---

17 Jan 2006 : Column 1279W—continued

Racist Attacks (Prosecutions)

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been for (a) anti-Semitic attacks and (b) other racist attacks in each of the last three years. [40736]

Paul Goggins: The available information from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform provides the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for
 
17 Jan 2006 : Column 1280W
 
racially aggravated, religiously aggravated and racially or religiously aggravated offences of grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm and common assault, England and Wales 2002–04.

It is not possible to identify those assaults which are anti-Semitic as the data are not collected at this level of detail.

Court statistics for 2005 will be available in the autumn
Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts for racially and religiously aggravated assaults, England and Wales, 2002–041

		Proceeded against
Offence description	Principal statute	2002	2003	2004
Racially aggravated wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without weapon)	Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.20 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(a) and (2)	83	62	43
Racially aggravated actual bodily harm (assaults occasioning ABH)	Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.47 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(b) and (2)	475	482	372
Racially aggravated common assaults	Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(c) and (3)	694	750	908
Religiously aggravated wounding or GBH(17)	Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.20 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(a) and (2)	1	1	5
Religiously aggravated ABH(17)	Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.47 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(b) and (2)	6	22	13
Religiously aggravated common assault(17)	Common Law and Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(c) and (3)	2	4	17
Racially or religiously aggravated wounding or GBH(17)	Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.20 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(a) and (2)	1	20	17
Racially or religiously aggravated ABH(17)	Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.47 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(b) and (2)	7	40	39
Racially or religiously aggravated common assault(17)	Common Law and Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.29(1)(c) and (3)	5	62	77

⁽¹⁶⁾ These data are provided on the principal offence basis.
⁽¹⁷⁾ Codes for these offences were introduced to the court proceedings database in late 2002.

Reoffending

Mr. Hurd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who had been placed in custody have re-offended in (a) Ruislip-Northwood constituency, (b) the London borough of Hillingdon, (c) Greater London and (d) England in each year since 1997. [40711]

Fiona Mactaggart: Re-offending rates, which are measured through convictions, are only currently available for England and Wales.

The most recent re-offending data for adults were published in 'Re-offending of adults: results from the 2002 cohort' which is available through the Home Office's website (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm). The report shows the proportion of offenders who re-offended within two years and were subsequently convicted. The conviction for the offence is counted even if it occurred beyond the two year follow-up period. Results are given for 2000 and 2002.

Reconviction data for 1997 through 2000 were published in 'Prison statistics England and Wales 2002' and data for 2001 were published in 'Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2003'. Both of these are publications are available on the Home Office website. These series count only those convictions that were secured within the two year follow-up period.

Reconviction rates should be used with caution as a number of different factors can influence them. Reconviction rates can be adjusted to take account of the changing characteristics of offenders and these adjusted rates are published on the Home Office's website. The most recent data show that there has been a reduction in re-offending for all offenders of 0.2 per cent. against the 2000 baseline. The Home Office Public Service Agreement target is to reduce re-offending by 5 per cent. by 2006.
 
17 Jan 2006 : Column 1281W
 

Respect Action Plan Booklet

Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Ministers' photographs are included in the booklet Respect Action Plan; and which Ministers wrote their own words. [42082]

Hazel Blears: There are 13 photographs of Ministers' in the Respect Action Plan and a short personal statement of the Ministers commitment to the plans set out in the document.

The Respect Action Plan is a cross-government agenda and as such Ministers from a number of departments contributed towards the wording of the action plan.

Road Traffic Act

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the fixed penalty for offences under section 14(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to £80; and if he will make a statement. [41750]

Paul Goggins: We have no current plans to increase the fixed penalty level for seat belt offences. However, the penalty levels associated with all fixed penalty offences are kept under continual review by the Home Office chaired Fixed Penalty Procedures Working Group, with representatives from relevant Government Departments and criminal justice agencies.

Secure Training Centres

Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staff to trainee ratio is at (a) Rainsbrook, (b) Oakhill, (c) Hassockfield and (d) Medway secure training centres. [40418]

Fiona Mactaggart: In each centre, the ratio of staff to trainees in each unit varies with the size of the unit. In all four centres, there is one member of staff in a directly supervisory role to between 2.5 and 3.5 trainees. In addition, there are custody officers on site to cover admissions, movements and supervision of visits..

Shellfish Toxins (Use of Animals)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences authorising the use of live animals to detect toxins in shellfish were extant on 31 December 2004; what severity banding was assigned to the licences; and how many animals were used in these procedures in 2004. [38317]

Andy Burnham: Home Office records show that three project licences authorising the use of live animals to detect toxins in shellfish under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were extant on 31 December 2004. Two of the licences have been assigned a moderate severity banding and the other has been assigned a substantial severity banding. A total of 6,468 animals were used in the relevant procedures during 2004.

Tagging

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sanctions apply to tagged offenders who remove their tags; and what discussions he has had on the effectiveness of such sanctions. [40757]

 
17 Jan 2006 : Column 1282W
 

Fiona Mactaggart: Removal of a tag is regarded as a serious failure to comply with the requirements of electronic monitoring. The sanction depends upon the type and age of the offender. Those released from custody may be recalled. Adults subject to a community order will be returned to court. If a breach of the order is proved and the original offence was committed on or after 4 April 2005 the court must either make the requirements of the order more onerous or re-sentence. Juveniles subject to a community sentence will be returned to court. It is for the courts to decide how to deal with a failure to comply. Defendants on bail who remove their tags can expect to be detained.

Compliance with electronically monitored requirements is generally good. For those made subject to electronic monitoring between April and November 2005, 94 per cent. completed their requirements within the period, 69 per cent. without breach and a further 25 per cent. following breach.

---