Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
30 Oct 2007 : Column 1143Wcontinued
It would be inappropriate to discuss the reasons for individual appointments as they frequently take into
account personal circumstances or developmental issues as well as any particular individual skills that a person might bring to a post.
There is no training course that would be suitable for an incoming head of PSU. As an operational senior manager Mr. Deighton would have acquired substantial knowledge of matters that have a bearing on the work of the unit. Mr. Deightons developmental needs will be assessed by his line manager as part of the prison services performance management arrangements, on an ongoing basis.
Ms Gisela Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of identity fraud being carried out as a result of information received via on-line applications for change of title administered by the Land Registry. [157095]
Mr. Wills: Very few applications are currently made online to alter the Land Register for England and Wales. Online applications can only be lodged by accredited professional customers, for example solicitors, banks and other mortgage lenders, using Land Registrys secure online system. Effective audit trails are in place and users of the system must comply with tightly drawn terms and conditions. Land Registry has no evidence, as far as it is aware, that any fraud has been perpetrated by such online application.
The vast majority of applications for alteration of the register, including applications that will give effect to change of ownership, are still lodged in paper form by professional customers who have obligations under Money Laundering Regulations and other professional obligations to check the identity of their clients. Land Registry is aware of frauds that have been perpetrated using applications in paper form. In 2006-07 it paid compensation on 24 claims arising from fraud. In the same year, it dealt with nearly 4 million applications to register transfers for value and mortgages.
Land Registry has identified that perpetration of frauds affecting the register pose a strategic risk and is reviewing the security controls and access restrictions in place for its internal and external online systems. It is also reviewing procedures for dealing with applications lodged in paper form, to see what can be done to strengthen the protection they provide against fraud.
The following safeguards are already in place;
None of the applications that can currently be made online will result in a direct change of ownership of title.
Non-professional conveyancers cannot lodge applications for the alteration of the register online.
Solicitors, banks and mortgage lenders are obliged to check and confirm the identity of clients either by their professional codes of conduct or domestic security controls.
Most applications lodged online are currently subject to Land Registry intervention, i.e. they require manual processing, allowing additional validation by Land Registrys staff.
Very few applications are lodged direct with Land Registry by non-conveyancers.
Land Registrys assessment of fraud
Land Registry is currently assessing what further security controls and access restrictions could be
introduced to reduce the possibility of information being obtained by someone who may use it for a fraudulent purpose.
Land Registrys board have approved an anti-fraud strategy and various initiatives are being undertaken to reduce the likelihood of a registration fraud being successful.
Land Registry is looking at incidents of fraud or attempted fraud both against Land Registry and more generally and is working with the police to assess what additional safeguards may be needed to prevent wrongful registration where fraud has occurred.
Land Registry has checks and processes in place, whether applications are lodged by professional customers or by non-conveyancers to help detect and prevent the registration of fraudulent applications and is working on strengthening those controls.
Land Registry reviews its systems and processes regularly to identify, amongst other things, where system and process changes are necessary.
Land Registry has taken action to raise staff awareness of ID fraud.
