|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Resignations||Percentage of staff|
|(1 )Data not available.|
(2 )Establishment not open as a separate entity.
(3 )Resignations are not recorded separately from all leavers in these establishments.
Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps the National Offender Management Service has taken in response to representations from the Prisoners Families Helpline as regards visit booking arrangements at HMPs Risley, Wandsworth and New Hall. 
Mr. Hanson: New Hall has undertaken a thorough review of its systems following representations from the Prisoners Family Helpline. Booking hours have been extended and no subsequent complaints have been received since implementation on 27 September 2007.
At Wandsworth solutions are being sought to speed up the booking process and, since 2006, both remand and convicted prisoners are able to book their own visits internally. It is also open to all visitors to book their next visit before they leave Wandsworth.
Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) if he will commission a report from the National Offender Management Service on the steps it is taking to provide an effective booking system for prison visits; 
Mr. Hanson: There are no plans to commission a report from the Prison Service, which holds policy responsibility for these matters on behalf of NOMS. The Prison Service is aware of the difficulties many visitors experience when trying to book visits. The procedures and resources for booking visits are at the discretion of governors and directors in each prison, although they are required to have an efficient system in place.
The Prison Service has been pursuing improvements to visits booking and alternative options are currently being explored. In 2006, guidelines were sent to all establishments setting out practical ways of improving visits booking, and an IT package has been made available to streamline the process. Prisons also have facilities to enable booking by e-mail to ease pressure on the telephone booking lines.
In September 2007 the Prison Service published a revised policy about visits, which introduced a mandatory requirement for all governors and directors to ensure that any system for visits booking is efficient. In future this will be monitored through the relevant performance standard on visits.
Information about the effectiveness of visits booking at each establishment is not collected centrally; although information about good practice at particular prisons has been disseminated as guidance to the whole estate.
Mr. Wills: I have received a number of representations concerning the voting age since July this year. This has included 12 items of correspondence, mainly from young people, and one letter from a Member of Parliament.
The method of physical restraint authorised for use in young offender institutions is known as Control and Restraint. All prison officers receive initial training and annual refresher training in the use of control and restraint. The method of restraint approved for use in secure training centres is known as Physical Control in Care. Custody officers in secure training centres receive initial training and at
least annual refresher training in these techniques. Secure children's homes are responsible for commissioning their own physical restraint training; these methods are not currently subject to approval by the Secretary of State.
The Youth Justice Board's code of practice Managing Children and Young People's Behaviour in the Secure Estate states that restrictive physical interventions must not be used as a punishment, or merely to secure compliance with staff instructions. Restrictive physical interventions must only be used as a last resort, when there is no alternative available or other options have been exhausted.
On 12 July I announced a joint review of restraint issues across the under-18 secure estate. On 8 October, Andrew Williamson and Peter Smallridge were appointed as co-chairs. They have been asked to report by 4 April 2008.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) acceptable behaviour contracts and (b) parenting orders have been issued in Cambridgeshire in each year since their introduction. 
Mr. Coaker: Data on acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) are not collected by the Home Office as they are voluntary agreements and therefore not suitable for central data collection. However, surveys of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) indicate that over 25,000 ABCs have been made since October 2003. The Home Office recently issued updated and comprehensive guidance for practitioners on the use of ABCs.
Parenting orders are a matter for the Ministry of Justice. However I understand that they were piloted between 30 September 1998 and 31 March 2000 but data showing the breakdown by area are not available for that period. 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.
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.
|Table A: Parenting orders related to youth offending or anti-social behaviour and non attendance reported by Cambridgeshire and Peterborough YOTs:|
|Cambridgeshire YOT||Peterborough YOT|
|Youth offending or anti-social behaviour||Non attendance where YOT involved||Youth offending or anti-social behaviour||Non attendance where YOT involved||Total|
|(1) See table B.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|