| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2003 : Column 975W—continued
Reconvictions
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 13 February to question 98141, what the reconviction levels were between 1995 and 2002; and what estimates he has made of reconviction levels in (a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [99723]
Hilary Benn: Two-year 'un-adjusted' reconviction rates for prisoners discharged from custody are available for 1995 to 1998. These were 58 per cent. in 1995, 57 per cent. in 1996, 58 per cent. in 1997 and 59 per cent. in 1998. These rates are published in "Prison Statistics—England and Wales 2001".
Reconviction rates for offenders discharged from custody have also been published according to the requirements of the Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to discharge, giving a reconviction rate of 55.3 per cent. for the first quarter of 1999. The equivalent figures for the first quarter of 1997 and 1998 are 56.8 per cent. and 55.7 per cent. respectively.
Neither set of rates indicate trends in rates over time, as they make no allowance for changes in the characteristics and criminal histories of offenders given custodial sentences. To do this a predicted rate is used. Comparisons between the actual and predicted reconviction rates for 1999 show that the actual rate was 3.3 percentage points lower than predicted relative to the 1997 baseline.
Reconviction rates for more recent periods are not yet available.
Rehabilitation
Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners undergoing drug treatment were offered continuing treatment on release into the community; and how many prisoners took up this offer in the last year for which figures are available. [99538]
Hilary Benn: Information on the numbers of prisoners offered treatment on release and the number taking up that offer is not available centrally. A programme of work is under way to collect that information but data are not expected to be available until late summer 2003.
Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on drug rehabilitation for (a) offenders in prison and (b) prisoners on release in each of the last five years. [99539]
4 Mar 2003 : Column 976W
Hilary Benn: The following table shows the drug rehabilitation spend for offenders in prison for the financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02; this comprises additional rehabilitation resources made available through the Comprehensive Spending Review and Spending Review 2000 settlements. Drug-related expenditure prior to 1999–2000 cannot be broken down by individual drug intervention.
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 1999–2000 | 2.4 |
| 2000–01 | 4.4 |
| 2001–02 | 6.4 |
Information relating to rehabilitation spend for prisoners post-release is not recorded centrally and could be established only at disproportionate cost.
Secure Units
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the cost per year per inmate of (a) local authority secure units, (b) secure training centres and (c) young offenders' institutions. [99797]
Hilary Benn [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The juvenile secure estate comprises Prison Service Young Offender Institutions, privately-operated secure training centres and local authority secure units. The different types of establishment vary in the age and vulnerability of the offenders they hold, and in the levels of staffing and types of regime. Responsibility for commissioning and purchasing places in the secure estate rests with the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales which estimates that the average annual costs of detaining an offender aged under 18 in these establishments are as follows.
| £ | |
|---|---|
| Young Offender Institution | 53,000 |
| Secure Training Centre(17) | 159,000 |
| Local authority secure unit | 164,000 |
(17) Includes VAT
Traffic Accidents (Havering)
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic accidents were reported last year in (a) the London Borough of Havering, (b) the London Borough of Redbridge, (c) the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and (d) the County of Essex. [99742]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Data for reported road traffic accidents in these areas referred are as follows:
| London Borough | 2001 | 2002 |
|---|---|---|
| Havering | 957 | (18)801 |
| Redbridge | 1,186 | (18)913 |
| Barking and Dagenham | 696 | (18)536 |
| Essex | 19,005 | 18,803 |
(18) Figures for December 2002 not yet available
The figures for Essex include reported non-injury accidents whereas those for the London Boroughs do not. Non-injury accidents in the London boroughs are not recorded centrally.
The total number of accidents reported is not always a useful figure since many minor accidents are not reported and the length and type of roads in the four areas are very different.
4 Mar 2003 : Column 977W
Voluntary Organisations (Vulnerable Children)
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to support the establishment and development of voluntary organisations using the model and approach of 'Kids Company' in Camberwell. [98875]
Beverley Hughes: Kids Company is a charitable organisation working with disadvantaged young people in Southwark. It is one of a number of voluntary organisations and charities working with young people at risk to help them achieve positive outcomes and avoid becoming involved in drugs and crime.
4 Mar 2003 : Column 978W
In June 2001 the Youth Justice Board commissioned Crime Concern to undertake a short study on the feasibility of replicating the Kids Company model, and we are considering the outcome of that study. Kids Company offers one approach in working with young people and there are others, such as the Youth Inclusion Programme. We do not advocate one model above any other without clear evidence of both impact and cost effectiveness.
Young Offenders
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of sentence (a) issued and (b) served for those young offenders sent to (i) local authority secure units, (ii) young offenders' institutions and (iii) secure training centres was in each of the last five years. [99796]
Hilary Benn [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The information is not available in precisely the form requested. The custodial part of a sentence may be served in different types of establishment and an individual offender may move between different types of establishment during the course of his sentence. The table shows the average length of sentence imposed, some of which will be served in a custodial establishment and some in the community.
| Custodial sentence type | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detained under sec 53 C & YPA 1933(20) | 42.1 | 39.6 | 37.7 | 39.6 | 40.1 |
| Detention and training order(21) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 7.6 | 7.3 |
| Secure training order(22) | n/a | 8.3 | 9.6 | 8.1 | n/a |
| Young offender institution(23) | 6.7 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 6.1 | n/a |
n/a = not applicable.
(19) Excluding life sentences.
(20) Sec 90–92 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 from 25 August 2000. Served in local authority secure units (LASUs), Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) or, since 2000, secure training centres (STCs).
(21) Served in LASUs, YOIs or STCs and available nationally from 1 April 2000.
(22) Served in STCs and available from 1 March 1998 to 31 March 2000, when replaced by detention and training orders.
(23) Served in YOIs and replaced by detention and training orders from 31 March 2000.
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) local authority secure units, (b) young offenders' institutions and (c) secure training centres have been in operation in each of the past five years; how many places there are in each; and what the average occupancy rate for each unit was in those years. [99798]
Hilary Benn [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The information requested cannot be readily provided. I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |