|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2006 to question 52038, on the security industry, what assumptions were made in the Security Industry Authority's estimate that current demand for door supervisors is 46,000. 
Mr. Coaker: The assumptions made in the answer pursuant to question 52038 reflected original assumptions made by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) which were subsequently modified. The original SIA planning assumptions were based on the number of door supervisors registered under local authority registration schemes applicable to individuals working in premises licensed for the sale and consumption of alcohol. Such schemes extended to approximately60 per cent. of local authorities, and numbers for England and Wales were extrapolated from this.
The SIA discussed the assumptions with specialist sector bodies. It based its current assumption on the experience in the pilot region where the numbers applying for licences were significantly lower than expectations. Once the offence date had passed the SIA obtained information through its compliance team and enforcement partners on the numbers of licensed and unlicensed individuals they were finding during visits to premises and their joint compliance operations. At the time this was approximately 80 per cent. licensed and 20 per cent. unlicensed; on this basis the SIA revised its numbers for the pilot region and extrapolated them to the other regions.
These figures have been reviewed a number of times but are believed to be the best data available. The SIA also believes, but as yet has no firm evidence, that a significant percentage of door supervisors have de-selected themselves because they would not meet the licensing criteria, and that a percentage may have been working in the informal economy.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether security industry workers who have applied for a licence to the Security Industry Authority but who have not yet received one will be able to continue in their employment. 
Mr. Coaker: From 20 March 2006, it became a criminal offence for manned guards to carry out security activities without a licence under the terms of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (PSIA). Enforcement is the responsibility of the Security Industry Authority and the police. The SIA published an enforcement policy on 7 March which stated that, while they want the private security industry to be compliant with the law as quickly as possible, they will take into account a number of factors when deciding what enforcement action to take. These factors include the progress an individual has made towards getting or renewing a licence, the current licensing processing time, the time elapsed since the activity became licensable and any previous encounters with or warnings given by the SIA or other agency.
Any individual carrying out licensable activities without a licence will be committing a criminal offence, unless they have received a license dispensation notice from the SIA under the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS). This allows accredited firms to legally deploy a proportion of their staff who have completed their training but whose applications are still being processed. As at 11 May, it is estimated that around 30,000 individuals are being deployed lawfully under the ACS Scheme.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how decisions for parole are reached for individuals convicted of sex offences who maintain their innocence and do not participate in the Sex Offender Treatment Programme; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Parole Board decisions on whether or not to award parole focus primarily on the risk to the public of an offence being committed at a time when the offender would otherwise be in prison. In assessing whether the safety of the public will be placed unacceptably at risk, the board is directed to take into account that the risk of violent or sexual offending is more serious than a risk of other types of offending. This must be balanced against the benefit, both to the public and the offender, of early release back into the community under a degree of supervision which might help rehabilitation and so lessen the risk of re-offending in the future.
The Parole Board considers many factors including the nature and circumstances of the offence of which the offender was convicted, any previous convictions,
the offenders attitude and response in prison, what, if any, offence-related work has been completed, reports from the Prison and Probation Service and any representations from the offender himself. On the strength of the available information it makes a judgment on the likely benefit both to the offender and society in allowing the offender to serve part of the sentence in the community.
There is no requirement for an offender to admit guilt prior to making an application for parole, nor is denial of guilt or failure to attend a sex offender programme a bar to release on parole licence.
Mr. Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted sex offenders in England and Wales have had electronic type tags fitted after their release from prison in each year between 2000 and 2005. 
Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 24 April 2006]: Information on the number of prisoners released subject to an electronically monitored curfew under the home detention curfew scheme (HDC) for each year whose index offence was recorded as a sexual offence is given in the following table. Information on the number of convicted sex offenders who have had electronic tags fitted after other types of release from prison in each year between 2000 and 2005 is not held centrally. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
|Number of people released on HDC whose offence recorded was a sexual offence, England and Wales|
|Year of discharge||Number released|
| Notes: 1. These statistics are based on information recorded on the central Prison Service IT system at 21 April 2006. Further updates and amendments may be made to records on this system in future resulting in revised figures. 2. Investigations suggest that, for HDC releases covering all offence groups, around 5 per cent. of offence types recorded on this system do not relate to the offence for which they were released on HDC but relate to offences committed after release from prison and before their licence expiry date for their sentence. 3. Of the 82 discharges recorded as relating to those serving sexual offences shown in the table, 64 were actually serving a sentence for a sexual offence at the time of their release. The last offender to be released on HDC while serving a sentence for a sexual offence was released in January 2004. 4. The statistics presented in the table will also include those sentenced for abduction which was not of a sexual nature.|
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of places in hostels run by (a) the probation service and (b) the voluntary sector in (i) England and (ii) Wales were allocated to sex offenders on the latest date for which figures are available. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The data in the table relates to Approved Premises, formerly bail and probation hostels, in England and Wales. Data is not collected centrally on other types of hostel accommodation outside the Approved Premises Estate which may accommodate ex-offenders.
All of the Approved Premises in Wales are run by probation boards. The percentage of Approved Premises residents in Wales with a conviction for a sexual offence in March 2003 was 38 per cent. This is taken from the data collected as part of the snapshot survey in 2003.
|As at March each year||Percentage of residents in Approved Premises managed by the Probation Service with a current or previous conviction for sexual offences||Percentage of residents in Approved Premises managed by the voluntary sector with a current or previous conviction for sexual offences|
|(1 )Home Office Research Finding 230 Approved Premises: results of a snapshot survey, 2003. (2 )Unpublished snapshot survey conducted in March 2004.|
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fixed penalty notices were issued for (a) consumption of alcohol by and (b) selling alcohol to under-age people in (i) Cambridgeshire and (ii) Peterborough in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The penalty notice for disorder scheme came into use in all police forces in England and Wales during 2004. There have been no penalty notices for disorder issued in Cambridgeshire for the consumption of alcohol by under 18s and the sale of alcohol to under 18s.
Mr. Walter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been detained for 21 days or more in (a) immigration detention centres and (b) Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre in the last five years. 
During the third quarter of 2005, there were 455 minors recorded as being removed or released from detention (excluding Oakington) in the UK who were detained solely under Immigration Act powers, of whom 390 were last detained in Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre. 60 of these minors were detained for a period of 21 days or more, and were all recorded as being removed or released from Yarl's Wood.
Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of self-harm there were by pregnant women detained at Yarls Wood between 1 April 2004 and January 31 2006; and what proportion of these incidents involved women in the Fast Track system. 
Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pregnant women are held at Yarls Wood Detention Centre; how many were held there between 1 April 2004 and 31 January 2006; and how many of these were held for (a) up to one week, (b) between one and three weeks, (c) between three and eight weeks and (d) longer than eight weeks. 
|Length of stay||Number of pregnant women detained|
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of people detained in young offender institutions have received rehabilitative treatment while imprisoned in each of the past eight years. 
John Reid: The following table shows the number of offending behaviour programme completions and drug treatment completions in young offender institutions and juvenile establishments for each year in which data are available. It also shows the number of educational and work skills awards, which also contribute the rehabilitation of offenders.
|Completed programmes and awards|
|Offender behaviour programme completions||Drug programme completions||Education||Work skills awards|
|(1) Data for these years relate to basic skills awards at level 2 only.|
Mr. Sutcliffe: Juvenile males are aged from 15 years to 17 years and females from 16 years to 17 years. The most recent data available covering April 2005 to March 2006, for the number of juvenile prisoners returned to young offender institutions after 8 pm are set out in the following table:
|Juvenile prisoners arriving at young offender institutions after 8 pm by month for the year April 2005 to March 2006|
|(1 )Female establishment|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|