|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what correspondence he has received from Mr. John Peach, a constituent of the hon. Member for Peterborough and leader of Peterborough city council; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 4 July 2006]: The Department's correspondence tracking system records that one piece of correspondence was received from Councillor Peach, dated 23 June 2006. This letter was addressed to the Home Secretary, Dr. John Reid and it chased a response to a letter dated 27 April 2006, addressed to the then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. The Department has been unable to find a record of the 27 April letter. Councillor Peach was sent an acknowledgement to his letter on 3 July 2006 and a final response on 15 August 2006.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The information requested is provided in the table. The reasons for the fluctuations in the number of convictions are complex. 2004 had the largest number of convictions, but also a significantly higher proportion of successful prosecutions than any of the relevant years, with one exception.
|Number of persons convicted of murder at all courts, England and Wales, 1997-2004( 1)|
|(1) These data are provided on the principal offence basis.|
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the last 25 years convicted murderers released from (a) psychiatric institutions and (b) prisons have committed murders after release; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The information available centrally relates to homicides recorded by the police in England and Wales, and shows numbers of suspects convicted of these homicides after release or termination of sentence for a previous homicide conviction. The following table provides this information for each year since 1980. It is not possible to distinguish between sentences served in psychiatric institutions and prisons.
|Suspects convicted of homicide after release or termination of sentence for previous homicide conviction( 1)|
|Year offence initially recorded||Number of suspects|
|(1) As at 28 November 2005; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.|
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire South East dated 10 July 2006 on Home Office interpretation of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, whether the UK would continue to be self-sufficient in narcotics production were manufacturers of oxycodone hydrochloride formulations to relocate production to another EU country; how loss of self-sufficiency would effect (a) jobs, (b) the balance of payments and (c) continuity of supply of opiate-based analgesics within the UK; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: It is not possible accurately to predict the development of the pharmaceutical narcotics industry in the UK in relation to oxycodone. There are many variables which would determine the future situation. These include, for example, the choice of territory, obtaining approvals from Governments abroad, the development of a production facility and downstream marketing arrangements.
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons pharmaceutical manufacturers of opiate-based analgesic medicines are limited in the sources of imported raw materials from overseas manufacturers; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: In common with other major opiate manufacturing countries, the United Kingdom does not permit importation of such base material drugs domestically manufactured and readily available. This policy is in furtherance of the aims of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 to limit international supply to what is necessary for countries medical needs. It is adjusted to take account of treaty obligations on overseas trade with the European Union and the European Economic Association only.
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has consulted (a) police organisations and (b) police authorities on (i) plans to change probation boundaries and (ii) regionalisation. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: In October 2005 the Home Office published a consultation document, Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-offending, which set out proposals to give to the Secretary of State the statutory duty to make arrangements with others to provide probation services and to replace probation boards with probation trusts as the public sector providers with whom he may contract. 748 written responses were received, including some from the police, and a summary was set out in Working with Probation to Protect the Public and Reduce Re-offending which was published in March. There are no current plans to change the boundaries of probation areas.
Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost is of administering regional offender managers and their offices within the National Offender Management structure in 2006-07. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The delegated budget for the 10 Regional Offender Managers offices for 2006-07 is £11,780,682 (this includes contracted prisons controllers costs of £2.5 million). This is divided between the ROMs according to profiles reflecting the differing needs and requirements of each region, and covers office staff and management costs.
NOMS HQ employs 1,375.7 full-time equivalents.
Her Majesty's Prison Service employs 47,637 full-time equivalents.
The National Probation Service employs 21,061.4 full-time equivalents.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Currently, the statutory duty to make arrangements for the provision of probation services rests exclusively with the local probation board. Legislation is needed to enable Regional Offender Managers to commission services directly from providers other than the board.
1. Case ManagementCRAMS, DELIUS, ICMS, IOSS, CATO;
2. Offender AssessmentOASys;
3. Accredited ProgramsIAPS;
4. EmailLotus Notes Mail;
6. Resource PlanningWMT;
7. Violent and Serious Offender RegisterVISOR; and
8. Crown Courts LinksEXHIBIT.
1. Case ManagementC-NOMIS will replace items one and three above to support end-to-end offender management;
2. Offender AssessmentA replacement OASys system is planned to integrate with C-NOMIS; and
3. Magistrates Courts Linksuse of LIBRA is planned.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional funds have been made available during the last two financial years to the National Offender Management Service to run Prolific Persistent Offender Programmes. 
John Reid: The responsibility for delivering the Prolific and Other Priority Offenders (PPO) programme rests with the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs). The Programme announced by the Prime Minister in March 2004, firmly placed the onus on CDRPs to prioritise locally targeted groups of problematic offenders within existing resources to reduce their offending behaviour. We have made no commitments for additional funding, centrally. The work of NOMS is key to this strategy to ensure that PPOs are prioritised under the seven National Reducing Re-offending Action Plan pathways for the effective resettlement and rehabilitation activity.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders in each probation area in England and Wales have been allocated to (a) Tier 1, (b) Tier 2, (c) Tier 3 and (d) Tier 4 under the Offender Management Model. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|