Previous Section Index Home Page

Crime Reduction

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timetable is for assessment of each of the category of projects under the crime reduction programme; and if he will make a statement. [128524]

Mr. Charles Clarke: The provisional timetable is shown in the table.

Local Initiatives
Burglary ReductionFinal process evaluation reports of round 1 projects November 2000Final outcome evaluation reports of round 1 projects December 2001Final cost-effectiveness evaluation reports of round 1 projects March 2002
Final programme evaluation report of round 2 and 3 projects December 2004
Local Initiatives
Targeted Policing (Evaluation of Round 2 projects yet to be commissioned)Stop and search report on 'street population' October 2000Final report of FSS pathfinder project March 2001Final outcome evaluation reports of round 1 projects March-June 2002
Final process evaluation reports on round 1 projects December 2001
Crime stoppers report February 2001
Violence against women
(Projects yet to be decided)
Early Interventions
Effective school managementFinal outcome evaluations December 2001
Early interventions
'On Track'National evaluation year 1 report September 2001National evaluation final report October 2002
Youth InclusionEvaluation to be undertaken by the Youth Justice Board. Report expected March 2002
Neighbourhood Wardens
(Main programme projects yet to be decided)Evaluation of selected existing schemes October 2000
Design against crimeRSA assessment of student design award process January 2001Final evaluation report on Design Council initiative April 2004
Evaluation of impact of Crime Prevention Foresight Panel's report on other Foresight Panels' reports July 2001Overall evaluation report of student design award process December 2004
Pilot virtual reality lighting impact evaluation report November 2001Report on effectiveness of Foresight Panel dissemination process mid 2002
Evaluation of activities spawned by CP Panel, mid 2002, and their impact, mid 2003
Evaluation report on improvement in lighting design process early 2003
CCTV Capital Modernisation Fund
(Projected dates--evaluations yet to be commissioned)In-depth scheme evaluation reports from December 2001Programme level report mid 2002
Sentencing PolicyCost-effectiveness findings on existing adult Restorative Justice schemes July 2000Cost-effectiveness report on enforcement of financial penalties schemes October 2001Final outcome report on professional/sentencer awareness schemes February 2002
Drug arrest referralsSix month report due October 2000 (London). Evaluations outside London yet to be decided12 month report due April 2001 and 18 month report due October 2001 (London)Two year report due April 2002 and final outcome evaluation report due April 2003 (London)
Treatment of offendersFinal outcome report of basic skills pathfinder project October 2004
Final outcome report of resettlement of short-term prisoners projects September 2004
Final outcome reports of community service pathfinder projects autumn 2004
Final outcome report of offending behaviour pathfinder projects autumn 2004

4 Jul 2000 : Column: 173W

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the targets set by his Department for the reduction of crime, the date the targets were set and the timescale of the targets; what further targets he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [128525]

Mr. Charles Clarke: In September 1998, the Government set a target for a 30 per cent. reduction in thefts of and from motor vehicles. This target covers the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004.

In addition, by 31 March 2000, all police authorities in England and Wales were required to set for themselves five-year targets for reductions in domestic burglary and vehicle crime. The police authorities in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire and the Metropolitan Police Service were also required to set five-year targets for reductions in robbery. These targets cover the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2005 and have been published in each police authority's Best Value Performance Plan for 2000-01. The full list of these targets, as they appear in Best Value Performance Plans, is available on the website of the Association of Police

In their Best Value Performance Plans, police authorities have also set a number of other crime reduction targets which reflect local priorities.

Local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships will set targets for April 2001.

The Home Office Public Service Agreement, which will be published to coincide with the outcome of the Spending Review 2000, is also likely to contain targets reflecting key aspects of the Department's business.

4 Jul 2000 : Column: 174W

National Crime Squad

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the evidence which he has disclosed to the Court in the judicial review application by Williams Jeffery Barber on behalf of the National Crime Squad and others. [128923]

Mr. Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not submit evidence in this case, in which the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is an independent body, sought judicial review of a decision by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net revenue cost was in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000; and what the planned revenue cost is for 2000-01 of each of the executive and advisory non-Departmental public bodies listed on pages 88 to 96 of his Annual report for 1999-2000. [128926]

Mr. Straw: The net revenue cost and planned costs for the Home Office Executive and Advisory Non- Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are set out in the following table. I have taken "net revenue costs" to mean the Grant in Aid for Executive NDPBs minus any receipts payable to the Exchequer offsetting costs.

Neither the Tote nor the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) have any revenue cost, as they are self-financing. The expenses payable to the Alcohol Education and Research Council are within the travel and subsistence budget of the Liquor Gambling and Data Protection Unit.

It is not possible to estimate the planned costs for some Advisory Bodies, as the members of those bodies only receive expenses when necessary.

4 Jul 2000 : Column: 173W


Executive NDPBs: Net revenue cost
1. Alcohol Education and Research Council000
2. Commission for Racial Equality14,82516,42516,835
3. Community Development Foundation1,09014,36314,643
4. Criminal Cases Review Commission4,3004,8005,400
5. Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority(19)125,200142,100214,600
6. Gaming Board1232-336
7. Horserace Betting Levy Board000
8. Horserace Totalisator Board (The Tote)000
9. Office of the Data Protection Registrar-3,324-8803,143
10. Parole Board2,6692,6723,100
11. Police Complaints Authority3,4103,4443,468
12. Police Information Technology Organisation36,22952,05533,781
13. Youth Justice Board (YJB)90036,528234,019
Advisory NDPBs: Net revenue cost
1. Advisory Board on Restricted Patients6066n/a
2. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs2022n/a
3. Animal Procedures Committee 285315295
4. Firearms Consultative Committee4620
5. Metropolitan Police Committee29368
6. Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England2997971,731
7. Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales293961
8. Poisons Board00n/a
9. Police Negotiating Board707947
10. Race Relations Forum42323

(19) Compensation and Administration costs combined


Cost rounded to the nearest £000

4 Jul 2000 : Column: 175W


Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in 1999 applied for permission to switch their visa category; how many such applications were approved; what the net cost was to public funds of handling these applications; and if he will make a statement. [128925]

Mrs. Roche: The available information relates to decisions taken on all applications to switch category after entering the country. In 1999, 40,900 principal applicants switched into a non-asylum category and 2,700 were refused. This excludes 41,700 (provisional) applications for asylum made by principal applicants after entry. I regret that the costs incurred dealing with applications to switch category cannot be separated from the overall costs of the Integrated Casework Directorate.

Next Section Index Home Page