Previous Section Index Home Page

25 May 2006 : Column 2022W—continued

Prisons

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of providing (a) educational facilities, (b) dental services, (c) medical services, including costs involved in transporting inmates to and from hospital, (d) clothing and (e) food has been in each prison in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [37538]

Mr. Sutcliffe: The Prison Service does not collect information separately on the costs of providing education facilities in English public prisons and the information sought could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Such information is also not available for the Welsh public prisons.

The Department of Health received £118 million from the Home Office for prison health care costs, including for dentistry, in 2002-03. Some £139.7 million was spent in 2003-04 and £158 million was spent in 2004-05 on medical and psychiatric care for prisoners in England. The allocation for 2005-06 is £175.7 million. The current comparable amount for health care in the Welsh public prisons is £3,395,000. The cost of providing prisoners with escorts for hospital appointments is not available.


25 May 2006 : Column 2023W

As the cost of providing clothing is included in the overall figure for prisoners' consumables it is not possible immediately to disaggregate it for the English or Welsh public prisons.

The cost of food for the public prisons in England was £28.625 million for 2003, £36.807 million for 2003-04 and £38.322 million for 2004-05. The 2005-06 budget for food for the Welsh public prisons is £756,000.

Comparable information for the contracted prisons is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Probation Service

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many throughcare cases held by the probation service in England and Wales (a) have not been allocated to a named probation officer and (b) are held nominally by a senior probation officer. [63081]

Mr. Sutcliffe: National Standards 2005 state:

Data against this national standard are available from October 2005. Between October 2005 and February 2006, 86 per cent. of cases were allocated an offender manager in accordance with national standards. Data by probation area and region showing the proportion of cases in which the standard was met between October 2005 and February 2006 are shown in the following table.


25 May 2006 : Column 2024W

25 May 2006 : Column 2025W
October 2005 to February 2006
Region/area Percentage of cases meeting the national standard

West Midlands

Staffordshire

89

Warwickshire

100

West Mercia

90

West Midlands

66

West Midlands total

74

North East

County Durham

100

Northumbria

98

Teesside

88

North East total

96

East

Bedfordshire

38

Cambridgeshire

79

Essex

Hertfordshire

89

Norfolk

88

Suffolk

93

East total

80

North West

Cheshire

96

Cumbria

93

Greater Manchester

91

Lancashire

97

Merseyside

97

North West total

94

East Midlands

Derbyshire

90

Leicestershire and Rutland

94

Lincolnshire

100

Nottinghamshire

83

Northamptonshire

90

East Midlands total

92

Yorkshire and Humberside

Humberside

88

North Yorkshire

99

South Yorkshire

94

West Yorkshire

81

Yorkshire and Humberside total

89

South East

Hampshire

91

Kent

95

Surrey

94

Sussex

92

Thames Valley

84

South East total

90

South West

Avon and Somerset

95

Devon/Cornwall

85

Dorset

82

Gloucestershire

77

Wiltshire

100

South West total

88

London

London East

70

London North

67

London South

81

London West

68

London total

72

Wales

Dyfed/Powys

97

Gwent

93

North Wales

90

South Wales

84

Wales total

89

England and Wales

86

Note:
CJA orders only
Was the case allocated to an offender manager within the required time scale, i.e.
—within one working day of sentence for offenders on tier 3 and tier 4, or who pose a high or very high risk of serious harm to the public, or whose sentence includes a DRR where the first contact will take place within one working day of sentence; or
—within three working days of sentence for tier 1 and tier 2? (SS3.2)

Racial Abuse

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of racial abuse in his Department have been (a) investigated and (b) upheld in each of the last five years. [72878]

Mr. Byrne: The figures available for the Department are set out in the table at annex A.

Complaints of racial abuse Up-held

1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

2

1

1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003

0

0

1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

0

0

1 April 2004 to 31 December 2005

1

0

1 January 2005 to 31 March 2005(1)

8

1

1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006(2)

10

1

(1) Data is categorised as three cases of racial harassment, one of which was upheld and five cases of racial discrimination. (2) Data is categorised as three racial harassment cases, one of which was upheld, and seven racial discrimination cases include one which was not upheld and six which still ongoing.

Recidivism

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed by people who had previously been (a) convicted of a crime and (b) cautioned in each of the last five years, broken down by police authority area; and if he will make a statement. [71843]

Mr. McNulty: The information requested is not available.

Information on the criminal histories of offenders is published annually for offenders convicted in courts of indictable offences. The criminal histories are counts of previous convictions, and not cautions. The data are available for England and Wales as a whole, and are not broken down by police authority area.

The most recent data on the previous convictions of those sentenced in court are available in chapter 6 of Sentencing Statistics 2004, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 15/05, a copy of which is available in the House Library and is available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hosbpubs1.html Information is presented in the bulletin going back to 1994.


25 May 2006 : Column 2026W

Refugees

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria determine the exclusion of an individual from international protection under the UN Refugee Convention 1951 resulting in that individual receiving temporary admission instead of leave to remain; and if he will make a statement. [71839]

Mr. Byrne: Article 1F of the Refugee Convention excludes any individual from being a refugee where there are serious reasons for considering that they have: committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity; committed a serious non-political crime prior to arrival in the country of refuge; or been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention allows an asylum seeker or recognised refugee to be removed even if they have a well founded fear of persecution where they represent a threat to national security or where having been convicted of a particularly serious crime they constitute a danger to the community. Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides an interpretation of Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention and defines the term “particularly serious crime” for the purposes of Article 33(2).


Next Section Index Home Page