|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Alun Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what standards she has set for (a) police services, (b) local authorities and (c) local crime and disorder reduction partnerships in respect of the methodology for local crime and disorder audits; and what examples of best practice she has identified. 
Mr. McNulty: Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the police service and local authorities are two of the five responsible authorities which comprise crime and disorder reduction partnerships or community safety partnerships (CSPs) in Wales.
Following a review of the partnerships provisions of the 1998 Act, the duties to produce three yearly audits and to report annually to the Secretary of State on a partnership's work and progress were repealed in 2007. They were replaced by new statutory requirements in 2007 to introduce minimum standards for partnership working based on six hallmarks of effective partnerships, providing clear statements of the core functions of CDRPs and CSPs. These include producing a strategic assessment identifying local community safety priorities and a partnership plan which sets out the approach for addressing these priorities.
'Delivering Safer Communities: A Guide to Effective Partnership Working' was issued in September 2007 to support the implementation of the statutory requirements and of the hallmarks of effective partnership. The guidance also contains a number of suggested practice case studies which represent practical solutions to support partnerships meet the statutory requirements.
The Government make it clear in the policing Green Paper that neighbourhood policing teams should always include young people in their consultations about policing priorities and also make every effort to engage hard to reach groups.
We encourage all aspects of youth engagement and encourage all police forces authorities and forces to make every effort to consult with and work in partnership with young people, both through adapting existing examples of good practice and developing new ones. We recognise that approaches will differ according to local circumstances and support partnerships between the police and other agencies where there is a coordinated approach to engaging and involving young people.
Police forces are already engaging positively with young people, for example by way of safer schools partnerships. SSPs are a successful mechanism for ensuring joint working between schools and police, with a dedicated police officer attached to a school, and liaising closely with the pupils. There are now about 500 SSPs of one form or another. Evaluations have shown that they are proving effective in improving behaviour and attendance, developing strong and positive relationships between the police and young people, and to help young people develop a sense of being part of the local community.
Expansion of safer schools partnerships (see above).
Increase after school patrols in the locality of the school and transport hubs. This is not only intended to reduce criminal and antisocial behaviour in these areas, but also to help young people feel safer, and able to interact positively with the police.
Using existing child protection legislation to ensure young people on the street at night are taken to a safe place (Operation Stay Safe).
Establishing youth forums to address the carrying of knives by young people, including young people who have been directly involved or affected by knife crime.
The YCAP also includes way of how we need to be responsive and accountable to young people to ensure they are involved in tackling youth crime and decisions that affect them and to improve the relationship between young people and the police. We will also listen to the views of young people themselves, ensuring that they
can contribute to developing solutions not just feeling that they are seen as the problem.
We welcome and encourage youth engagement and will continue to explore ways to achieve this. For example young people are regularly represented on the steering group of the YCAP, as their views are very important.
Margaret Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of digital forensic time within the police force is spent on investigating (a) online child abuse incidents, (b) e-crime and (c) terrorism. 
The Government recognises that all forensic work carried by or on behalf of law enforcement can be an essential part of evidence gathering; however each police force and law enforcement agency is given its own annual budget to be distributed where necessary to provide adequate resources.
Margaret Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the (a) demand by police forces and (b) adequacy of resources for digital forensic services in England and Wales. 
Mr. McNulty: The Home Office allocates core grants to police forces on an annual basis without stipulating where the grant should be spent. The ultimate decision on where this money should be spent lies with the relevant chief officers.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number and proportion of records held by the Criminal Records Bureau which contain incorrect information, broken down by police force are. 
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for discrimination, based on (a) sex, (b) race and (c) sexual orientation, were brought by staff of the Criminal Records Bureau in each of the last five years; and how many in each case were settled (i) in and (ii) out of court. 
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many cases the Criminal Records Bureau is known to have wrongly reported that a person has a criminal record in each year since
its inception; on how many occasions in each year such cases related to offences involving children, broken down by offence; and if she will make a statement; 
(3) how many Criminal Records Bureau checks were found to be incorrect in (a) 2005, (b) 2006 and (c) 2007; and what estimate she has made of the (i) number and (ii) percentage of Criminal Records Bureau records which are incorrect; 
(4) what measures there are to ensure that (a) information kept by the Criminal Records Bureau is accurate and up-to-date and (b) the documentary evidence to support such information is appropriately recorded. 
Meg Hillier: All the quality control procedures at the Criminal Records Bureau are geared to achieving the highest levels of accuracy. In addition, the CRB carries out a post-disclosure accuracy check that analyses all aspects of the disclosure application and its issue. This check was introduced in 2007 and is based on a statistical sample of disclosure applications and from that sample it can be ascertained that the accuracy rate for 2006-07 is 99.94 per cent. and for 2007-08 is 99.98 per cent. No comparative data are available before these dates.
The CRB operates a central database in order to record transactions that occur during the disclosure process, where applicants' personal data provided on an application form are compared against information held by the police, the Department of Health and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Although the CRB has access to conviction and other information through this process, the police and the other data sources are the data owners of material held on their respective databases and as such are responsible for the accuracy of information held thereon.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure the Criminal Records Bureau follows in recording allegations of child abuse which have not been proven; how many such allegations are on CRB records; what the procedure for the removal of an unfounded allegation is; and if she will make a statement. 
The Criminal Records Bureau compares applicant details against information held by the police, the Department of Health and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Although the CRB has access to conviction and other information through this process, the police and the other data sources above are the data owners of material held on their respective databases and as such are responsible for the accuracy of information held thereon. Therefore, the CRB would not record the number of allegations of child abuse which have not been proven. However, the CRB operate a dispute procedure to enable recipients of Disclosure
information to dispute the accuracy and relevancy of any information revealed in a Disclosure.
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in Wales were incorrectly identified as having criminal records by the Criminal Records Bureau in each year since 2002. 
Meg Hillier: The Criminal Records Bureau would need to perform a manual trawl, at disproportionate cost, of each application to ascertain whether the postcode falls within Wales, in order to identify how many applicants in Wales have been incorrectly identified in each year since 2002.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much her Department paid in bonuses to press and communication officers in each of the last 10 years; and what the (a) highest and (b) lowest such bonus was in each of those years. 
Mr. Byrne: Press and communications officers in the Home Office are employed at the Information and senior information officer grades. Total bonus payments are recorded by financial year and the following tables give details of payments made to staff within the communication directorate in the past six financial years. There are two types of bonus:
Staff performance reviews are completed annually with a bonus awarded to all staff with a performance assessment of exceptionally effective. Table 1 details the amounts that would have been paid to individual members of staff with an exceptionally effective rating.
This does not represent the total amount paid in bonuses to all staff in the relevant grades. This information and the data for the rest of the Department is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
All bonus payments are awarded with reference to the guidance contained in the Home Office Reward and Recognition scheme. Use of a special bonus allows management to respond quickly to effort or excellence. Table 2 shows the highest and lowest bonuses paid.
|Financial year||Percentage||IO (£)||SIO (£)|
|(1) The anticipated amount that will be paid for exceptionally effective performance between April 2007 and March 2008.|
Calculations are based on 2 per cent. (1 per cent . 2002-03) of the Target rate of the appropriate pay scale.
|Financial year||Total bonus payments||Highest bonus paid||Lowest bonus paid|
|(1) All awards have been made for 07/08; therefore this is the final total for the current financial year.|
Stephen Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which make and model of car she has chosen as her ministerial car to be provided by the Government car and despatch agency. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|