| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Jan 2005 : Column 285W—continued
Class A Drugs
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are in prison for dealing in class A drugs. [204776]
Paul Goggins: On 31 October 2004, there were 12,058 persons in prison establishments for all drugs offences, as recorded on the Prison Service central IT system. Of these, 1,150 were recorded as being on remand for "unlawful supply" or "possession with intent to supply", with 6,850 recorded as being under immediate custodial sentence for the same offences 1 . These figures are not available by class of drug.
Community Punishments
Ross Cranston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the target was for Enhanced Community Punishment commencements in England and Wales in 2003–04; and whether that target was achieved. [204123]
Paul Goggins: The target for Enhanced Community Punishment commencements in England and Wales for 2003–04 was 25,000; the target was exceeded with the achievement of 34,681 commencements (39 per. cent above the target).
Correspondence
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 11 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Kamal Mohammed. [201349]
Mr. Charles Clarke: I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 3 December 2004.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he has not yet replied to the letter of 15 November from the hon. Member for Yeovil in relation to an immigration appeal, Home Office reference D1086636; and if he will make a statement. [204865]
Mr. Browne [holding answer 15 December 2004]: The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), wrote to the hon. Member on 14 December.
Counterfeit Medicines
Mr. Flook: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place for counterfeiting prescription-only medicines in each year since 1997. [201721]
Paul Goggins:
The number of defendants proceeded against in England and Wales 1997 to 2003 for the offence of "Forgery etc. of prescription in respect of scheduled drug" is contained in the following table.
11 Jan 2005 : Column 286W
(80) These data are on the principal offence basis.
Court Reports
Ross Cranston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of court reports written for the courts in England and Wales by the National Probation Service were produced within 15 days of a request for that report in the last period for which figures are available. [204119]
Paul Goggins: The information requested for 2003–04 and the first six months of 2004–05, is provided in the table.
| Number provided in response to request | Number provided within 15 working days of request | Percentage meeting standard | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003–04 | 110,712 | 72,141 | 65 |
| 2004–05 (April- September) | 69,844 | 54,336 | 78 |
Ross Cranston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any probation areas in England and Wales reported that they had failed to produce court reports within the 15 days work standard because of staff shortages, vacancies or resource issues in the last period for which information is available. [204120]
Paul Goggins: The Home Office does not collect data on the reasons for failure to produce court reports. Centrally available data shows that the proportion of court reports provided within 15 days of request in the first half of 2004–05 was 78 per cent. Although this falls short of the 90 per cent. target, it is a significant improvement on the 65 per cent. achieved in 2003–04.
The National Probation Directorate are currently exploring the possibility of introducing a more appropriate target that measures the proportion of reports that meet the time scale set by the courts, which in many cases may be different from the current 15 working days standard.
Probation staff are employed by the 42 local Probation Boards and staff shortages are a matter for each individual employer. The number of staff working in the National Probation Service has increased from 13,968 in 1997 to 19,237 in March 2004, an increase of over 5,000 extra staff.
CRB Registration
Kate Hoey:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the (a) national governing bodies of sport, (b) county sports
11 Jan 2005 : Column 287W
associations and (c) sports clubs that have registered as an accredited body with the Criminal Records Bureau; [201816]
(2) what the total cost is of registering with the Criminal Records Bureau as a registered body; and whether there is a minimum number of checks that must be carried out each year; [201817]
(3) how many Criminal Records Bureau checks have been carried out through accredited sports bodies since the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau. [201818]
Ms Blears: All organisations wishing to register with the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) must pay a £300 registration fee. Additional Countersignatory applications cost £5 each. There is currently no annual minimum requirement for the number of checks submitted by registered bodies.
I am unable to provide a definitive list of all national governing bodies of sport, county sports associations and sports clubs that are registered with the CRB. When applying to become registered bodies, all organisations are requested to identify their business sector from a list provided by the CRB. Sports associations are categorised under the leisure services business sector, but not all organisations who are involved in sports activities identify themselves under leisure services. The CRB is therefore unable to identify from the business sector whether registered bodies belong specifically to the groups in question.
Furthermore, the business sector information is not a mandatory part of the registration process and the CRB is aware that a number of registered bodies have not provided this detail. This also prevents the CRB from providing a complete analysis of the business sector for its registered bodies.
Many organisations also use the services of umbrella bodies to access the disclosure service and the sporting bodies about whom my hon. Friend is concerned may also be using this route, which again prevents a complete analysis.
Consequently, the CRB cannot provide the total number of disclosures issued to the sports bodies in question. It is estimated that the leisure industry accounts for about 7 per cent. of all disclosures issued.
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it has taken on average since January for the Criminal Records Bureau to process an application from a drugs service relating to an individual who wishes to work in England and Wales. [201064]
Ms Blears: The Criminal Records Bureau is unable to provide the information sought without details of the specific organisation or individual. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham may wish to provide further details directly to the Bureau who will be pleased to provide a full response.
Criminal Appeals
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to amend the
11 Jan 2005 : Column 288W
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to allow (a) documentary and (b) photographic evidence relevant to the case but not presented at the trial to be used in an appeal. [204949]
Paul Goggins: Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 already empowers the Court of Appeal, if it considers it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice, to order the production of any document, exhibit or other thing which appears necessary for the determination of the appeal. This includes any evidence which was not presented at the trial from which the appeal lies. When considering whether to receive any evidence the Court of Appeal must have regard to various factors: whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief; whether the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal; whether the evidence would have been admissible in the trial; and whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at the trial.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |