Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 July 2007 : Column 1478Wcontinued
Compensation Act 2006
Electoral Administration Act 2006
Criminal Defence Service Act 2006
Fraud Act 2006
Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006
Inquiries Act 2005
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
Courts Act 2003
Criminal Justice Act 2003
European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003
European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002
The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
Land Registration Act 2002
Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Act 2002
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many overseas visits were made by (a) officials and (b) Ministers within his responsibility, and at what cost, in each year since 1997. [151654]
Maria Eagle: Since 1999, the Government have published on an annual basis, a list of all overseas visits by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500, as well as the total cost of all ministerial travel overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. Information for 2006-07 was published on Wednesday 25 July 2007. All travel is undertaken in accordance with the civil service management code and the ministerial code. Providing information on the total number of visits by officials and Ministers and the costs of all visits would incur disproportionate cost.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average fine has been for persons convicted of an offence under section (a) 14(3) and (b) 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988. [152860]
Maria Eagle: Information collected centrally, and held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, on police action taken for motoring seat belt offences is combined and does not distinguish between the offence of driving/riding in a motor vehicle not wearing a seat belt (s14 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988) and that of driving a motor vehicle with child not wearing a seat belt (s15 (2) and 15 (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988).
Section 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as inserted by the Road Safety Act 2006) came into force on 27 February 2007. Data on its operation will be available in 2009.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice by what means the manpower needs of the National Offender Management Service are assessed; and what processes are in place to ensure such needs are met. [152351]
Maria Eagle: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is a commissioner of services. NOMS assesses and determines its direct staffing needs by the normal budget and planning cycles with due regard to broader Government policies.
The national probation service
The 42 probation areas within the national probation service are required to supply detailed workforce
information to NOMS on a quarterly basis. This information is collated and published in the form of a quarterly work force information report. This report is used to identify trends and to inform strategic decisions about future requirements.
Local probation areas are invited to bid annually for the number of centrally funded trainee probation officer places they require. This enables them to ensure that they maintain a sufficient flow of qualified probation officers in the work force. Other grades of staff are recruited locally, as required by the local area probation board.
NOMS funds probation officer training via the Diploma in Probation Studies programme and also provides materials and some funding for the training of probation services officers.
As at December 2006 (the latest figures available), the national gap against active vacancies was 3.87 per cent. (0.84 per cent. for probation officers and 3.03 per cent. for probation service officers).
Staffing requirements in the public sector Prison Service are collated centrally based on returns by each establishment and headquarters group. Recruitment is undertaken according to the needs of establishments and geographical areas. This is a flexible approach according to needs. These plans are monitored against actual staff numbers monthly by senior managers.
As at 30 June 2007, the current national gap between total staffing availability against requirement in the unified grades was 1.3 per cent. (344 staff).
Nick Herbert: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) very high risk and (b) high risk prisoners are serving sentences in open prisons. [150501]
Mr. Hanson: Only prisoners classified as category D, the lowest security category, and thus assessed as presenting a low risk, are eligible for open conditions.
In the case of offenders sentenced to indeterminate sentences, they may be placed in open conditions only on a recommendation of the Parole Board, which has been accepted by the Secretary of State.
In either case, offenders will be placed in an open prison, following an individual and rigorous risk assessment. In all cases, the protection of the public is paramount.
The National Offender Management Service now also uses the Offender Assessment System (OASys) in order to assess the risk of serious harm represented by offenders. Probation officers have been undertaking OASys assessments for offenders already placed in open prisons, following the risk assessment processes that were in place at the time.
According to the OASys assessments, as at 26 July, there were three offenders in all open prisons who had been assessed as very high risk of serious harm. At the same date, according to information provided so far by open establishments, there are around 250 offenders in all open prisons who have been assessed as high risk of serious harm.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) high risk and (b) very high risk prisoners are housed at Leyhill open prison; and how many in each category are housed in open prisons nationally. [150993]
Mr. Hanson: Only prisoners classified as category D, the lowest security category, and thus assessed as presenting a low risk, are eligible for open conditions.
In the case of offenders sentenced to indeterminate sentences, they may be placed in open conditions only on a recommendation of the Parole Board, which has been accepted by the Secretary of State.
In either case, offenders will be placed in an open prison, following an individual and rigorous risk assessment. In all cases, the protection of the public is paramount.
The National Offender Management Service now also uses the Offender Assessment System (OASys) in order to assess the risk of serious harm represented by offenders. Probation officers have been undertaking OASys assessments for offenders already placed in open prisons, following the risk assessment processes that were in place at the time.
According to the OASys assessments, in Leyhill Open Prison, as at 26 July, there were two offenders who had been assessed as very high risk of serious harm and 48 offenders who had been assessed as high risk of serious harm.
According to the OASys assessments, as at 26 July, there were three offenders in all open prisons who had been assessed as very high risk of serious harm. At the same date, according to information provided so far by open establishments, there are around 250 offenders in all open prisons who have been assessed as high risk of serious harm.
Mr. Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many three-bed cells are in use in each institution being used by the Prison Service in England and Wales. [152788]
Mr. Hanson: The number of three-bed cells are shown in the following table. Only 36 of these establishments have three-bed cells. The cells at Birmingham, Preston, Gloucester, Leyhill, North Sea Camp and Whatton are currently not in use as of 24 July 2007.
Number of three-bed cells in use in each prison establishment as of 24 July 2007 | |
Establishment | Number of cells with a maximum capacity of three |
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the cost of the planned replacement of the uniform of prison officers working in young offender institutions. [152018]
Maria Eagle: Officers working in the juvenile estate wear a relaxed style of uniform consistent with the Prison Service's approach to working with this age group. Various permutations are permitted at the discretion of Governors at prisons housing more than one category of prisoner.
Implementation was organised locally and staged across a two year period. Any attempt to ascertain additional costs to the Prison Service would therefore be complex and would incur disproportionate costs.
Mr. Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people were convicted of a crime while serving a prison term in each of the last 10 years, broken down by category of offence. [150149]
Mr. Hanson: Information is not available on the number of offences committed in prison which subsequently lead to court proceedings.
Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the reoffending rate was of prisoners from each prison in the latest period for which figures are available. [152086]
Mr. Hanson:
Re-offending rates are not available for individual prisons. Prison information is not included in the standard datasets used to calculate the national
level re-offending rates. In addition, since many prisoners serve their sentence in a number of different prisons it is not possible to relate their subsequent re-offending to a single prison.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the possible use of spare capacity in secure psychiatric hospitals to accommodate (a) male and (b) female adult sentenced prisoners. [152349]
Mr. Hanson: Since taking up his position my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on this subject.
There were discussions at ministerial and official level between the Home Office and the Department of Health prior to 9 May 2007 and the creation of the Ministry of Justice. These discussions continued at official level once responsibility for prison policy transferred to the Ministry of Justice.
HMP Kennet, which opened in June 2007, was converted from a former secure hospital. There are few unused mental health units in existence and it takes considerable time and investment to convert them meaning that building new capacity in existing prisons usually represents better value for money. Any spare mental health capacity is usually in beds within units, rather than whole units, and so is not suitable for redesignation.
If an individual is serving a prison sentence and suffers from severe mental illness, they can only be transferred to detention in mental health secure accommodation if they meet the strict criteria of the Mental Health Act 1983. Detention in secure NHS facilities other than under the Mental Health Act 1983 would be unlawful.
Future prison capacity is being considered by Lord Carter of Coles who is due to report in the autumn of 2007.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |