|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
John Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) arrests, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions for drink driving there were in (i) Easington constituency and (ii) the County of Durham in each year since 2002. 
The arrests collection held by my Department covers persons arrested for recorded crime (notifiable offences), by main offence group (e.g.
violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary, theft and handling stolen goods, etc.) and police force area within England and Wales. Information on summary motoring offences including those of driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs are non-notifiable and as a result are not covered by the collection.
Available information held on prosecutions and findings of guilt for offences of driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs for the years 2002 to 2005 (latest available) is provided in the following table. 2006 data will be available later this year. The data provided covers both drink and drugs offences combined, as volumes of prosecutions and convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs cannot be accurately established.
|Prosecutions at magistrates courts and findings of guilt at all courts for offences of driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs( 1) , within Durham police force area, 2002 to 2005|
|Number of offences|
|Proceedings||Findings of guilt|
|(1) Data provided covers summary offences of driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs (which cannot be reliably distinguished separately).|
1. It is known that for some police force areas, the reporting of court proceedings in particular those relating to summary motoring offences, may be less than complete.
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.
Mike Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many persons were sentenced to a period in custody for drug-related offences involving bringing the drug into the UK on their person in each of the last five years. 
Maria Eagle: It is not possible to identify separately on the Court Proceedings Database offences involving the unlawful importation of a controlled drug by bringing the drug into the country on their person as the circumstances of the offence are not collected centrally.
Information on numbers sentenced to immediate custody for the unlawful importation of a controlled drug in the last five years for which annual published statistics are available is contained in the following table.
|Number of persons sentenced1 for the unlawful importation of a controlled drug, all courts, England and Wales 2002-06, England and Wales|
|Number of persons|
|Offence description||No. sentenced||Immediate custody||No. sentenced||Immediate custody||No. sentenced||Immediate custody||No. sentenced||Immediate custody||No. sentenced||Immediate custody|
|(1) Principal offence basis. (2) Includes Class A, Class B, Class C and where Class of drug is unknown. Note: These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Source: RDS-NOMS, Ministry of Justice 11 March 2008 Ref. AHA 118-08.|
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will bring forward proposals to introduce a right for candidates to request a manual recount of ballot papers in elections where electronic counting equipment is used. 
Bridget Prentice: The current rules for local, Greater London Assembly and parliamentary elections specify (whether e-counting is used or not) that a candidate may require the returning officer to have the votes re-counted but that the returning officer may refuse to do so if in his opinion the request is unreasonable. At the GLA elections in May 2008, where e-counting equipment is to be used, the returning officer has been given the discretion to determine the extent to which any re-count involves manual or electronic counting. I have no plans to bring forward any specific proposals in regard to e-counting at this time but I will keep the issue under review.
Bridget Prentice: We are continuing to make progress on the CORE project. On 29 February 2008 the Electoral Commission made a recommendation that the Secretary of State issue a Direction to implement data standards across England, Wales and Scotland by 1 December 2009. This is a significant step towards the realisation of CORE. However, a launch date for the CORE Information System cannot be confirmed until the CORE keeper has been appointed. The Electoral Commission is the preferred choice to fulfil this role.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what expenditure has been incurred by his Department or its predecessor on the ministerial flat in Admiralty House occupied by Lord Falconer after Lord Falconer ceased using the flat; and for what purpose. 
Mike Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many staff are employed in the National Offender Management Service in the (a) Community Reintegration Team, (b) Intensive Interventions Team, (c) Attitude Thinking and Behaviour Team, (d) Performance Area Coordination Unit, (e) Prospects Unit, (f) Performance Improvement Unit, (g) Performance Management Unit and (h) Enforcement Improvement Team; what the primary responsibilities of each unit are; and how each unit is monitored for value for money. 
The work of the community reintegration team is (i) to develop and oversee policy on unpaid work for offenders under community supervision (ii) to support probation areas in their work with offenders under community supervision to help them develop their skills for life and gain access to vocational learning and employment; and (iii) to support implementation and monitor probation area performance against targets.
The work of the intensive interventions team is to (i) develop and set operational policy (ii) provide/co-ordinate central operational support to probation areas and prisons (iii) and influence wider Government strategy on the substance misuse needs of offenders under community supervision, the Intensive Alternatives to Custody programme and the correctional services contribution to the Prolific and Priority Offender programme.
The work of the attitude, thinking and behaviour team is to develop and oversee policy on community based offending behaviour programmes. OBPs are designed to teach new skills and change behaviour to help people avoid reoffending and are recommended either by the court as an additional requirement for offenders sentenced to a community disposal or for
those being released from custody on license. All programmes are accredited by a panel of experts to agreed standards and the effectiveness and implementation of programmes is constantly evaluated.
1. The recruitment and human resources management of the 42 Probation Service chief officers and board chairs.
2. The development of human resources policies, and the effective implementation of these policies, in relation to training and development, health and safety, pay and reward, and workload measurement. The unit liaises with the Probation Boards Association, the employers' organisation, and negotiates with Probation Service Trade Unions on pay, reward and conditions of service for Probation Service staff.
The prospects unit managed the delivery of the Prospects programme, which comprised of six separate projects commissioned from the public, private and voluntary sectors. Prospects was a pilot programme originally aimed at drug-using offenders serving short term prison sentences who become abstinent in custody and entered into voluntary support on release, initially in a hostel and then in move-on accommodation.
The Unit is charged with improving performance and developing capability. They operate a performance improvement framework through which they deliver services which range from internal consultancy and support to direct intervention in underperforming probation areas. They develop and disseminate best practice advice and are also responsible for a range of nationally led improvement projects.
The performance management unit is responsible for developing a single performance management system for the whole of NOMS that better reflects the key challenges of reducing re-offending and protecting the public. It is also responsible for collecting, auditing and analysing the data that underpins this system, and reporting on performance to Ministers and the NOMS board. It will provide, where necessary, the challenge to prisons and probation to improve performance. It will also develop a system for performance testing in prisons and probation, and is responsible for the policy on standards, performance measurement and compliance.
Provides support to the Director of Probation as the SRO for Community Penalty Enforcement programme and chair of the community penalty enforcement group which is one strand of the crossCJS Enforcement programme which reports to the NCJB. Monitors, manages and reports performance information for the LCJB end to end community Penalty enforcement group. Regular reports to a variety of boards.
Mr. Denis Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners are held at each (a) public sector prison and (b) privately managed prison in England and Wales; and how many were held in each category in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Hanson: The following table shows the number of prisoners held in each prison establishment in England and Wales as at 31 January 2008 (the most recent figures available) and at 30 June each year since 2003.
|June 2003||June 2004||June 2005||June 2006||June 2007||January 2008|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|