|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Sutcliffe: The offender management model is subject to a phased implementation which began in 2005/06. We have yet to decide what the full extent of implementation will be but our current plans would require in the order of an additional 270 offender managers by the end of 2008/09. These would be a mixture of probation officers and probation service officers.
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the £55,000 cash sum seized from a proscribed terrorist organisation by the national terrorist financial investigation unit reported in 2002 has been disposed of. 
Mr. McNulty: In the later part of 2001 and early 2002 two separate cash seizures were made by the national terrorist financial investigation unit. These were £17,000 in 2001 and 105,000 deutschmarks in 2002. The later was converted to about £35,000. Both these seizures were made under the Terrorism Act 2000 and were subsequently forfeited. Upon being forfeited the funds were passed from the Metropolitan Police Service to HM Treasury.
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what way the seizure of funds from a proscribed terrorist organisation by the national terrorist financial investigation unit make a significant impact on that organisations ability to operate. 
Many terrorist groups on the list of proscribed organisations are based abroad but have used the UK for funding purposes. Proscribing such organisations and seizing their funds can severely limit their operations, as all aspects of terrorist activity cost money and such organisations are often dependent upon funds raised in foreign countries, including the UK. Operations involving the seizures of cash have a
dual effect of both preventing terrorist attacks and disrupting the flow of terrorist funds.
The national terrorist financial investigation unit is the UKs law enforcement agency responsible for the investigation of terrorist finance and therefore plays the leading role in identifying funds associated with terrorism. Such funds are liable to seizure and forfeiture as set out in various legislation, including the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Mr. McNulty: For reasons of national security, the Home Office does not comment on the operational capacity of units, like the national terrorist financial investigation unit, involved in counter terrorism.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to parliamentary question 107352 on Abid Javaid, tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden for answer on 4 December 2006. 
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has collected on the comparative efficacy of (a) private prisons and (b) public sector managed prisons in (i) reducing recidivism, (ii) effective use of capacity and (iii) value for money. 
Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 6 December 2006]: The efficacy of private finance initiative and public sector managed prisons was examined by the National Audit Office in their 2003 report, The Operational Performance of PFI Prisons.
The NAO report examined the performance of PFI prisons against their contractual requirements and against a range of comparable prisons run by the Prison Service. The NAO also considered the impact that the PFI has had on the Prison Service generally. At the time of the NAO report there were seven operational private prisons. The NAO reported that these seven prisons had brought benefits to the Prison Service.
In addition to opening privately run prisons, the Home Office has also introduced performance testing for public sector managed prisons seeking to improve performance in the public sector managed estate. There is evidence that performance testing of prisons has delivered significant improvements.
Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances drug users who begin a custodial sentence (a) are required to go through a detoxification process and (b) are allowed to continue using drugs or drug substitutes; and if he will make a statement. 
In cases where drug dependency is identified, decisions on the further management is based on the clinical assessment and is a matter for local clinical judgment. For those with a heroin misuse problem, such treatment may include the effective management of the symptoms of withdrawal or maintenance prescribing with an opiate substitute. Methadone or buphrenorphine are two of the interventions used in both instances.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners were prosecuted for offences committed in prison of (a) violence, (b) drugs, (c) threatening or abusive behaviour and (d) two or more of the above categories in each year since 1997-98; 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Information on the numbers of offences committed by prisoners while in detention in prison establishments in England and Wales can be found in tables 9.1-9.3 in the recently published Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2005, a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library and which 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.
Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent guidance has been issued by the Prison Service on the adoption of common criteria for the distribution of condoms in prisons. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Prison doctors were advised in 1995 that they should make condoms available to individual prisoners, on application, if in their clinical judgment there is a risk of transmission of HIV and/or sexually transmitted illness (STIs) infection during sexual activity.
In July 2006, this guidance was reiterated in a letter to prison governors and prison health care managers to ensure greater compliance across the prison estate. There has been no shift in the principle of the policy, although health care workers as well as doctors may now be able to issue condoms.
Mr. Sutcliffe: While detailed information on the number of prisoners earning at or above the national minimum wage is not held centrally, all prisoners working at stage two resettlement will be paid, in the same way as other employees working in community, at or above the minimum wage.
Within closed institutions, a number of small projects such as the Howard League Barbed initiative are designed to provide prisoners with employment skills. These prisoners will receive payment rates comparable to outside employees.
Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been allocated to training and development for those working in the probation service for (a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08 and (c) 2008-09. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Home Office funds directly allocated for probation training and development in the period 2006-07 stand at £42,039,806. Probation areas across England and Wales also allocate additional funds for training from local budgets. The Home Office does not currently monitor this funding and so precise figures are not available.
Predictions for the financial year 2007-08 and are still being collated and will be available when budget delegation letters are issued later this year. No information is yet available for the financial year 2008-09, however there is a clear policy commitment to the continuing provision of training and development for those working within the probation service.
Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his most recent estimate is of the rate of recidivism amongst (a) child sex offenders, (b) other sex offenders, (c) violent crime offenders and (d) other classes of offender. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: The most recent re-offending rates by offence sentenced were published in November as Re-offending of Adults: Results from the 2003 Cohort, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 20/06. The report is available online at http://www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb2006.pdfhttp: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb2006.pdf and covers offenders starting community sentences or being discharged from prison in England and Wales in the first quarter of 2003. Actual re-offending rates by sentenced offence can be found in Table A2 and are illustrated in figure six.
Evidence suggests that offenders do not specialise in the type of offences that they commit. In the sample used for this publication, only 29 per cent. of those who re-offended committed their first re-offence in the same type as their original offence.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the adjusted re-offending rate for persons on community orders was during the two-year period following completion of the order at the latest date available. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Information regarding re-offending data after the community order has been completed is not readily available. Re-offending data are calculated from the commencement of the community order or from the completion of a custodial sentence.
Re-offending rates are no longer adjusted. Previously, reconviction data were adjusted to take account of pseudo-convictions which were offences that occurred before the sentence but processed during the sentence. As recidivism is now measured using re-offending, adjustment for pseudo-convictions is no longer needed.
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contractors have referred breaches of curfew orders to the Release and Recall Section in each quarter for which figures are available; how many of these breaches were referred onto the police; and what the average time was between a referral to the Release and Recall Section and the informing of the police. 
[holding answer 18 December 2006]: At the start of the Home Detention Curfew Scheme in January 1999, there were three electronic monitoring contractors operating across England and Wales. New contracts were negotiated in 2005 resulting in two contractors taking over the operation. The contractors are responsible for all electronic monitoring schemes, including that of Home Detention Curfew. Release and Recall Section within the National Offender Management Service is responsible for the recall of
offenders who have been released on HDC whereas the responsibility for breaching curfew orders falls to the courts.
The contractors are required to notify Release and Recall Section of breaches of the curfew condition by offenders on Home Detention Curfew. Figures for breaches are broken down annually. While reconfiguring this information into quarters would incur disproportionate cost, the following table provides the total number of offenders recalled to custody by Release and Recall Section for breaching the conditions of Home Detention Curfew since the scheme was first introduced in January 1999.
Release and Recall Section notifies the police in every case where an offender is recalled to custody, and have a target to do this within 24 hours of being notified by the contractor of the breach of curfew. Throughout the entirety of the scheme there has been almost 100 per cent. compliance with the target.
|Total number of offenders recalled to custody by Release and Recall Section for breaching the conditions of Home Detention Curfew since the scheme was first introduced in January1999|
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 4 December 2006, Official Report, columns 189-90W, on the retirement age, what his Departments policy is on the application of the national default retirement age to staff below the senior civil service. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|