House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 28 Oct 2005 (pt 11)

28 Oct 2005 : Column 591W—continued

HOME DEPARTMENT

Biometric Passports

Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the UK Passport Service decided the dates for its biometrics road shows; when notice of these events was given to the media; what criteria were used to decide which media organisations and reporters to contact; which media organisations were invited; when notice of each event was given to the public; what the cost was of each road show; and what the (a) dates and (b) venues are of further road show events. [19837]

28 Oct 2005 : Column 592W

Andy Burnham: The series of road shows was developed to build public awareness of the imminent changes to the passport and provide an opportunity for the public to try out the technology which will in time be used.

Decisions regarding the dates of the biometric road shows were dependent on the availability of the venues selected; the dates were agreed and venues booked on 16 August 2005. A wide range of local media organisations were contacted, including newspapers, television and radio stations, according to locality and size of readership/audience. In each case local BBC and commercial television and radio stations were invited to attend, along with the main regional/local newspaper(s). Notice of the road shows was provided to local media the working day before each event.

The dates and locations of the road shows were not released to the public in advance. As is usual practice, Ministers' movements are not confirmed in advance for security reasons. In addition, the road show stand was designed to attract passers-by (e.g. shoppers) and the local media. It would not have been able to accommodate a larger audience, had the road shows been publicised more widely.

A budget of £150,000 was set aside to cover the cost of the road shows. This included the design and build of the stand—a resource that could be used in further events, venue hire, staff costs and transportation/set-up of equipment. Feedback from members of the public who attended was on balance positive. Requests have been received from hon. Members for road show events in their locality, though no decision on further dates have yet been taken.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme have had their compensation (a) withheld and (b) reduced due to their unspent convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [21212]

Fiona Mactaggart: The following information has been provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. It relates to cases finalised in the years shown in the table.
CICS awards withheld or reduced on grounds of criminal convictions

Withheld Reduced

2000–01 2,311 1,114

2001–02 2,426 1,209

2002–03 2,530 1,352

2003–04 2,446 1,306

2004–05 2,735 1,277

	Withheld	Reduced
2000–01	2,311	1,114
2001–02	2,426	1,209
2002–03	2,530	1,352
2003–04	2,446	1,306
2004–05	2,735	1,277

Criminal Prosecutions

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the (a) public policy test and (b) evidential test is for criminal prosecutions. [20173]

28 Oct 2005 : Column 593W

The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply.

Each case the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) receives from the police is reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors to ensure that it is right to proceed with a prosecution.

The Code sets out two stages in the decision to prosecute. Firstly, there must be sufficient evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction'. This is an objective test which means that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. If the case does not pass the evidential stage it must not go ahead no matter how important or serious it may be.

If the case passes the evidential stage then the second stage is to consider whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. A prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour, or it appears more appropriate in all the circumstances of the case to divert the person from prosecution.

The review of a case is a continuous process, which carries on throughout its life and takes into account any new evidence or information which becomes available as the case progresses.

Drug Treatment Centres (Gravesham)

Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment centres there are in the Gravesend area. [20084]

28 Oct 2005 : Column 594W

Caroline Flint: I have been asked to reply.

The National Treatment Agency has advised that there are five drug treatment centres in the Gravesham area.

Pyramid Posters Ltd.

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons undertake work for the company Pyramid Posters Ltd. what the value of such contracts with each prison is; what the (a) start date and (b) duration of each contract is; and if he will make a statement. [20518]

Fiona Mactaggart [holding answer 20 October 2005]: Pyramid Posters Ltd. provide contract work within Ashwell prison and have been trading with HM Prison Service since January 2001.During the current financial year (2005–06) the venture has so far generated £10,000 of income for the prison. It is therefore expected that the total value of the contract will be approximately £20,000 of income receipts for the financial year. The contract is run on a rolling year basis.

