|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/prisjun02.pdf (table 3)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/prisjun03.pdf (table 3)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/prisjun04.pdf (table 4)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/prisjun05.pdf (table 4)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/prisjun06.pdf (table 4)
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.
Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) foreign nationals, broken down by nationality and (b) UK citizens were held in each prison in Kent on 30 November 2006. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Information on the number of prisoners held in prison establishments, broken down by (a) foreign nationals and (b) UK citizens, in Kent at the end of October 2006 can be found in the following table. This is the latest date for which information is available.
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.
|Population in prison establishments in Kent( 1 ) by nationality and establishment, England and Wales 31 October( 2) 2006|
|Foreign nationals( 3)||British nationals|
|(1) Not including Dover Immigration Removal Centre|
(2) Latest data available
(3) 26 prisoners across Kent had unrecorded nationality
(4) 10 prisoners or fewer
The reduction in the supply of drugs into HMP Pentonville continues to be pursued in a number of ways by the Drug Strategy Team and the Security Department at the establishment. It would not be appropriate for operational reasons to give details of the strategies currently in place.
Mrs. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there will be a requirement for (a) magistrates, (b) local councillors, (c) members of the local police authority and (d) members of the local health authority to be members of probation boards or trusts. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: There is now no requirement for magistrates or local councillors to sit on probation boards. This follows amendments to Local Probation Boards (Appointment) Regulations 2000 and Local Probation Boards Regulations 2001 from 1 November 2006. There has never been a requirement for members of the local police authority or members of the local health authority to be members of probation boards. It is not intended that any such requirements will apply to probation trusts.
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the (a) benefits and (b) disadvantages of outsourcing the functions of the probation service. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing the functions of the probation service were assessed in the light of experience gained following the contracting-out of areas of activity on the custodial side for the National Offender Management Service. Estimated efficiency savings were modelled in the range of 3.5 per cent. to 8.5 per cent., in line with the savings delivered after those earlier contracting-out exercises. The financial disadvantages of outsourcing, arising from additional tendering and contract management costs, were outweighed by the estimated savings.
Mr. Sutcliffe: At the end of December 2005, probation areas reported 224,094 people under their supervision (i.e. their caseload). 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 following 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 2005, by supervision tier|
| Source: These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems. 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.|
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the role of the National Offender Manager (Wales) in the delivery of the Probation Service in Wales. 
Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 5 December 2006]: The Director of Commissioning regularly reviews the performance and effectiveness of all the NOMS commissioners, including the Director of Offender Management, Wales. The effectiveness of what commissioners can achieve in relation to probation performance is limited until legislation is in place that will enable commissioners to contract with other providers where underperformance is not addressed sufficiently by a current provider.
The reviews of commissioner effectiveness include specific attention to probation area performance, and the degree to which probation areas are delivering the SLA requirements. Commissioning remains under development in NOMS and commissioners have, to date, had limited scope to re-specify services to align them more closely to identified needs. In parallel with commissioners reviewing performance against the SLAs, the National Probation Directorate (NPD) continues to have a line-management function in respect of probation Chief Officers.
The NPD publishes quarterly performance reports, many elements of which are also addressed in the SLAs between probation areas and commissioners. The most recent report includes positive commentary from the National Probation Director reinforcing the longer- term trend of overall probation performance improvement nationally. The report includes a weighted score card, and a zero line above which probation areas are generally meeting expectations, and below which they are not. For Wales the current position is that three areas are above the zero line and one, North Wales, is not.
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre is taking to monitor use of internet by proscribed groups. 
Mr. McNulty: The role of the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre (NISCC) is to offer advice to organisations in the CNI about how to protect themselves from electronic attack from a variety of sources of threat. It is the role of other organisations to investigate proscribed groups.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average sentence tariff was of (a) a burglar, (b) an armed robber, (c) a cause of aggravated assault and (d) a drug dealer in the last period for which figures are available; and what it was in 1997. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Information on the average custodial sentence length imposed for these offences in England and Wales for the years 1997 and 2005 is shown in the table. Also shown are the total number of persons receiving immediate custodial sentences for these offences and those who received life or indeterminate sentences.
|Persons sentenced to immediate custody and average custodial sentence length( 1) for certain offences, England and Wales, 1997 and 2005|
|Offence||Year||Persons sentenced to immediate custody||Of which: sentenced to life or indeterminate sentence||Average custodial sentence length( 1) (months)|
|(1 )Excluding life and indeterminate sentences. Offenders receiving an indeterminate sentence for public protection for a serious offence would previously have been included in the average custodial sentence length and are no longer. This may result in a decrease in average custodial sentence lengths.|
(2 )Figures cover all robbery offencesarmed robbery cannot be separately identified.
(3 )Includes racially or religiously aggravated common assault and assaults occasioning actual bodily harm.
(4 )Offences introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, so 1999, first full year, shown.
(5 )Includes the offences of supplying or offering to supply (or being concerned in supplying or offering to supply) or having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply (all drug types).
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.
RDS-NOMS, Home Office
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|