|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to questions by the hon. Member for Selly Oak (a) 23089, tabled on 25 October, on identity cards, and (b) 20867, tabled on 18 October, on passports. 
Joan Ryan: I answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oaks question in relation to passports (20867) on 27 February 2006, Official Report, column 95W. her question in relation to identity cards (23089) was answered on 16 May 2006, Official Report, column 829W.
Mr. Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance was in operation in 1994 regarding the storage and destruction of information by police forces relating to detected crimes; 
Mr. McNulty: No central guidance was in operation in 1994 concerning the storage and destruction of information relating to detected crimes. Forces were, however, subject to the relevant legislation that was in place at that time and may have issued their own internal guidance. A Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI) was published in July 2005 and came into effect in November 2005. This requires police information to be periodically reviewed and consideration given to its disposal or retention in line with criteria set out in guidance. Guidance to accompany the Code of Practice, agreed with the Information Commissioner, was published in March 2006. This requires that information be deleted where there is no longer a policing purpose for retaining it, i.e. it is no longer necessary; it is no longer adequate or up to date; or it is excessive or not proportionate to the risk.
The guidance states that all records will normally be held for a minimum of six years, but lists a number of issues that forces should consider when deciding whether to retain records for longer. The MOP guidance states that historical datawhich it defines as anything recorded prior to the date that the guidance came into effectmust be reviewed when the subject of a record comes to police attention, and that resources dedicated to reviewing other historical records should focus on information relating to certain public protection matters.
Retention of information must also be in line with relevant legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been held in crowded conditions in each month since November 2004; and what percentage of the total prisoner population this represents in each case. 
|Number of prisoners that have been held in crowded conditions in each month since November 2004 and the percentage of the total prisoner population this represents in each case|
Mr. Sutcliffe: Information on the number of prisoners held in prison establishments from 1994 to 2004 can be found in table 8.1 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 17/05: Offender Management Caseload Statistics, England and Wales, 2004. Copies of this publication can be found in the House of Commons Library. The prison population on 30 June 2005 was 76,190.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the (a) number of staff and (b) financial resources required to implement end to end offender management in the probation service; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: We expect offender management to be resource-neutral over the long- term, with any costs balanced by savings arising from the benefits of the system. There will be start-up costs in 2006-07 and 2007-08, totalling some £8 million, before full-savings start to be seen. The costs translate into around 90 posts in 2006-07 and 120 in 2007-08.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 18 July 2005 to the hon. Member for Winchester, Official Report, column 1506W, on probation hostels, how many places were available in probation hostels in England and Wales on the latest date for which figures are available; and how many were occupied by high risk offenders on that date. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: As at 28 February 2006, 2,163 bed spaces were available in generic approved premises, formerly bail and probation hotels. Of these, 1,256 were occupied by offenders who were assessed as high or very high risk of harm to the public. The figures do not include data for the newly opened prospects hostels which are a specialist resource for offenders with substance misuse problems.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department is on track
to meet its public service agreement target of reducing reoffending by five per cent. by 2006. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The latest formal assessment on progress is set out in the Home Office Autumn Performance Report 2005 (Cm 6707). Since this assessment juvenile reoffending results from 2004 have been made available. The report shows the reoffending rates within one year for juvenile offenders who receive pre-court disposals, non-custodial disposals and those released from custody in the first quarter of 2004. The results show a 3.8 per cent reduction in reoffending when compared with the same period in 1997 and a reduction of 1.4 per cent. when compared with 2000. The full results are available on line at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1006.pdf. The Government remain committed to reducing reoffending by 5 per cent. by 2006 and to further reductions in the future.
Mrs. James: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps his Department is taking to promote collaboration between police forces in England and Wales and private security offices based in retail stores to help reduce incidents of shoplifting; 
Most recent figures held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on the number of defendants found guilty of shoplifting in the South Wales police force area in 2003 and 2004 are 1,671 for 2003 and 1,712 in 2004. The information requested on arrests is not available centrally. There are a number of ways in which private security offices may engage with local police forces. Usually this is through active involvement with crime reduction partnerships, many of which are tailored specifically to address the needs of the business sector. The Home Office has supported the work of the British Retail Consortium in developing business crime reduction partnerships, and has provided over £900,000 of funding for them to set up and run the Action Against Business Crime (AABC) Group. This group provides central co-ordination and support for a national network of business crime reduction partnerships in town centres, shopping centres and industrial estates across England and Wales in their work to prevent business crime. The Home Office also encourages businesses to set up Business Watch schemes in their area, or to consider involvement in the business improvement district (BID) scheme. There is an accredited Business Crime Partnership in the Safer Swansea Community Safety Partnership. One of the first actions of the partnership was to set up a panel which included local businesses and independent members to consider whether those caught shoplifting should be banned from the city centre shopping area. The scheme has been successful and will be rolled out to other retail sites in the borough. Additionally, South Wales police have been
actively promoting the ShopWatch scheme in Swansea, which encourages shop staff to train as special constables in their area of employment.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what (a) computer systems and (b) databases of the Metropolitan police stop and search records are maintained; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much it cost to keep (a) a child and (b) a family of two adults and two children in Yarl's Wood detention centre for one week in the last 12 months. 
Mr. Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the 77 outstanding applications from Zimbabwe for indefinite leave to remain under the UK Ancestral Visa Route which have been awaiting the outcome of the recent fraud inquiry will be processed. 
(2) To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 12 applications from Zimbabwe for indefinite leave to remain under the UK Ancestral Visa route which have been refused were refused because of fraud. 
Mr. Byrne: I am advised that 52 applications for indefinite leave to remain under the UK Ancestral Visa route remain under consideration. Completion dates depend on the time required for proper and thorough scrutiny. Our database does not provide details of individual reasons why cases have been refused.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the number of people who are entitled to, but not receiving (a) pension credit, (b) income support, (c) housing benefit, (d) council tax benefit and (e) other benefits; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the planned end-date is for the Benefit Processing Replacement Programme (Watch 2); and what the planned (a) level and (b) timetable of relevant capital expenditure is. 
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the current planned end date for the Benefits Processing Replacement Programme (WATCh2); and what is the planned level and timetable of relevant capital expenditure. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
A Departmental Investment Committee recently approved funding for the completion of the WATCh2 Projects and for the Benefits Processing Replacement Programme (BPRP) to develop its overall scope and delivery timetable by June 2006, having regard to overall business priorities including the impact of the recently announced Employment and Support Allowance.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|