the name of (a) probation orders, (b) community service orders and (c) combination orders. [115825]
Mr. Boateng:
Any administrative costs arising from the change of names of probation orders, community service orders and combination orders will be minimal and can be absorbed within current funding.
22 Mar 2000 : Column: 561W
Courts-Martial (Royal Navy)
Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the courts-martial held for Royal Navy ratings between 1993 and 1999 were at the election of the accused. [107867]
Mr. Spellar [holding answer 1 February 2000]: This information is only available from 1994, and the details are as follows.
| Total numbers of courts martial for Royal Navy ratings | Percentage at request of accused | |
|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 80 | 18 |
| 1995 | 64 | 25 |
| 1996 | 44 | 14 |
| 1997 | 56 | 34 |
| 1998 | 52 | 37 |
| 1999 | 49 | 47 |
Until 1996 only Leading Rates and higher ranks were able to elect for courts martial. In 1996, the Armed Forces Act extended this right to all naval ratings, which accounts for the increase in the figures from 1997 onwards.
Sea King
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units of the active noise reduction system for the Sea King MK2 his Department is seeking to acquire and at what cost; what estimate he has made of the additional cost of such an upgrade to the MK7; and if he will make a statement. [113900]
Dr. Moonie: One hundred Analogue Active Noise Reduction (ANR) systems for the Sea King MK2 were delivered in 1999: the total cost of the programme was some £660,000 VAT inclusive. A further 30 are to be procured to support the Sea King Airborne Early Warning (AEW) MK7 flight trials programme at a unit production cost of £599. Work to develop an improved Digital ANR for the Sea King MK7 is still at an early stage but the cost of introducing such a system is estimated to be in the region of £1 million.
Minefield Detection System
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the results were of the phase 1 testing of the remote minefield detection system; what is his estimate of the total cost of the system; and if he will make a statement. [113904]
Dr. Moonie: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 22 March 2000:
22 Mar 2000 : Column: 562W
I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the result of the phase 1 testing of the remote minefield detection system and the estimate of the total cost of the system. This letter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
The aim of phase 1 of the remote minefield detection system Technology Demonstration Programme (TDP) was to evaluate a number of remote sensing technologies. Five emerging technologies were investigated over a ten month period for applicability to the remote minefield detection role. Following feasibility studies a formal sensor selection methodology recommended as Infrared Polarimetric Camera (IPRC) coupled with Ultra WideBand Synthetic Aperture Radar (UWB SAR) as the best complimentary combination. Other technologies were discarded as being too immature, poorly performing, or impractical for airborne operations. Phase 2, which began in November 1996, covers the detailed design and build of the sensors.
The cost of phase 1 of the TDP was some £411k. The technology is still at a very early stage and, as a consequence, it is too early to estimate the potential cost of any resulting system.
Shoeburyness
Mr. Wyatt: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to visit Warden Bay to investigate the complaints by local residents about the noise levels of explosions from the firing range at Shoeburyness. [114508]
Dr. Moonie: There are no plans for the Secretary of State for Defence, or indeed any Defence Minister, to visit Warden Bay to investigate the complaints by local residents about the noise levels of explosions from the firing range at Shoeburyness.
My noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is, however, due to discuss this issue shortly with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
Mr. Wyatt:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much notice is given to local residents prior to the commencement of gun explosions at Shoeburyness; [114510]
(3) what work of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at the firing ranges at Shoeburyness has been carried out on behalf of (a) the UK's armed forces only and (b) the armed forces of foreign countries in the last 12 months. [114509]
Dr. Moonie:
This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.
Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Derek Wyatt, dated 22 March 2000:
22 Mar 2000 : Column: 563W
(2) when the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency last visited Warden Bay to check monitoring levels for gun explosions at Shoeburyness; [114507]
I am replying to three of your parliamentary questions about activities at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency range at Shoeburyness.
You ask how much notice is given to local residents prior to the commencement of gun explosions at Shoeburyness. A recorded message on a freephone telephone gives details of the firings scheduled for the following working day. The information given includes the type of activity, whether gunfire and/or explosions and the start time and the expected finish time. Additional information will be given if, for example, an activity is planned to take place outside normal working hours or it is expected to be particularly noisy. That said, the noise levels of activities undertaken at Shoeburyness are, for the most part, comfortably within the Ministry of Defence's guideline limit. We also endeavour to place notice of the out of hours and noisier activities in the local press and/or broadcast details on local radio. The timing of a press announcement will depend very much on the day of publication of the newspaper but could be up to a week in advance of the actual activity.
The closest monitor to Warden Bay is located at Sheerness Docks. All monitors are covered by an on-call maintenance contract which provides maintenance and repair cover for any failed monitor. Staff in the range operations office check the operation of all monitors on a daily basis and also hold records of the noise levels detected.
The majority of work carried out at Shoeburyness has been on behalf of UK's armed forces. In the course of the last 12 months, a very small amount of work has been undertaken for non-UK customers, but only with the support of the relevant MOD authorities. These activities did not generate any noise complaints.
I hope the above explains the situation.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |