|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will refer tobacco and alcohol to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for classification under Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as Class A, B or C drugs. 
Paul Goggins [holding answer 24 January 2006]: Tobacco and alcohol will not be referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for the consideration of their control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to alert Ministers to the entry to the UK of individuals on an EU travel ban list; and whether such mechanisms have been triggered since such bans were introduced. 
Mr. McNulty: The Secretary of State designates EU and UN travel bans by order made under section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971the most recent is the Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) (Amendment) Order 2005. In accordance with section 8B an individual on an EU or UN travel ban is treated as an excluded person and must be refused entry to the UK. Unless it is considered that one of the exceptions to the obligation to exclude may apply Ministers are not normally approached in individual cases.
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what key performance indicators are used to evaluate the performance of group 4 Securicor in the provision of the electronic monitoring of offenders. 
Fiona Mactaggart: The performance of group 4 Securicor in the operation of electronic monitoring is evaluated in the following areas of service:
1. Length of breaks in the electronic monitoring service (the period of time for which the service provider is unable to monitor people who are subject to electronic monitoring).
4. The cumulative period of breaks in call centre telephone services availability over a rolling 12-month period.
6. Availability of a facility to receive electronic notifications of people who are to be monitored.
10. Reporting instances where the location of a person subject to active tracking is lost and regained, or where the tracking equipment is tampered with.
13. Informing the relevant authorities of a decision to start breach proceedings, where the service provider is responsible for enforcement action.
17. Providing exception reports relating to the investigation of incidents, and equipment damage and failure.
21. No incorrect confirmation of the identity of people to be monitored at the time of installing monitoring equipment.
23. Information about people being monitored being available to the Home Office within a specified to time of it going on to the service provider's computer system.
24. Reporting serious complaints against the service provider to the Home Office within a specified time.
25. Recording and maintaining data about persons already subject to electronic monitoring at the start of the current contracts.
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts have been awarded to Group 4 Securicor for the provision of electronic monitoring of offenders by (a) his Department and (b) other Government agencies. 
Fiona Mactaggart: The Home Office awarded three contracts to Group 4 Securicor for the operation of electronic monitoring in England and Wales from one April 2005. These contracts are for the North East and North West; East Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside; and the South East and South West. No such contracts have been awarded by other Government agencies.
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value is of contracts between the Government and Group 4 Securicor for the provision of electronic monitoring of offenders. 
Fiona Mactaggart: The value of the electronic monitoring contracts depends on the number of people monitored. In the financial year 200506, the total value of the contracts awarded to Group 4 Securicor for electronic monitoring is expected to be about £37 million.
Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to review contracts awarded to Group 4 Securicor for the provision of electronic monitoring of offenders. 
Fiona Mactaggart: The Home Office conducts a monthly audit of the performance of Group 4 Securicor against a range of performance measures. A failure to meet the specified service levels results in financial deductions from the amount paid to Group 4 Securicor for providing the electronic monitoring service. The contracts began to operate on one April 2005 and are for a period of five years, which may be extended by up to two more years. They will be reviewed nearer to their expiry date as part of the Government procurement process. The contracts contain standard provisions enabling the government to terminate them early if the contractor defaults on the provision of the service.
Mr. Stewart Jackson:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders in Cambridgeshire were on home detention curfews
15 Feb 2006 : Column 2127W
(HDCs) in 200405; and what proportion of these offenders failed to complete the HDC period successfully. 
Fiona Mactaggart: The information requested, as recorded on the Prison Service IT system, is provided in the following table.
|Those released on HDC from Cambridgeshire prisons||Recalls||Percentage recalled|
|All Cambridgeshire prisons||45||434||479||5||26||31||11||6||6.5|
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many hours in total tagged criminals in (a) Leicester and (b) England and Wales have broken their curfews since 2000. 
Fiona Mactaggart: Information is not broken down in the way requested, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many tagged criminals in (a) Leicester and (b) England and Wales have broken their curfews since 2000; and what proportion this represents of the total number of tagged criminals in each case; 
(2) how many criminals in (a) Leicester and (b) England and Wales have been prosecuted for breaking their curfews since 2000. 
Fiona Mactaggart: In the period from 1 April 2005 to 31 January 2006, a total of 37,336 people began and ended a period of electronic monitoring in England and Wales.
Of these, 25,708 (69 per cent.) completed their curfews without breaching, 9,434 (25 per cent.) completed their curfews following one or more breaches, and 2,194 (6 per cent.) had their curfews revoked following breach action. In the same period, in Leicestershire, from a total of 742 people on electronic monitoring, 637 (86 per cent.) completed their curfews without breaching, 83 (11 per cent.) completed their curfews following one or more breaches, and 22 (3 per cent.) had their curfews revoked following breach action. Information is not available for Leicester itself, or for the period before 1 April 2005, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|