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) on what date Michael Spurr was interviewed as part of the Tasker investigation; and if he will make a statement; [150961]
(2) pursuant to the answer of 5 June 2007, Official Report, column 390W, on the Tasker inquiry, who the previous commissioning authority referred to in the answer was; and if he will make a statement; [150962]
(3) on what date (a) Keith Munns and (b) Nick Pascoe received a copy of the partial report of the Tasker inquiry; and if he will make a statement; [150963]
(4) on what date Keith Munns was interviewed as part of the Tasker inquiry; on what date he relinquished responsibility as commissioning authority for the inquiry; to whom he relinquished it; and if he will make a statement; [150964]
(5) on what date Nick Pascoe took over the commissioning authority role for the Tasker inquiry; who the commissioning authority was immediately before that; and if he will make a statement; [150965]
(6) who was responsible as commissioning authority for the Tasker inquiry after Keith Munns was interviewed as part of the investigation; and if he will make a statement; [150974]
(7) whether the deputy director general of HM prison service had access to the partial report of the Tasker inquiry prior to (a) agreeing to be interviewed and (b) being interviewed as part of the investigation; and if he will make a statement; [150975]
(8) who acted as commissioning authority for the Tasker inquiry between the retirement of Keith Munns and the transfer to Nick Pascoe; and if he will make a statement; [150976]
(9) on what date Ron Tasker was informed that (a) Keith Munns had ceased to be the commissioning authority for his investigation and (b) Nick Pascoe had assumed responsibility; whether a draft of his interim report had been submitted to the commissioning
authority previous to either of these dates; to whom the draft of the interim report was submitted and on what date; and if he will make a statement; [150977]
(10) what representations were received by (a) Helen Edwards and (b) Phil Wheatley on Keith Munns' role as commissioning authority for the Tasker inquiry (i) while area manager for London, (ii) at the point of his retirement and (iii) subsequent to his retirement; and if he will make a statement; [150978]
(11) whether the deputy director general of HM prison service had access to the interim report of the Tasker inquiry before being interviewed as part of the inquiry on 10 May 2007; and if he will make a statement; [150981]
(12) pursuant to the answer of 7 March 2007, Official Report, column 2057W, on the Prison Service: public appointments, to whom Keith Munns was reporting when he was supporting the completion of the Tasker inquiry report; whether he was supporting Nick Pascoe or Michael Spurr in the preparation of the interim report of the Tasker inquiry; whether Michael Spurr was acting as the commissioning authority at the time of the appointment of Keith Munns for that role; on what date that appointment took place; and if he will make a statement; [151041]
(13) pursuant to the answer of 2 May 2007, Official Report, column 1684W, on the Tasker inquiry, what the change in the terms of reference for the Tasker investigation was; and if he will make a statement; [151050]
(14) on what date the deputy director general of HM prison service first asked Nick Pascoe to assume responsibility as commissioning authority for the Tasker inquiry; on what date he became commissioning authority; and if he will make a statement; [151051]
(15) whether the deputy director general of HM prison service has held responsibility as commissioning authority for the Tasker inquiry; and if he will make a statement; [151053]
(16) pursuant to the answers of 31 January 2007, Official Report, column 201W, on the Tasker investigation, 6 March 2007, Official Report, column1941W, on the Prison Service: disclosure of information and 23 April 2007, Official Report, column 980W, on Wandsworth Prison, what the cause is of the delay in the completion of the report of the Tasker inquiry; what estimate he has made of the additional cost incurred as a consequence of these delays; when he expects the Tasker report to be (a) completed and (b) submitted; and if he will make a statement. [151075]
Maria Eagle: Due to the number and detail of the linked questions it has not been possible to provide a full response. I will write to the hon. Member once I have considered fully.
Substantive answer from Maria Eagle to Henry Bellingham:
Before the recess I wrote to you to say that I would write further in response to your questions numbered 150961-65,150974-78, 150981, 151041, 151050-51, 151053, and 151075.
I should mention from the outset that the Tasker report has now been received and accepted by the area manager for London who will be writing to the relevant individuals in the near future.
In your questions you raised various issues about the commissioning authorities. Although much of this information has been provided before I should make clear that there have only been two commissioning authorities, namely Keith Munns and Nick Pascoe (the former and current area managers for London). There was no gap between the two. Michael Spurr has never been commissioning authority and has still not seen any of the report.
Nick Pascoe became commissioning authority, as you have again already been informed on an unspecified date after 1 February 2007 following a routine line management conversation with Michael Spurr, the DDG. Ron Tasker was informed of the change on 10 May.
I should add that the commissioning authority function is primarily an administrative requirement under prison service orders and that his/her role is to set terms of reference, appoint an investigating officer, ensure adequate resources are allocated and take receipt of the investigation report on conclusion.
The first chapter of the report was submitted to Keith Munns on 9 April and to Nick Pascoe on 16 April. Keith Munns was not involved in the completion of the report, but had been retained to provide support to the commissioning authority because of his knowledge of the issues involved.
