|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons arrested have had to be moved for detention outside the station area in which they were arrested because all cells were already occupied in circumstances where some of those cells were being used as part of Operation Safeguard. 
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules apply to the detention of people for long hours by (a) the police and (b) immigration authorities; what those rules say about detainees receiving food and drink; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. McNulty: Section 41 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 provides that an arrested person may be detained for up to 24 hours at a police station. Section 42 provides that the period of detention may increase by a further 12 hours on the authority of a superintendent. Sections 43 and 44 provide that any period of detention beyond 36 hours and up to a maximum of 96 is permissible on application to and the authority of a magistrate. Under the provisions of the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2004, a person may be held under immigration powers in a police cell or immigration short term holding facility for up to five days. This may be extended by two days if removal directions are in place.
The PACE code of practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers (Code C) require that in any 24-hour period of detention, a person is offered one main meal and two light meals. Soft drinks must be offered with each meal and upon any reasonable request between meals.
This provision applies if a person is detained at a police station on behalf of the Immigration Service. Persons detained in immigration short-term facilities are provided with food and a hot or cold drink on arrival and, within reason, upon request.
Mr. McNulty: Two audits were carried out in August 2002, and the Home Office reported to Lord Falconer that the general position on data accuracy was far more favourable than had previously been suggested. The exercise found that in 94 per cent. of cases, the key information was recorded entirely accurately, and that in the remaining 6 per cent. some inaccuracies were found but, in the majority of instances, the inaccuracy was not critical.
In 25 cases (involving 11 persons), the PNC record contained some inaccuracy as to name or date of birth. Nevertheless, nine persons would have been correctly matched on PNC, and the other two (0.08 per cent. of the total sample) might have been matched through other available information.
In 64 cases (28 persons), there was no trace of the person on the PNC. This is clearly a potentially worrying problem. But, in practice, the offences involved were less serious (although some 16 per cent. had resulted in a custodial sentence). Of the 48 cases
brought by the police, 29 were various driving offences, eight related to theft, burglary or robbery, five to failure to surrender, and five to other offences classified as not serious and non-violent. The one remaining case was of ABH. No sexual offences, or more serious offences of violence, were involved. The research found that the more serious offences are more likely to be recorded correctly on the PNC.
It is important to note here that the first exercise did not take specifically into account other factors which might explain why a conviction is correctly not recorded on the PNC. The later exercise on sex offences revealed that, in a number of instances in which the PNC had appeared to be in error, subsequent events had led to a record being wipedfor example, where there had been a successful appeal, or the offender had died.
There were 29 impending prosecution cases (i.e. where an arrest/summons report had been entered on the PNC but the court results had not been logged). The programme of work which HMIC has been overseeing to improve the timeliness of data inputting has improved the position here. In the case of an enhanced disclosure, a local police intelligence check should identify an impending prosecution case and result in the court result being added if it is available.
Finally, there were 125 other cases in which the PNC had a record of the person concerned but details of an offence and conviction were missing. Again, the offences were less serious in nature. 79 per cent. were various driving offences, failure to surrender, false accounting and various other offences categorised as non-violent. There were three offences of assault or ABH, three drugs-related offences, and 16 grouped as theft, burglary or robbery.
Of 67 persons on PNC who were found to have an offence missing, 85 per cent. had at least two previous equivalent or more serious convictions (and 66 per cent. had five or more previous offences). In a high proportion of these cases, a missing conviction is considered unlikely to have a material impact on an employment decision.
Two thematic inspections were carried out by Her Majestys inspectorate of constabulary (HMIC) during 2001-02 with a specific focus on the timeliness of input of initial reports or arrest or summons and finalisation of case results post court appearance. Since that time, HMIC has continued to audit individual forces on a risk-based annual schedule, examining performance against nationally agreed targets for input of records. Both the thematic inspection reports from 2001-02 and all subsequent force audits are available on HMICs website.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outturn band D council tax (a) precepts were for England in each year from 1997-98 to 2006-07 and (b) precept was for each police authority in England and Wales in 2006-07. 
|Table A: Average band D council tax precepts in England, 1997-98 to 2006-07|
|Metropolitan police authorities||Shire police authorities|
Department for Communities and Local Government.
|Table B: Precepts for police authorities in England and Wales, 2006-07|
|Police authority||Police precept on council tax (band D) (£)|
Department for Communities and Local Government and Welsh Assembly Government.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many (a) females and (b) males were recruited for the post of (i) police officer, (ii) police community support officer and (iii) special constable in each of the last five years; 
(2) how many (a) police officers, (b) police community support officers and (c) special constables were recruited in each of the last five years; and what percentage of the police workforce such new recruits represented in each of those years. 
|Police officer female and male recruits( 1) from 2002-03 to 2005-06( 2) (FTE)( 3) and recruits as percentage of total strength|
|Female recruits||Male recruits||Total recruits||Recruits percentage of strength|
|(1) Recruits included those officers joining as police standard direct recruits and those who were previously special constables. This excludes police officers on transfers from other forces and those rejoining. Data have not been previously published in this format, published data are for all joiners.|
(2 )Financial year runs 1 April to 31 March inclusive. Data are not available prior to 2002-03.
(3 )Full-time equivalent figures that have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Because of rounding, there may be an apparent discrepancy between totals and the sums of the constituent items.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|