|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to the public purse was of (a) installing and (b) maintaining CCTV surveillance in London in each of the last five years, broken down by borough. 
Previously, closed circuit television (CCTV) has been provided using a range of national and local funding streams. The principal fund has been the crime reduction programme from 1999 to 2003 which invested £170 million in CCTV schemes.
Currently, crime reduction funding is allocated directly to local authorities through the Safer Stronger Communities Fund. These funds finance a variety of interventions, including CCTV, to tackle local crime priorities.
Margaret Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will list the (a) internet service providers, (b) social networking sites and (c) other IT companies which have adopted the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre's report abuse mechanism. 
However, the Home Secretary's Task Force for Child Protection on the internet has set up a working group which includes representatives from social network providers, law enforcement and children's charities. This group is looking at the safety issues for children caused by the development and growth of social networking sites and is developing good practice guidelines.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long she expects to take to
consider the case of Mr. S.O. (Ref: O142114) who has applied for leave to remain under the 14-year concession but has been referred for enforcement action. 
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to commission research into the effect of changing the classification of illegal drugs on (a) levels of drugs misuse and (b) levels of drug-related harm. 
Mr. Coaker: The Government have no plans at this time to commission any research into the effect of changing the classification of illegal drugs on levels of drug misuse and/or levels of drug-related harm. The Government undertake several surveys to monitor levels of drug misuse and drug-related harm but these are predicated on the ABC classification system.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the Young Peoples Substance Misuse Partnership funding was allocated to Peterborough constituency in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 8 October 2007]: The Department of Health, Home Office, Department for Children, Schools and Families (formerly the Department for Education and Skills), and the Youth Justice Board brought together substance misuse budgets for young people into one grant, the Young People Substance Misuse Partnership Grant (YPSMPG) at a national level in 2004-05. This funding is made available in addition to mainstream funding streams.
The change in levels of funding in 2007-08 against 2006-07 need to be placed in the context of record levels of investment over the last eight years. This years allocation to Peterborough is over 30 per cent. greater than when YPSMPG allocations were introduced. Where there is a local need, the pooled treatment budget for drug treatment services can be used to provide additional funding for young peoples treatment.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether DNA and fingerprints
may be taken from individuals who are being asked to take a breathalyser test; 
(2) whether individuals not subject to charges but who were subject to a breathalyser test are entitled to (a) decline when asked to submit to fingerprinting and the taking of DNA and (b) request that the DNA and fingerprints should be destroyed; 
(3) what rules apply to the taking of fingerprints and DNA samples when individuals are asked to take a breathalyser test (a) at a police station and (b) in their vehicle; what differences there are between the rules in both cases; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: The Road Traffic Act 1988 gives a constable power to require a driver to provide a breath specimen for a preliminary breath test. This is generally taken at the roadside. Under section 6D of the 1988 Act, the driver may be arrested if as a result of the test, the constable suspects that that his/her breath or blood alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit or if for any reason the driver does not cooperate with the test and the constable suspects alcohol (or drugs) to be in the drivers body.
The purpose of this arrest is to enable a constable to require the driver to provide an evidential sample which, depending on the circumstances, may be breath, blood or urine, to be analysed to determine whether the driver may have committed a specific drink/driving offence under the Road Traffic Act.
The taking and retention of fingerprints and DNA for the purposes of investigating other offences and for identifying suspects are governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Under PACE, fingerprints and DNA cannot be taken without consent unless the driver has been arrested for, or charged with, a specific recordable offence, for example, driving with excess alcohol or when unfit to drive through drink or drugs, failing without reasonable excuse to take a preliminary breath test or failing without reasonable excuse to provide an evidential specimen for analysis. Biometric data under PACE is taken at a police station.
Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) accidental and (b) negligent discharges of firearms by police officers were reported to police forces in England and Wales in 2007. 
Mr. Coaker: This information is not collected centrally by the Home Office. However, police forces in England and Wales are encouraged to report any instances of accidental or negligent discharges of firearms by police officers to the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Association of Chief Police Officers aims to share lessons learned from these incidents with all forces to prevent them occurring again, and will consider changes to policy where appropriate at a national level.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to ensure the accountability of the City of London police force for its handling of business fraud cases; how many cases it successfully brought to prosecution in each of the last five years; and how many current cases it is dealing with. 
Mr. Coaker: The Police Authority for the City of London Police is the Corporation of Londons Court of Common Council. However, decisions on individual cases are operational matters and solely the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police for the City of London.
Data showing the number of defendants proceeded against and found guilty for Fraud and Forgery offences in the City of London police force area from 2001 to 2005 is shown in the table. The Court Proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform is unable to separate business fraud cases from other types of fraud and forgery.
I understand from the City of London Police that their Economic Crime Department, which has lead force status for the south east and which investigates all types of economic crime, has an average active caseload of around 300 investigations.
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for Fraud and Forgery offences, in the City of London police force area, 2001 to 2005( 1,2)|
|Proceeded against||Found guilty|
|(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.
RDS-OCJR, Ministry of Justice
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions are being conducted with the Scottish Executive on the impact on, and changes necessary to, its police forces and law enforcement arrangements consequent on the Governments proposal to create a new police or border force working in the United Kingdoms ports of entry; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Byrne: The Scottish Executive has discussed with the Cabinet Secretarys border review team potential implications for Scotland of the introduction of a unified border force, including potential implications for police and law enforcement arrangements.
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research the Government have (a) undertaken, (b) commissioned and (c) reviewed into the cost-effectiveness of imprisoning dependent drug users for non-violent offences. 
Mr. Coaker: There has been no Home Office or Ministry of Justice research commissioned specifically to look directly at the cost-effectiveness of imprisoning dependent drug users for non-violent offences. However, there is currently an extensive programme of research planned for the forthcoming year that will evaluate the impact of specific CJS/NOMS interventions on re-offending and what value for money they offer. The output from this research will help shape priorities across the CJS in terms of where resources are likely to be most effectively targeted for protecting the public and reducing re-offending.
In addition, findings from a new study of drug treatment in the community (DTORS) will be published later in 2007. This study includes dependent users in treatment who have been referred via both CJS and non-CJS routes. Information on drug treatment in the community can provide valuable lessons to be learnt for treating dependent drug users in prison and the cost effectiveness of such treatment.
Finally, I refer the hon. Member to 9 March 2007, Official Repor t, column 2315W, in which the former Home Office Ministermy hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe)outlined the programme of research in place to evaluate CJS/NOMS interventions on re-offending; and 9 July 2007, Official Report, column 1319W, in which the Home Secretary outlined some of the many measures in place to address drug-related crime.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) robberies and (b) burglaries were reported in each London constituency in each of the last five years; and how many of these resulted in convictions. 
Mr. Coaker: Data at specific constituency level are not available. The numbers of robbery and burglary offences recorded by the police, from 2002-03 to 2006-07, for each Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) in London are given in the following tables.
The following tables show the number of defendants found guilty at all courts for burglary and robbery in Greater London for the years 2001 to 2005, and is taken from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform. Data for 2006 will be available in November this year.
Caution must be taken in comparing recorded crime statistics with convictions statistics as these are from two different databases and recorded in quite different ways. Recorded crime data is provided on a financial year basis and counts offences whereas court proceedings data are on a calendar year basis and count offenders. Therefore, these two separate data-sets are not directly comparable.
|Table 1: Robbery offences recorded in each London Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|