|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list for (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98, (c) 1998-99, (d) 1999-2000 and (e) 2000-01, (i) her Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. 
Mr. Stringer: The advertising spend for the Cabinet Office for the years 1997-2000 is listed as follows according to each campaign. Owing to changes in accounting systems the paid advertising figures for 1996-97 have to be recalculated, and I will write to the hon. Member with this information.
It is normal practice that the effectiveness of a campaign is only evaluated when the total cost of the campaign is over £250,000, as the cost of the research would otherwise be disproportionate to the total cost of the campaign. Only one of the Cabinet Office campaigns reached this threshold, and the effectiveness criteria were as set out.
The effectiveness of the June and November 1999 publicity campaigns was assessed via an on-going tracking study set up to measure awareness of, and attitudes to, the Millennium Bug. This study ran on a monthly basis through-out 1999 and a nationally representative sample of around 2000 adults aged 16+ were interviewed per month.
20 Dec 2000 : Column: 212W
|COI Reference||Campaign Title||Amount|
|JMV00138||Fuel Crisis Information||9,984|
|JRA00072||Cabinet Office Fast Stream Recruitment||121,009|
|JAM99057||Action 2000 Public Awareness||4,303,551|
|JRA99066||Cabinet Office Fast Stream Recruitment||82,266|
|JBK99095||Civil Service Pension Scheme||906|
|JBK98046||Party Political Funding||1,513|
|JBK98148||Commissioner for Public Appointments||7,272|
All figures include COI loading, and exclude VAT
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 and 30 November inclusive, (a) the total number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence who were released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, including 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 and (v) other offences, including a breakdown of the prisoners normally classified in the sub-category of other offences called other offences, (c) the average sentence (i) received and (ii) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each specific offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, 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, and for what
20 Dec 2000 : Column: 213W
reasons, (e) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Boateng [holding answer 11 December, 2000]: The information provided in this answer is for the period up to 30 November 2000. As of that date, a total of 29,253 prisoners had been placed on Home Detention Curfew since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999.
The original offences committed by prisoners released under the scheme during the 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 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 as is possible from central records.
As at 30 November, a total of 1,019 prisoners placed on the scheme had breached the conditions of their curfew. A breakdown of this number showing the original offences committed by those curfewees is shown in Table 2. My answer of 13 November 2000, Official Report, column 535W, indicated that the total at 30 September was 854. This was erroneous; the correct figure was 949, as indicated in the table which was referred to in the answer and placed in the Library on that date.
Information on curfewees whose licences are revoked and who disappear before being recaptured is not held centrally. However, information is held on the number of curfewees unlawfully at large at any one time. On 30 November, there were 58 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large. This represents fewer than 4 per cent. of the total number of revocations.
As at 30 November 2000, 1,418 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 for revocation were as follows:
20 Dec 2000 : Column: 214W
Table 5 gives a breakdown of the cases where a prisoner placed on Home Detention Curfew is known to have been convicted, cautioned in respect of an offence committed while on Home Detention Curfew, or where a prisoner is known to be pending prosecution for such an offence. Where a curfewee has been charged with more than one offence, these have been shown separately.
Table 6 gives a breakdown of cases involving prisoners placed on the scheme who are known to have been convicted, cautioned or have a prosecution pending in respect of an offence committed while on Home Detention Curfew which is similar in character to the index offence or offences for which they were originally convicted.
The scheme is designed to ensure a better transition for short-term offenders between custody and the community. Prisoners are placed on Home Detention Curfew only after a careful risk assessment and the safety of the public is paramount at all times.
Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile offenders from Wales were sent to custody in England during the past 12 months or for the most recent period for which figures are available. 
Mr. Boateng: Since 1 April 2000 the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales has taken over the commissioning and purchasing of secure places for juveniles. It does not keep records of the number of young people from Wales who have been sent to custody in England. However, they have been able to provide the following information. Since 1 April 2000, 259 young people who offended in Wales were booked into secure accommodation. Of these, 17 bookings were in Wales (at Hillside).
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|