|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Lepper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide funding to local retail crime prevention initiatives in (a) town and (b) secondary shopping centres. 
Mr. Denham: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 27 June last year the provision of £15 million over three years from the capital modernisation fund to assist small retailers in deprived areas to improve the security of their businesses. £3 million was available in 200102 financial year, with a further £6 million in both 200203 and 200304.
This money, which is being spent on schemes identified by regional crime reduction directors, in conjunction with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, will be used to help small retailers to improve security. This will be achieved by employing a variety of interventions,
14 May 2002 : Column 606W
including enhancing the security of individual premises and improving the environment of shopping centres. Nearly 3,000 shops in 114 retail schemes in some of the most deprived areas in England and Wales benefited from first year funds. More shops will be assisted in the next two years.
The Home Office has also supported work undertaken to establish retail crime partnerships by funding a consultant post for the past two years. The consultant has worked closely with the British Retail Consortium to produce a definitive guide on how to establish and run a retail crime partnership and encouraged retailers and other stakeholders in main shopping centre areas to establish partnerships to tackle retail and related crime.
Funding totalling £223,000 was also given to aid retail crime reduction initiatives under various programmes administered by regional crime reduction directors in the financial year ending 31 March 2002 and a further £86,500 of funding is expected to be disbursed via regional crime reduction directors specifically for retail crime reduction initiatives in the current financial year.
Other funding under the Crime Reduction Programme, such as the £170 million for schemes for the installation of closed circuit television, particularly in town centres will help to reduce shop theft as well as other types of crime in the locations where it is installed. Other initiatives such as the street wardens schemes will also be of benefit to retailers in the areas where they operate.
Brian Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the annual cost of retail crime to (a) business, (b) local authorities and (c) the police in each of the past three years; 
Mr. Denham: The Home Office does not collect information about the cost of retail crime. The British Retail Consortium conducts an annual retail crime survey and the most recent one, published in June 2001, estimated the total retail crime losses in the United Kingdom at £1,481 million in 2000, compared to £1,461 million in 1999. The same survey also indicated that retailers spent £626 million on crime prevention measures in 2000 compared with £554 million in 1999.
The survey of crime affecting retailers and manufacturers announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 23 April 2002, the results of which should be available next spring, will also provide up to date information about crimes against retailers.
The best estimates for the total cost of robberies (as a proxy for street crime) for the years 19992000 and 20002001 are shown in the table and are based on information extrapolated from the British Crime Survey.
Information is not yet available for 200102.
14 May 2002 : Column 607W
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) child curfew orders, (b) parenting orders and (c) antisocial behaviour orders have been made; and how many breaches of each have taken place resulting in further proceedings in each year since their introduction. 
Mr. Denham: No applications have been received to impose child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which took effect on 1 August 2001, extended the upper age limit to 15 and allowed the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. Local areas are assessing the implications of these changes and we know that local consultation is taking place.
The numbers of Parenting Orders imposed in England and Wales between April 2000 and December 2001, are set out in the table. This information comes from the Youth Justice Board. 40 of the parenting orders imposed following a crime by the child have resulted in breach action.
|Type of order||Parenting Order|
14 May 2002 : Column 608W
|Period||Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBO)(15)||Number of finalised criminal court proceedings within period for breach of an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO)(16)|
|1 April 1999 to 31 December 2000||235||(17)81|
|1 January 2001 to 30 September 2001||231||(18)192|
|1 October 2001 to 31 December 2001||52||(19)|
(15) Issued within period.
(16) The number of occasions identified on the Home Office court appearance database that an individual has appeared in court for breaching an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) where an outcome resulted.
(17) Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against in a magistrates court for the year 2000. Only those occasions within the sample are included.
(19) Not available.
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, in respect of the most recent year for which figures are available, were convicted of a breach of an antisocial behaviour order (a) in Nottingham and (b) in England and Wales; and what penalties they received, distinguishing in each case between offenders (i) over and (ii) under 18. 
|Nottinghamshire||England and Wales|
|Persons aged 10 to 17||Persons aged 18 and over||Persons aged 10 to 17||Persons aged 18 and over|
|Total found guilty||2||4||83||107|
|Total for sentence||2||4||83||(21)101|
|Community rehabilitation order||||||2||9|
|Community punishment order||||||2||6|
|Attendance centre order||||||8||1|
|Community punishment and rehabilitation order||||||2||1|
|Action plan order||||||2|||
|Total community sentences||||||28||17|
|Fully suspended sentence||||||||1|
|Detention and training order||1||||35|||
|Young offender institution||||||||11|
|Unsuspended sentence of imprisonment||||||||44|
|Total immediate custody||||||35||55|
|Police cells (one day)||||4||||5|
|Not separately dealt with||1||||2||3|
(20) A person is counted once for each separate court appearance on which he is found guilty of a breach.
(21) In six cases the sentences imposed at the Crown court following summary conviction were not yet to hand.
14 May 2002 : Column 609W
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means the Criminal Case Review Commission prioritises its cases; if the Commission distinguishes between persons in prison and those who have been released; and if it distinguishes between those serving short and those serving long-term sentences. 
Mr. Keith Bradley: Applications from those in custody or at liberty begin their review in date order of receipt dependent on the availability of case information. At stages two and three applications from those in custody begin their review before those at liberty. The Commission considers applications for priority on the following grounds:
Applicants receiving a Life sentence who are released on licence are treated as if they were in custody. Once a review has begun it continues even if the custodial status of the applicant changes. Applicants released before the review begins move to At Liberty status.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|