| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1001W—continued
HOME DEPARTMENT
Record Checks
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the (a) average and (b) maximum time taken to process (i) a Criminal Records Bureau check, (ii) a full protection of vulnerable adults check (POVA) and (iii) a POVA first check; [190528]
(2) if he will make a statement on delays by the Criminal Records Bureau in processing protection of vulnerable adults first checks; [190529]
(3) what targets the Criminal Records Bureau has been set for processing protection of vulnerable adults first checks; and in what percentage of cases this target has been met. [190530]
Ms Blears: On the introduction of the POVAFirst service, the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) published the following service standard:
To complete 98 per cent. of valid POVAFirst requests within 48 hours and 100 per cent. of checks within 72 hours. (This target does not include weekends or bank holidays).
The CRB is now delivering 80 per cent. within 48 hours and 96 per cent. in 72 hours and these figures will improve further. However, it is important to note that CRB's service standard applies only once the Bureau has received a fully completed/valid Disclosure application form and a fully completed POVAFirst request. The average time taken by the CRB to process a POVAFirst check is one day. The maximum time taken to process checks in October was 25 days, while clearing the last few old applications.
For the first few weeks following the launch of the POVAFirst service the Bureau operated outside of its service standards. This dip in performance was largely due to the volume of POVAFirst requests received and because a number of registered bodies have been failing to follow the POVAFirst guidelines correctly, resulting in over 72 per cent. of all initial requests being returned to the registered body for correction. These have caused the Bureau's resources to be diverted away from processing correctly submitted requests in a timely manner. The situation has now improved and I can confirm that the overwhelming majority of POVAFirst requests are now being cleared within service standards.
The POVA check is incorporated within the CRB's overall Disclosure process and the only indicator available to measure the time taken by the CRB when checking the POVA list is the figure provided for completion of full criminal records checks.
Over the past 12 months, on average, 94 per cent. of Standard Disclosures have been issued within two weeks; and 91.5 per cent. of Enhanced Disclosures have been issued within four weeks. These performance figures exceed the Bureau's published service standards of issuing 90 per cent. of Standard Disclosures within two weeks and 90 per cent. of Enhanced Disclosures within four weeks.
The processing of Standard Disclosures is entirely within the control of the CRB, however, Enhanced Disclosures involve an additional level of checking with local police forces. On 22 June Sir Michael Bichard published his report on Soham, in which he criticised local police forces in their handling of their local intelligence searches. Since then many forces have reviewed their handling and recording of local police information. This has impacted the CRB's public service standard for processing Enhanced Disclosure applications. The CRB are working very closely with each force to help them improve the time it is taking them to process these local checks. The CRB has in the past seconded a number of staff to forces to help them reduce the number of outstanding checks as quickly as possible. This action has already seen a rapid improvement in the performance of a number of forces.
Animal Welfare
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had with animal welfare groups concerning the need to introduce further legislation to tackle badger-related crimes; [190669]
(2) what plans he has to designate badger-related crime as a notifiable offence. [190670]
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1003W
Ms Blears: I welcomed the opportunity to meet representatives of Naturewatch and other key organisations to hear their concerns about the law and other issues in relation to badgers. I made clear once again the Government's utter abhorrence of badger-baiting and similar practices. Primary responsibility for legislation on the protection of badgers rests with colleagues in Defra. I noted the organisations' particular concern that there should be clear statistics. Although the principal offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 carry the possibility of imprisonment, in common with very many others on the Statute Book they are triable only by a magistrates court. Only offences triable in the Crown court are notifiable to the Home Office for the purpose of crime statistics. I made it clear that we are anxious to explore other options and Home Office officials continue to seek, with the Association of Chief Police Officers, a solution that will address the concerns of all parties and that will inform the decisions of chief police officers about the deployment of resources to tackle these deplorable offences.
ASBOs
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders were issued in each local authority area in England in each quarter from 2000–01 to date; and if he will make a statement. [191309]
Ms Blears: The available information is given in the table (which has been sent to the Library) by financial year. Data by quarter can be provided only at disproportionate costs.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been served by local authorities in (a) Sefton and (b) England since this measure was introduced. [191324]
Ms Blears: Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) have been available to the courts since 1 April 1999. From commencement and up to 31 May 2000 data was collected by police force area on numbers of ASBOs only.
From 1 June 2000 up to 31 March 2004 (latest available), the Home Office has been notified of five ASBOs issued where Sefton Metropolitan borough council was the main complainant and the restrictions imposed are specific to that area. Within England, during this same period, a total of 1,098 notifications have been received of ASBOs issued where the main complainant was a local government authority.
Data are collected on the complainant only on those orders issued in the magistrates' court, acting in its civil capacity, and within the county courts. Orders can also be made following conviction of an offence in the criminal courts—there is no applicant for these orders.
CCTV
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been in (a) vehicle-related crime and (b) criminal damage in the area covered by round 2 of the CCTV challenge competition in Buckingham. [189968]
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1004W
Ms Blears: Buckingham received no direct funding for CCTV under the CCTV Challenge Competition, which ran from 1994 to 1999. However, under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV initiative from 1999 to 2003, the county of Buckinghamshire received a total of £1,006,127 for a number of schemes in Beaconsfield, Chesham, Amersham and High Wycombe.
Buckingham comes within the Aylesbury Vale Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. The available published information relates to vehicle crime offences recorded in that partnership area. This data cover 1999–2000 to 2003–04 and are given in the tables. Numbers of recorded crimes have been affected by changes in reporting and recording practice. In particular, the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002 led to an increase in the number of crimes recorded by the police nationally.
Information on criminal damage for Aylesbury Vale has not been published centrally.
| Number of offences | |
|---|---|
| 1999–2000 | 3,108 |
| 2000–01 | 2,616 |
| 2001–02 | 2,448 |
| Number of offences | |
|---|---|
| 2002–03 | 2,164 |
| 2003–04 | 2,063 |
Communications Interception
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure follows a situation where a communication is unlawfully intercepted but product from that interception provides prima facie evidence that a lawful interception might be justified. [188049]
Mr. Blunkett: The procedures for the issuing of a lawful interception warrant are set out in Part I Chapter I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |