|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Dai Davies:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Prime Ministers oral statement of 25 July 2007, Official Report,
column 841, on national security, how many of the 30 known terror plots, 200 groupings or networks and 2,000 individuals have police and security services begun monitoring (a) between 11 September 2001 and 19 March 2003 and (b) since 19th March 2003. 
Mr. Fallon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make special arrangements to issue visas to those Iraqi nationals who have directly assisted British forces in Basra to enter the United Kingdom should they wish to do so. 
Mr. Byrne: The Prime Minister commissioned a ministerial review on 8 August 2007 of assistance that might be offered to members of locally engaged staff in Iraq. We will announce the outcome of that review shortly.
Jacqui Smith: Visitors to Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre are not fingerprinted. A new security system is being used which takes an electronic scan of a visitor's thumbprint and recognises a number of points on the thumb to enable the centre operator to maintain a record of who is in the visits room at any time. This ensures that only visitors leave at the end of a visit. The technology does not enable a fingerprint to be reproduced and the information on the system is not passed to either the Border and Immigration Agency or the Police. The thumbprint is not retained.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prospective employees at Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre have been rejected in each of the last five years after being deemed unsuitable due to a background check. 
Jacqui Smith: Individuals seeking employment at any immigration removal centre, including Yarls Wood are required to undergo pre-employment checks on their immigration and financial background, counter-terrorist checks and criminal record checks to enhanced level are also carried out. Applicants must pass all of these checks before they can be accredited.
Jacqui Smith: Handcuffs can be applied to adult detainees following a risk assessment indicating that an individual presents a control or security risk, or in response to an immediate incident. The purpose of handcuffing is to reduce the risk of: absconding; harm to the public, other detainees or staff; damage to property; preventing removal from the United Kingdom; or attempting to prevent the removal of another detainee. Handcuffs are only used when necessary and not as a matter of routine.
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research studies the Government have (a) undertaken, (b) commissioned and (c) reviewed on the effect of drugs education and prevention work with young offenders on reducing levels of (i) illicit drug use and (ii) drug-related harm; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: Young offenders are one of the key risk groups identified as more at risk of developing substance misuse problems. Government Departments consider new reports and studies as part of their daily activity to ensure that current policies are based on up to date information and evidence. Recent and current research on the effect of drug education and prevention work on young offenders' drug use and drug related harm is as follows:
The National Collaborating Centre for Drug Prevention, funded through the Department of Health, produced a review in 2006 of evidence on interventions for vulnerable groups including young offenders.
The Young People's Substance Misuse Service (YPSMS) for under-18s in custody was launched in 2004. Its development and delivery has been evaluated since 2004, undertaken by Galahad on behalf of the Youth Justice Board (YJB). This evaluation is due to be published in September 2007.
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what response he has made to the recommendation of the Electoral Commission to require local authority returning officers to check 100 per cent. of the identifiers of postal votes in election counts. 
Bridget Prentice: The Government are committed to the principle that 100 per cent. of returned postal votes should be checked. The Government will wish to move to 100 per cent. checking when it is appropriate and safe to do so, and in particular when there is deemed to be sufficient supplier capacity for checking all returned postal votes. We will work closely with the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators in order to establish when this position has been reached.
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates court for the offence of cruelty to animals, in England and Wales, for the years 2001 to 2005( 1,)( )( 2,)( )( 3,)( )( 4)|
|(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.|
(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces.
As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
(3) Statute is as follows:
Protection of Animals Act 1911.
(4) Source: Court proceedings databaseOffice for Criminal Justice Reform
RDS Office for Criminal Justice ReformMinistry of Justice
Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) parenting orders, (b) parenting contracts and (c) antisocial behaviour orders were initiated in Milton Keynes in each year since their introduction. 
Mr. Hanson: Parenting orders were piloted between 30 September 1998 and 31 March 2000 but data showing the breakdown by area are not available. Parenting orders were commenced in England and Wales in June 2000. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) has since April 2000 collected the number of parenting orders by youth offending team (YOT) area, as reported to it by youth offending teams including education-related orders where the YOT has been involved. The number of parenting orders relating to crime or antisocial behaviour from April 2000 until March 2007 and those related to non-attendance of children at school until March 2004 reported to the YJB by Milton Keynes YOT are shown in table A:
|Table A: Parenting orders related to youth offending or antisocial behaviour and non- attendance reported by Milton Keynes YOT|
|Youth offending or antisocial behaviour||Non- attendance where YOT involved|
Since September 2004, the Department for Children, Schools and Families has collected data on the number of parenting orders in England related to non-attendance of children at school and exclusion from school at local authority level. Between 1 September 2004 and 13 April 2007 Milton Keynes did not report any applications to the courts for parenting orders in the case of exclusions.
|Table B: Parenting orders made following truancy prosecution between 1 September 2004 and 13 April 2007|
Data on parenting contracts in cases of antisocial behaviour and criminal conduct is collected by the Youth Justice Board as reported by YOTs. Since recording began in April 2004 of the number of final warnings with an intervention or relevant court disposal supported by a parenting contract, Milton Keynes YOT has reported no parenting contracts in the period April 2004 to March 2007.
Recording of the number of final warnings with an intervention or relevant court disposal supported by a
voluntary parenting intervention, without a parenting contract, also began in April 2004. Milton Keynes YOT reported 31 such voluntary parenting interventions in the year April 2004 to March 2005, 41 in 2005-06 and 54 in 2006-07.
DCSF also collects data on the number of parenting contracts agreed with parents following bad behaviour/ truancy in school. The number of parenting contracts agreed in the case of poor attendance (truancy) at school between 1 September 2004 and 13 April 2007 is shown in table C.
|Table C: Parenting contracts for truancy|
The number of antisocial behaviour orders as reported to the Home Office by the Court Service where prohibitions have been imposed in the Milton Keynes borough council local authority area is shown in table D.
|Table D: Antisocial behaviour orders in Milton Keynes|
|n/a = Not available.|
1. Between 1 April 1999 and 31 May 2000 data were collected on aggregate numbers only by police force area.
2. Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
As reported to the Home Office by the Court Service.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|