Secure Training Centres

Dr. Vis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have been appointed to each of the secure training centres in each year since they opened; and how many have left in each year. [898]

Fiona Mactaggart: The number of staff appointed to secure training centres each year and the number leaving are shown in the table.
Medway Secure Training Centre—opened 17 April 1998

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1 January 2005 to 31 August 2005

Starters

Custody staff ⁽⁷⁾— 66 40 39 130 135 88 36

Other ⁽⁷⁾— 30 17 12 10 8 3 1

Total 96 57 51 140 143 91 37

Leavers

Custody staff 29 33 36 42 61 95 66 21

Other 2 1 4 7 5 6 3 1

Total 31 34 40 49 66 101 69 22

Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre—opened 3 July 1999

Starters

Custody staff — ⁽⁷⁾— ⁽⁷⁾— ⁽⁷⁾— 109 60 52 37

Other — ⁽⁷⁾— ⁽⁷⁾— ⁽⁷⁾— 12 6 5 0

Total — 121 66 57 37

Leavers

Custody staff — ⁽⁷⁾— ⁽⁷⁾— ⁽⁷⁾— 31 48 52 27

Other — ⁽⁷⁾— ⁽⁷⁾— ⁽⁷⁾— 7 4 5 3

Total — — — — 38 52 57 30
Hassockfield Secure Training Centre—opened 17 September 1999

Starters

Custody staff — ⁽⁸⁾16 22 31 65 25 32 13

Other — ⁽⁸⁾11 23 19 7 8 14 11

Total — ⁽⁸⁾27 45 50 72 33 46 24

Leavers

Custody staff — ⁽⁸⁾10 33 23 26 25 23 9

Other — ⁽⁸⁾10 37 17 15 14 18 7

Total — ⁽⁸⁾20 70 40 41 39 41 16

Oakhill Secure Training Centre—opened 19 August 2004

Starters

Custody staff — — — — — — 234 106

Other — — — — — — 32 12

Total — — — — — — 266 118

Leavers

Custody staff — — — — — — 77 77

Other — — — — — — 5 11

Total — — — — — — 82 88

⁽⁷⁾Data not available
219 September 1999 to 31 December 1999
Notes:
1.At Medway, Rainsbrook and Oakhill, other staff" excludes teachers and healthcare staff, none of whom are directly employed by the STC contractors.
2.Hassockfield's other staff" includes teachers and healthcare staff, as they are directly employed by the STC contractors.
3.The high number of joiners at Rainsbrook and Medway in 2002 and 2003 reflect the expansion of both centres from 44 to 76 beds. (Hassockfield has 42 beds, Oakhill has 80.)
4.Joiner/leaver numbers at all centres include staff who were provisionally appointed but did not actually start work with children because they did not pass the initial training course or did not receive Criminal Records Bureau clearance. These staff did not have contact with children.
5.Rainsbrook introduced a fully automated personnel/payroll system in 2002. Data prior to this period is limited and accuracy cannot be guaranteed, so has not been included.
6.Staff figures for Hassockfield in 1999 are for appointments after 19 September, when the centre opened. Some staff were appointed prior to opening, but figures for these are not available.

28 Oct 2005 : Column 595W

	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	1 January 2005 to 31 August 2005
Starters
Custody staff	⁽⁷⁾—	66	40	39	130	135	88	36
Other	⁽⁷⁾—	30	17	12	10	8	3	1
Total		96	57	51	140	143	91	37

Leavers
Custody staff	29	33	36	42	61	95	66	21
Other	2	1	4	7	5	6	3	1
Total	31	34	40	49	66	101	69	22

Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre—opened 3 July 1999
Starters
Custody staff	—	⁽⁷⁾—	⁽⁷⁾—	⁽⁷⁾—	109	60	52	37
Other	—	⁽⁷⁾—	⁽⁷⁾—	⁽⁷⁾—	12	6	5	0
Total	—				121	66	57	37

Leavers
Custody staff	—	⁽⁷⁾—	⁽⁷⁾—	⁽⁷⁾—	31	48	52	27
Other	—	⁽⁷⁾—	⁽⁷⁾—	⁽⁷⁾—	7	4	5	3
Total	—	—	—	—	38	52	57	30
Hassockfield Secure Training Centre—opened 17 September 1999
Starters
Custody staff	—	⁽⁸⁾16	22	31	65	25	32	13
Other	—	⁽⁸⁾11	23	19	7	8	14	11
Total	—	⁽⁸⁾27	45	50	72	33	46	24

Leavers
Custody staff	—	⁽⁸⁾10	33	23	26	25	23	9
Other	—	⁽⁸⁾10	37	17	15	14	18	7
Total	—	⁽⁸⁾20	70	40	41	39	41	16

Oakhill Secure Training Centre—opened 19 August 2004
Starters
Custody staff	—	—	—	—	—	—	234	106
Other	—	—	—	—	—	—	32	12
Total	—	—	—	—	—	—	266	118

Leavers
Custody staff	—	—	—	—	—	—	77	77
Other	—	—	—	—	—	—	5	11
Total	—	—	—	—	—	—	82	88

Next Section

Index

Home Page