| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Criminal Investigations
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on the adoption of a legally binding instrument for setting up joint investigative teams to conduct criminal investigations in one or more member states of the EU. [118070]
Mr. Boateng: As the deployment of joint investigation teams is currently permitted under United Kingdom law, we do not require the adoption of a legally binding instrument to allow the setting up of joint investigative teams. However, some of our European Union partners have problems with this type of co-operation in the absence of such an instrument. The Government therefore support the initiative as a welcome extension of our co-operative ability. The adoption of a joint instrument will not affect the existing arrangements concerning joint investigation teams that are currently used on a regular basis by United Kingdom law enforcement authorities such as the police service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. The Government do not consider that the initiative should in any way detract from the need to agree the existing draft European Union Mutual Assistance Convention which itself contains a provision on joint investigation teams.
Asylum Seekers
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to ask each local authority in England and Wales to provide him with a regular report on the number of asylum seekers registered with that local authority; and if he will make a statement; [118238]
- (2) what is his estimate of the cost to his Department of asking each local authority in England and Wales how many asylum seekers are registered with that authority. [118237]
Mrs. Roche: The Home Office launched an exercise last year to ascertain from local authorities exactly how many asylum seekers they were supporting, together with the status of those asylum seekers, and where they are being accommodated. Further checks are required on much of the information so far submitted. We estimate that it will cost around £44,000 to complete the exercise in full. The information requested will be available once it is completed.
Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement in full the new support arrangements for asylum seekers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; what discussions he has had with local authorities and regional consortiums regarding the current partial implementation; what representations he has received from them; and if he will make a statement. [118293]
Mrs. Roche: It is our intention to implement further stages of the new support arrangements as soon as possible, hopefully bringing all the remaining new asylum applicants onto it over the course of the next six months.
I and my officials have received many representations from local authorities concerning the dispersal of asylum seekers, in response to proposals which we published last year as part of our consultation process.
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 634W
The National Asylum Support Service has also been in extensive consultation with the Local Government Association and regional local authority consortiums about the operation of both the interim dispersal scheme and the main dispersal scheme.
Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the action plan on organised crime which was discussed at the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 27 March. [118071]
Mr. Boateng:
Two papers on organised crime were adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union on 27 March. Those were "The Prevention and Control of Organised Crime: A European Union Strategy for the Beginning of the New Millennium (CRIMORG 36, reference 6611/00)" and "The Draft European Action Plan on common action for the Russian Federation on combating organised crime (CRIMORG 39, reference 6698/00)". Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library.
Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on asylum case L304287 about which the hon. Member for Aylesbury has written to his Department. [118073]
Mrs. Roche:
This application has been decided and the applicant has been notified accordingly. The Integrated Casework Directorate wrote to the hon. Member on 6 April about the case.
Miss Widdecombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies that have been contracted to provide advice and services to local authorities in connection with the pilot projects for alternative voting to be conducted at the May 2000 local elections under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, indicating, for each local authority, the nature of the advice and services to be provided by each company and the cost to public funds. [118239]
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
Local authorities which made applications under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 to run pilot schemes were asked to estimate the likely additional costs (or savings) which these schemes would involve. They were not asked whether any additional costs would arise from payments to contracting companies, but I am aware that of the three local authorities which are piloting electronic voting, Bury and Salford will be using technology supplied by Trilogy Information Systems Ltd. and Stratford on Avon will be using the Nedap Powervote System.
Miss Widdecombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons subject to an antisocial behaviour order have committed a criminal offence that (a) did and (b) did not constitute a breach of the order; what offences were committed; and if he will make a statement; [118081]
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 635W
Mr. Straw:
Information is not available which identifies those who have committed a criminal offence, other than a breach of an antisocial behaviour order, as the subject of such an order.
Provisional 1999 court data identifying defendants proceeded against for the offence of "breach of an anti-behaviour order" since the order was introduced in April 1999 will be available this summer, with provisional data for the first quarter of 2000 available in the autumn. The data will not identify the circumstances of the breach. The breach of an antisocial behaviour order is an arrestable criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
Miss Widdecombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regional crime reduction directors have been appointed in total; when each director was appointed; what the pay scale is for regional crime reduction directors; and what is the total additional (a) cost to date and (b) projected cost to public funds of the appointment of regional crime reduction directors. [118082]
Mr. Straw:
The recruitment of regional crime reduction directors is still in train but the appointment of nine directors in England, and a tenth post in Wales is expected to be made over the next three months. The salary range for the posts is £40,000-£60,000 and starting salary will depend upon relevant skills and experience. The main cost to date has been the placing of advertisements in the national press and consultancy costs for organising the processing and sifting of the applications: these amount to £46,000. The directors will be located in the existing Government Offices for the Regions or in offices for the National Assembly for Wales. In addition to the salary costs, the accommodation, Information Technology, secretarial support and other overhead costs would be about £300,000 in a full year.
Miss Widdecombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the progress reports submitted by crime and disorder reduction partnerships referred to on page 10 of the Government's Crime Reduction Strategy. [118083]
Mr. Straw:
The 376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships in England and Wales have been asked to provide progress reports on their first year in operation and their proposals for the year ahead. We will be assessing those reports and preparing a summary, which we will place in the Library.
