|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many passengers who have been detained by immigration officers at British airports since 11 September, have been detained for longer than 24 hours; how many remain in British custody; how many remain in the UK; how many have been returned to their country of origin or a third country; and if he will make a statement; 
Angela Eagle: I regret that the information requested is not available.
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on redefining tenancy agreements to ensure antisocial tenants can be evicted promptly. 
Mr. Denham: The Minister of State at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, who has policy responsibility in this areamy noble Friend Lord Falconerrecently met with my hon. Friend and the Leader of Nottingham city council to discuss concerns over the time it can take a social landlord to evict antisocial tenants. To follow up this meeting officials at the DTLR are exploring ways in which the eviction process might be speeded up in cases of serious or persistent antisocial behaviour. As part of this they will be discussing possible approaches with local authorities, including Nottingham city council.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place in respect of cases of child abduction in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. 
22 Oct 2001 : Column: 82W
Mr. Denham: The information requested, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is shown in the following table:
(16) Child Abduction Act 1984 sections 1 and 2, as amended by the Children Act 1989
Data for 2000 are not yet available.
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 June inclusive (a) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each offence who were released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, including 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 (A) received and (B) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, who (1) breached the conditions of the curfew, (2) disappeared and were recaptured, (3) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (4) had their licences revoked with reasons, (e) the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme, including offences committed, by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence
22 Oct 2001 : Column: 83W
while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. 
Beverley Hughes: The information requested for the period up to 30 June 2001 is set out in tables which can be found in the Library. As of that date, a total of 37,105 prisoners had been placed on home detention curfew since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999.
Table 1 shows 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. 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 June, a total of 1,249 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.
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 June there were 77 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large. This represents less than 4.3 per cent. of the total number of revocations.
Details of the offences committed by those 77 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large on 30 June 2001 can be found in Table 3.
As at 30 June 2001, 1,801 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: breach of the curfew (section 38A(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991); the curfewee's whereabouts could no longer be electronically monitored (section 38A(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991); it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm (section 38A(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991); the curfewee had committed an offence or breached any other requirement of probation supervision (section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991). Curfewees who are charged with a new offence may also be recalled on any of the preceding grounds depending upon the circumstances of the case.
Prisoners whose current sentence is in respect of an offence committed before 1 January 1999 are not liable to be recalled under section 39 of the Act. In such cases, where the curfewee has breached the requirements of probation supervision or where they have committed a further offence and it has not been possible to revoke their licence under section 38A of the Act, the breach may be referred to the courts under section 38(1) of the Act. The total number of such cases referred to the courts is not held centrally.
A breakdown of the original offences committed by the 1,801 recalled curfewees, together with a breakdown of the reasons for their recall is at Table 4.
22 Oct 2001 : Column: 84W
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 only placed on home detention curfew after a careful risk assessment and the safety of the public is paramount at all times.
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends implementing to combat the rise in street robberies in the year ending March 2001. 
Mr. Denham: We remain determined to reduce the number of robberies, and have set a challenging target of a 14 per cent. reduction in robbery in our principal cities by March 2005. The rate of increase in recorded robbery fell from 26 per cent. to 13 per cent. in the 12 months to March 2001. The five metropolitan forces have been set individual robbery reduction targets under the best value framework, and have been given an additional £20 million specifically to assist their efforts in tackling robbery and to enhance those targets. Almost three-quarters of all robberies are committed in these five metropolitan areas.
The additional funds have enabled those forces to introduce a number of new initiatives and to reinforce good practice. These include the targeting of hotspots (including transport routes) and offenders based on better intelligence, higher visibility of uniformed officers on the street, mobile closed circuit television vans, a range of publicity measures, improved recording, scene of crime management, investigation and identification techniques; youth diversion measures, the creation of safe routes into city centres, and targeted anti-mobile phone theft campaigns.
We are also working at a national level with the mobile phone industry to tackle mobile phone theft, which accounts for a significant proportion of robberies. In July we published a crime prevention leaflet distributed via police forces and retail outlets, and we are continuing to press the industry to enhance the security of their products and services.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|