|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Ms Diana R. Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners underwent treatment for drugs dependence in (a) Kingston upon Hull North constituency, (b) the Humberside police area and (c) England and Wales in each of the last five years. 
|(1) Provisional (2 )HMP Hull, HMP Everthorpe, HMP Wolds and HMP Full Sutton|
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent at each prison by the Prison Service on drug treatments in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Individual prison drug treatment spend is not recorded centrally. Prisons have instead focused on drug treatment delivery against high-level targets. Additional drug treatment funding allocated to prisons globally over the past five years is shown in the following table:
Mr. Sutcliffe: The Prison Service does not collect cost data by prisoner security classification but by cost per classification of prison establishment. The cost of keeping a prisoner in a high security prison during the 2004-05 was £47,513.
This information is contained in the Prison Service annual report and accounts for 2004-05, a copy of which is in the Library of the House or can be viewed via the Services website www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Vulnerable prisoners held at Lewes prison are housed on F wing which closes later this year for refurbishment. The number of vulnerable prisoners held at Lewes will be substantially reduced to around 40 and none will be eligible for the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme (SOTP). Since December 2002 this treatment has been provided at Maidstone and Elmley with Lewes as the feeder establishment working together to assess and prepare sex offenders to undertake treatment. Following refurbishment in 2008 it is expected that Lewes will no longer house a vulnerable prisoner population.
The vulnerable prisoner unit at Lewes is supported by the area psychology team and staff working on the unit are SOTP awareness trained. Prisoners are assessed and, if ready and suitable, are transferred to Elmley or Maidstone where specialist cognitive behavioural courses are available. Since 2004 the prisoners addressing substance related offending (PASRO) course has been available at Lewes and will continue.
Mrs. Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has received to support his conclusion that there will be benefits to (a) offenders, (b) the public purse and (c) communities of realising the proposals for changes to the structures and role of the Probation Service; and if he will meet representatives of the National Association of Probation Officers to discuss that evidence. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: In October 2005 the Government published a consultation paper, Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-offending, which set out proposals for the introduction of commissioning and contestability in the provision of probation services. This document was accompanied by a Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment which set out the benefits these proposals are expected to deliver and why.
Trade Union representatives, including from NAPO, have access to ministers and senior officials through the Stakeholder Forum and the Joint Council, as well as bi-lateral meetings. In addition there are scheduled regular meetings of the Probation Services Consultative Council, which includes officials and the three probation trade unions:
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many expressions of interest he has received from (a) private companies, (b) not-for-profit and voluntary organisations and (c) faith-based organisations on obtaining contracts for the end-to-end management of offenders. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: There are a number of established fora through which the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) engages with NOMS service providers from the public, private and voluntary sectors. Through these contacts, some expressions of interest in providing future NOMS services have been received from providers of all sectors. However these indications have been informal and non-specific in nature and therefore at this time, clarity as to the commercial and legal status of these organisations has not been obtained. In due course a more formal process will be undertaken in accordance with European Union procurement rules.
Mr. Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of criminals re-offended within (a) 12 months, (b) 24 months and (c) 36 months of their original conviction in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Hartlepool constituency in 2005-06. 
The most recent information on the re-offending of adults in England and Wales was published in December as 'Adult re-offending: results from the 2002 cohort'. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 25/05'. The report is available on line at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb2505.pdf and covers offenders starting community sentences or being discharged from prison in the first quarter of 2002. Table A1 shows the re-offending rate for adults at 12 months and 24 months.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence defendants are entitled to receive in relation to penalties or prosecutions for allegedly driving in a bus lane; if he will list the occasions when a penalty notice has been wrongly sent in each of the last five years for which information is available; what advice he issues to individuals who have been wrongly accused of driving in a bus lane; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: Outside London, the police are at present solely responsible for the enforcement of bus lane infringements in England and Wales. Civil enforcement is expected to begin in some areas in the autumn. Suspected offenders will be told that a vehicle of which they are the registered keeper has been detected committing a bus lane offence. The provision of further information is a matter for individual chief officers of police. Guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers is that the registered keeper or person named by the keeper as driver at the time of the alleged offence should be allowed to view photographic evidence on request. Any person who receives a fixed penalty notice for a bus lane offence and wishes to dispute the alleged offence is required to request a court hearing, the procedure for which is explained on the notice. If a case went to court, the prosecution would have to furnish the evidence to support the proceedings and relevant material would be disclosed under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act.
In London, the police can still enforce bus lane infringements if they consider it appropriate. Most enforcement is however undertaken by Transport for London and the London boroughs under the overall co-ordination of the Association of London Governments Transport and Environmental Committee (ALGTEC). Recipients of penalty charge notices issued for bus lane offences are entitled to view the record of the contravention free of charge at the offices of the issuing authority. Alternatively a copy of the recording can be provided at a small cost. Penalty charge notices describe the procedure for making representations against a notice to the enforcing authority and for appealing to adjudicators.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 22 February from Mr. Patrick Somerville of the International Professional Security Association on the implementation of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. 
Mr. Coaker: The Security Industry Authority (SIA) has contracted out the checking and processing of licence applications to BT who is their managed service provider. The final decision to grant or refuse a licence is then made by SIA staff. A mix of permanent and temporary staff is employed to manage the volume variations caused by the late response of the security industry to the introduction of licensing. To help manage the late rush of application the SIA have opened two temporary processing units, one managed by BT and one by the SIA. In total there are 186 staff employed by BT and the SIA to deliver licensing to applicants.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include access to victim support compensation payments for victims of offences that result in a caution to the perpetrator. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: No plans are needed. Such victims are already eligible for compensation provided the injury is sufficiently serious to qualify for the minimum award payable under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS).
The standard of proof required by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) in determining claims under the Scheme is 'the balance of probabilities'. That is the standard of proof required in the civil courts. For CICS purposes, that means it is not necessary for the offender to have been convicted of the crime causing the injury, and compensation may be paid in cases where the offender is not caught or even identified.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|