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 636W
Miss Widdecombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the success rate is of the Home Detention Curfew scheme; how the success rate is determined; if it is determined with reference to re-offending after completion of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [118084]
Mr. Straw:
The success rate for Home Detention Curfew (HDC) has been consistently over 90 per cent. since the scheme began. It is calculated by dividing the number of prisoners who successfully complete their HDC period by the total number placed on HDC.
Information about curfewees re-offending after completion of the scheme is not held centrally. The HDC period concludes at the point at which the prisoner would otherwise have been released from prison. Offending after this period is, therefore, not a factor in defining the success rate. One purpose of the HDC is to secure a better transition between custody and the community for those offenders for whom HDC is deemed appropriate.
The definition of successful completion is a curfewee who completes the curfew period of his licence and who does not breach the conditions of the curfew; can be monitored electronically for the duration of the curfew period; does not present a risk of serious harm to the public; and is not notified to the Prison Service as having been charged with an offence or having breached any requirement of probation supervision.
Miss Widdecombe:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the period between the commencement of the Home Detention Curfew scheme on 28 January 1999 and 31 March 2000, inclusive, (a) the total number of prisoners who were released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence who were released, on the scheme, including a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person, (iii) drug offences, (iv) assaults, (v) other theft and (vi) other motoring offences, (c) the average sentence (i) received and (ii) served for each specific offence prior to release, (d) the average period spent on the scheme in respect of the prisoners convicted of each specific offence, (e) the number of prisoners released who (i) breached the conditions of the curfew, (ii) disappeared and were recaptured, (iii) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (iv) had their licences revoked, (f ) the reasons why prisoners released on the scheme had their licences revoked, (g) the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme and (h) the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed an offence similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted; and if he will make a statement. [117986]
Mr. Straw
[holding answer 6 April 2000]: As of 31 March 2000, a total of 18,736 prisoners had been released on Home Detention Curfew since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999.
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 637W
The original offences committed by prisoners released under the scheme during that period, the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence, the average sentence received and served for those offences, and the average period spent on the scheme in respect of the prisoners convicted of each specific offence, are shown in table 1. The data are taken from the Prison Service's Inmate Information System based on the data recorded by each prison. The table provides as detailed a breakdown of offences as is possible from central records.
As of 31 March 2000, 661 prisoners place on the Home Detention Curfew scheme had breached the conditions of the curfew.
On 31 March, there were 42 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large. This represents less than five per cent. of the total number of revocations. In the vast majority of cases, when a curfewee's licence is revoked, he or she can expect to be quickly apprehended and returned to custody. 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. When curfewees are apprehended following a period unlawfully at large, they are required to serve the period of time outstanding at the point their licence was revoked.
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 638W
As of 31 March 2000, 897 curfewees had their licences revoked, using the powers available to the Secretary of State under Sections 38A(1) and 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The reasons why licences were revoked were:
As of 31 March 2000, the Prison Service had received notifications of 190 curfewees who had been charged with an offence committed while subject to the Home Detention Curfew scheme. A breakdown of the offences with which the curfewees were charged is shown in table 2. This breakdown has been prepared from information supplied by police forces and drawn from the Police National Computer. 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 underway as part of a long term evaluation of the scheme.
Of the 190 curfewees charged with a further offence, a manual check of Prison Service records shows that in 74 cases, the curfewees have been charged with offences similar in nature to their original offence. A breakdown of these offences is in table 3.
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 637W
(2) how many antisocial behaviour orders have been breached; what measures have been taken in respect of each breach; and if he will make a statement. [118080]
for breach of the curfew;
because the curfewee's whereabouts could no longer be electronically monitored;
because it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm; and
because the curfewee had committed an offence or breached any requirement of probation supervision.
Curfewees who are charged with new offences may also be recalled on any of the preceding grounds depending on the circumstances of the case.
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 639W
| Offence type | Number |
|---|---|
| Burglary, robbery, theft and theft from shops (including taking without consent/taking and driving away) | 67 |
| Assault (including wounding) | 31 |
| Driving and Traffic Offences | 20 |
| Drug Offences | 15 |
| Breach of the peace (including Drunk and Disorderly and Affray) | 14 |
| Handling Stolen Goods/Deception | 10 |
| Criminal Damage | 11 |
| Threatening Behaviour (including threats to kill) | 9 |
| 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 | 190 |
Note:
The table excludes those where, following initial notification, the Prison Service was informed that the charges had been withdrawn. Where a curfewee was charged with more than one offence, they appear in the table next to the most serious offence. See note to table 3.
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 640W
| Offence type | Number |
|---|---|
| Burglary | 20 |
| Theft | 16 |
| Driving/motoring offences | 12 |
| Assault | 9 |
| Drug offences | 5 |
| Deception | 3 |
| Wounding | 3 |
| Robbery | 2 |
| Breach of probation order | 1 |
| Threats to kill | 1 |
| False imprisonment | 1 |
| Affray | 1 |
| Total | 74 |
Note:
This table includes charges which, in cases where there was more than one charge, were not necessarily the most serious charge. See Note to table 2.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |