|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the (a) average number of cases per month handled and (b) rates of recidivism were in each probation office area in the last year for which figures are available. 
The probation caseload as at 31 December 2005 for each probation area can be found in table 1.8 of the Offender Management Caseload Statistics Quarterly Brief for October-December 2005, and can be found at the following website:
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system, and although shown to the last individual the figures may not be accurate to that level.
Recidivism is measured by re-offending rates which are published annually. Re-offending rates are currently available only at a national level, but we are seeking to develop reliable rates at probation area level.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed by the (a) National Offender Management Service, (b) National Probation Directorate and (c) Prison Service Headquarters. 
(a) National Offender Management Service Headquarters (excluding National Probation Directorate and HM Prison Service Staff): 1,261.
(b) National Probation Directorate : 116.
(c) The public sector Prison Service Headquarters: 1,649. (This figure excludes staff in area offices).
Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are supervised by the National Probation Service; and how many offenders have been allocated to each tier under the National Offender Management model. 
Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 5 December 2006]: At the end of December 2005, probation areas reported 224,094 people under their supervision. The number of offenders supervised in the community (i.e. excluding those still in custody) was 162,005. The number of these offenders allocated to each tier under the National Offender Management model is shown in the table. In December 2005, the tiering concept was only being applied to those supervised in the community.
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system, and although shown to the last individual the figure may not be accurate to that level.
|Persons supervised by the Probation Service at 31 December 2005by supervision tier|
Quality: care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, but the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system, and so although shown to the last individual, the figures may not be accurate to that level.
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems.
Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the rates of recidivism are for each (a) prison, (b) young offenders institution and (c) organisation contracted to manage community sentences in England and Wales. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: For the most recent information on re-offending rates for adults and juveniles by disposal please see Table five of Re-offending of adults: evidence from the 2003 cohort at the following link:
Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 27 November 2006, Official Report, column 409W, on road safety, on what date work commenced on the detailed specification; when it is due to be completed; what international research he refers to; and in what ways they are unsuitable for road-side drug-testing. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 4 December 2006] : It was changes to the law introduced by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 which encouraged a particular focus on the possibility of a device that could derive a reliable indication whether a person had a drug in his body from a sample of sweat or saliva. Work to develop a specification for such a device has been part of this focus, but it is not possible to give a precise date for when it began. Consideration of how best to test for the presence of drugs in a driver had been under way for some time before that at both the Home Office Scientific Development Branch and the Forensic Science Service and broader work continues alongside the development of a specification.
The development has involved outside academic experts and consultation with industry and other interested parties. The most recent consultation took place in summer this year. A specification will be issued as soon as the results of this consultation and any further consultation that might be necessary has been fully taken into account. No specific date has been set for the completion of the work, as this will depend on
the outcome of the consultation. There would be no value in a specification that did not meet all the appropriate requirements.
The work has also had regard to relevant research, particularly the joint European/USA ROSITA-II study. The findings are available at www.rosita.org. A wide range of problems was found with the different devices tested, both in their accuracy and sensitivity and in their operational use. The specific conclusion was that
no device was considered to be reliable enough in order to be recommended for the roadside screening of drivers.
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place between the UK and each EU country for providing (a) criminal conviction information and (b) provision of non-conviction and soft intelligence information pertaining to overseas nationals who work in regulated positions under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006; and if he will make a statement. 
An EU Council Decision (CD) on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record (2005/876/JHA) was adopted on 21 November 2005. This CD allows member states to exchange information as follows:
Own Initiative notificationsWhere a national of another member state is convicted, the convicting member state must inform the member state of nationality without delay of that conviction.
Requests for informationRequests may be made for information held on the criminal record of another member state in the following circumstances;
(a) For use in criminal proceedings
(b) From a judicial authority outside the context of criminal proceedings
(c) A request made by the person concerned
The UK Central Authority required to carry out these functions was established in May 2006. A Framework Decision (FD) is currently under negotiation which also aims to introduce a common format and an electronic mechanism to facilitate the exchange of information.
The CD allows the UK to make requests for information for employment vetting. The CRB is undertaking a feasibility study into how many other member states are willing and/or able to share data with the UK for that purpose. The CRB is writing to other member states to establish this information.
The CD and FD deal only with criminal conviction information. There are no plans at present to exchange non-conviction information between EU member
states. It is prudent to establish the principle of exchanging conviction data with other member states before exploring the issue of exchanging non-conviction and soft intelligence, and while bilateral discussions with other countries are at an early stage there are some positive indications on which we hope to build.
Under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, criminal records information obtained by the CRB will be passed to the new Independent Barring Board in cases where a discretionary decision is required. It may also be possible for the board to request information from other EU member states in accordance with the CD and FD.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the maximum sentence was awarded for a crime in (a) Crown courts and (b) magistrates courts in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of sentences given in each type of court each figure represents. 
At the Crown court, 1,114 maximum custodial sentences were imposed on persons for their principal offences, 2.5 per cent. of all custodial sentences passed at that court. These figures include mandatory life sentences for murder and indeterminate sentences for public protection (the latter in addition to the normal maximum sentence for the offences in question).
At magistrates courts, 1,132 persons were given the maximum sentence of immediate custody for their principal offences (this figure excludes sentences of six months custody imposed for triable-either-way offences, given that any longer deemed necessary would have involved a committal to the Crown court). This figure represents 2.0 per cent. of all persons sentenced to immediate custody at magistrates courts.
Although care is taken in collating and analysing the returns used to compile these figures, the data are of necessity subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system. Consequently, although figures are shown to the last digit in order to provide a comprehensive record of the information collected, they are not necessarily accurate to the last digit shown.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile offenders from each local authority area in Wales are held in secure accommodation in (a) Oswald Unit at Cassington, (b) Rainsbrook, (c) Red Bank Community House, (d) Stoke Heath, (e) Thorn Cross, (f) Vinney Green, (g) Werrington, (h) Wetherby, (i) Hillside and (j) Parc; and if he will make a statement. 
|Young people from Wales held in secure establishments/young offender institutions broken down by youth offending team and establishment name|
|Bridgend||Caerphilly and Blaenau Gwent||Cardiff||Carmarthenshire||Ceregdigion||Conwy and Denbighshire|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|