|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of (a) bullying and (b) sexual harassment have been investigated in his Department in each of the last three years; and how many complaints have been upheld. 
Mr. Charles Clarke: The following table provides details about the number of complaints of (a) bullying and (b) sexual harassment that have been investigated over the last three years together with their outcomes:
|Home Office (excluding immigration and nationality directorate|
|2004||Bullying: no cases.|
|Sexual harassment: one case, not upheld.|
|2005||Bullying: five cases, these are still under investigation.|
|Sexual harassment: no cases.|
|2006||Bullying: no cases.|
|Sexual harassment: no cases.|
|Immigration and nationality directorate|
|2004||Comprehensive information is not available in the requested format and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.|
|2005||Bullying: 26 cases of which four were upheld after investigation.|
|Sexual harassment: two cases of which one was upheld after investigation.|
|2006||No cases to date.|
|Her Majesty's prison service|
|Comprehensive information is not available in the requested format and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.|
|Identity and Passport Services(99)|
|April 2003 to March 2004||Two complaints were made, neither were upheld|
|April 2004 to March 2005||14 complaints were made, four were upheld.|
|April 2005 to March 2006||Seven complaints were made, three were upheld.|
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hit and run incidents have led to an individual being convicted in each of the last eight years, broken down by police force area. 
Information on the number of hit and run incidents that have led to court proceedings is not collected centrally. Available information taken from
18 Apr 2006 : Column 304W
the Court Proceedings Database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform and given in the table shows the number of offenders found guilty at all courts for the offence of 'failing to stop after an accident' under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 170 (4) from 1996 to 2003 (latest available). The data do not distinguish between those offences which resulted in injury from those which resulted in damage or both. 2004 data will be available at the end of March 2006.
|Number of persons|
|Avon & Somerset||244||227||188||185||158||165||86||88|
|Devon & Cornwall||128||157||109||106||91||118||139||154|
|London, City of||8||11||12||21||8||11||5||7|
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons his Department extended the home detention curfew scheme in April 2003; what assessment he has made of its effect; and what plans he has for further extension. 
Fiona Mactaggart: On 10 April 2003 the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department announced two changes to the Home Detention Curfew scheme which took effect from 14 July 2003. Firstly, the maximum period a prisoner may spend on HDC was increased from 90 days to 135 days and secondly, in order to maintain public confidence in the scheme, prisoners serving sentences for certain serious offences considered to be of particular concern to the public were to be presumed unsuitable for HDC unless there were exceptional circumstances.
The maximum curfew period was increased in order to build on the scheme's previous success by providing earlier resettlement opportunities for lower risk offenders. Although not its primary purpose, this measure also helped to deal with pressures on the prison population. HDC has helped in providing prisoners with a smoother and more effective re-integration back into the community. The scheme provides suitable, low risk, prisoners with the opportunity to rejoin employment, training and their families at an earlier stage while providing protection to the public. Since its introduction in 1999, 85 per cent. of those released on HDC have completed their curfew period successfully.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what processes are in place to inform prisoners of reasons why home detention curfews are refused; and if he will make a statement. 
Prisoners who are statutorily eligible for release under the home detention curfew scheme but, following an assessment of suitability, are refused release, are informed in writing of the reasons for refusal, their right of appeal, their right to see the disclosable reports and other documentation upon which the decision was based, and their right to make oral or written representations to the Governor dealing with the appeal.
18 Apr 2006 : Column 306W
Prisoners who are presumed unsuitable for HDC due to the nature of their offences are informed in writing as soon as possible after sentence that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, they will not be released on HDC. If such prisoners consider that their case is exceptional they must draw this to the Governor's attention giving full details. Where the Governor considers that the case is not exceptional the prisoner may appeal against the decision.
Further details of the refusal notification procedures are set out in Prison Service Order 6700 (Home Detention Curfew) as amended. Statutorily eligible prisoners who are refused HDC have a right to appeal against the decision under the Prisoners' Request and Complaints Procedures. Further details of these procedures are contained in Prison Service Order 2510. Both PSOs are available on the HM Prison Service website.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|