Various representations have been made to Helen Edwards and Phil Wheatley about Keith Munns' role as commissioning authority. It is the prison service's view that the role of Keith Munns was entirely appropriate and consistent with policy.
Finally, the report, which as I have said has recently been accepted by Nick Pascoe, was delayed because of the complexity and breadth of the investigation, the number of witnesses requiring interviewing (the last interview taking place on the 14th August 2007), and the amount of correspondence and questions in relation to the investigation that have required responses. The costs of completing the investigation are still being calculated.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the net cost to his Department was of industrial action by prison officers on 29 August. [155189]
Mr. Hanson: It is at the moment too early to be able to give the net cost of the industrial action by Prison Officers on 29 August as this information is still being collated from across the prison estate.
I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as the net cost of the action has been established.
Substantive answer from David Hanson to Edward Garnier:
In September you tabled a question asking to know the net costs to the prison service of the industrial action by prison officers on 29 August 2007. At the time of my reply costs were unknown as they were still being collated across the prison service. I am now writing as promised to give you the information requested.
Costs incurred to the prison service, and other parts of the National Offender Management Service at the time totalled £519,000. In addition to this £146,000 has been spent refurbishing cells damaged by prisoners at HMYOI Lancaster Farms during the industrial action by prison officers. The overall costs totalling £665,000 have been offset by salary reductions for the staff who took part in the industrial action totalling £734,666. The overall net position was therefore was a budget saving of £69,666.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the starting salary for prison officers was in May 1997, in 2007-08 prices. [160564]
Mr. Hanson: A prison officers starting salary in May 1997 was £14,430. In April 2007, the prison officer starting salary reached £17,744, with progression to the pay maximum of £27,261 reached in six years instead of 15 years as in 1997. The current pay round is under way.
Mr. Rob Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many foreign nationals released from UK prisons were (a) handed over to authorities in their country of origin, (b) released into the custody of the immigration and borders service, (c) deported and (d) released and allowed to remain in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [161435]
Mr. Byrne: I have been asked to reply.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
Mr. Rob Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what crimes had been committed by the foreign prisoners (a) handed over to authorities in their country of origin, (b) released into the custody of the immigration and borders service, (c) deported and (d) released and allowed to remain in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [161436]
Mr. McNulty: I have been asked to reply.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the potential effect on levels of radicalisation in prisons of dedicating entire prisons to foreign national prisoners. [161624]
Mr. Hanson: It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many foreign prisoners were held at HMP Peterborough in each month since 1 April 2006; and if he will make a statement. [161786]
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many foreign national prisoners were held in each category D prisons in England and Wales on the last day of each of the last 24 months for which figures are available. [161621]
Mr. Hanson: Due to the volume of data involved, it is not possible to provide the information requested in short time scales, without incurring disproportionate cost.
I will write to both hon. Gentlemen shortly with the information requested.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) British and (b) foreign national prisoners committed (i) acts of self-harm and (ii) suicide in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [161618]
Mr. Hanson: The information requested is as follows:
(a) The number of United Kingdom nationals who:
(i) were victims of a self-inflicted death(1) in prison is shown in table 1.
(ii) self-harmed in prison custody is shown in table 2.
(b) Foreign national prisoners who:
(i) were victims of a self-inflicted death(1) in prison is shown in table 1.
(ii) self-harmed in prison custody is shown in table 2.
Table 1: self-inflicted deaths( 1) in prison custody | ||||||||||
Nationality | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
(1) The Prison Service definition of self-inflicted deaths is broader than the legal definition of suicide and includes all deaths where it appears that a prisoner has acted specifically to take their own life. This inclusive approach is used in part because inquest verdicts are often not available for some years after a death (some 20 per cent. of these deaths will not receive a suicide or open verdict at inquest). Annual numbers may change slightly from time to time as inquest verdicts and other information become available. |
Next Section | Index | Home Page |