| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Sep 2008 : Column 1537W—continued
Crime: Rural Areas
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether she has made an assessment of the potential relationship between rural crime and the use of ketamine. [220303]
Mr. Coaker: No assessment has been made between rural crime and the use of Ketamine.
Ketamine is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Government’s message is clear that it is harmful and should not be taken. All drugs are harmful and cause significant and wide ranging problems for individuals, families and communities
from health harms (such as HIV or drug related deaths) to drug-related crime and associated antisocial behaviour and the fear that this causes. It is estimated that between a third and a half of all acquisitive crime is drug-related.
The Government’s new Drug Strategy clearly sets out our aim that we want fewer and fewer people to start using drugs and that the Government want a society free of the problems caused by drugs.
Crime: Statistics
Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures (a) her Department and (b) police services collate on (i) youth and gang-related nuisance, (ii) vandalism and damage to property, (iii) drug nuisance and drug dealing, (iv) prostitution and kerb-crawling, (v) dog and animal nuisance and (vi) harassment and intimidation; and what the lowest administrative unit is at which such figures are collated. [219063]
Mr. Coaker: The Home Office (HO), National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and police forces collect data on the following areas respectively:
(i) youth and gang-related nuisance
a. The number of incidents of antisocial behaviour (ASB), as defined by the National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) (NPIA and forces).
b. The number of incidents of ASB which are ‘youth-related’ as defined by NSIR (NPIA and forces).
c. No information is collated centrally on ‘gang’-related incidents. This may be collected by forces on a local level but the HO and NPIA do not collate this information.
(ii) vandalism and damage to property
d. Number of offences of criminal damage recorded by the police (HO and forces).
e. Additionally, the British crime survey includes estimates of criminal damage to property or vehicles belonging to private households.
(iii) drug nuisance and dealing
f. The number of (non-notifable crime) incidents where ‘drugs’ represent a characteristic or motivating factor behind the incident (NPIA and forces). Note that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and City of London Police do not collate this information.
g. The number of drugs offences recorded by the police (HO and forces).
(iv) prostitution and kerb-crawling
h. Number of offences of ‘soliciting for the purpose of prostitution’ (commonly known as ‘kerb crawling’ recorded by the police) (HO and forces).
Number of incidents of ‘prostitution-related activity’ as defined by NSIR (NPIA and forces).
i. The number of ASB ‘animal problems’ as defined by NSIR (this includes dogs) (NPIA and forces).
(vi) harassment and intimidation
j. Number of crimes of ‘harassment’ recorded by the police (HO and forces).
(vii) litter, rubbish and fly-tipping
k. The number of incidents of ASB ‘environmental damage/littering’ as defined by NSIR.
l. The number of crimes of ‘fly-tipping’ recorded by the police (HO and forces).
Forces and the NPIA collate incident data at force and basic command unit (BCU) level. Many forces collate this information at a lower level (CDRP/ward) but this will vary from force to force.
The HO collates notifiable crime at BCU, local authority and crime and disorder reduction partnership levels. Forces may collate these data at a ward level.
Full monthly crime and incident data at these reporting levels can be found on the Iquanta system at:
https://iquanta.net/
Crime statistics and the British crime survey results can be found at:
The MPS and City of London Police do not collate information on drugs-related incidents.
Crime: Tamworth
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the levels of incidence of (a) violent crime, (b) car crime, (c) robbery and (d) burglary in Tamworth constituency since 2006; and if she will make a statement. [220132]
Mr. Coaker: The available information relates to offences recorded in the Tamworth crime and disorder reduction partnership area and is given in the following table.
A number of changes have been made to recorded crime in response to suggestions in the two reviews of crime statistics in 2007. One such change is that the term ‘violent crime’ is no longer used in connection with the recorded crime statistics and we now provide figures for violence against the person. In addition, a new offence group of ‘offences against vehicles’ has also been created. This group includes offences of theft of and from a vehicle, aggravated vehicle taking and interfering with a motor vehicle.
| Specific offences recorded by the police in Tamworth | ||||
| Violence against the person | Offences against vehicles( 1) | Robbery | Burglary | |
| (1) Includes offences of theft of and from a vehicle, aggravated vehicle taking and interfering with a motor vehicle. | ||||
Crimes of Violence
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate she has made of the level of (a) knife crime and (b) violent crime against the person in each (i) county and (ii) constituency in England and Wales. [220306]
Mr. Coaker: From April 2007, police forces have been providing the Home Office with aggregate data on serious violence (attempted murder, GBH and robbery) involving knives and sharp instruments. These offences are centrally available at police force area and region level rather than County or Constituency level, and are given in Table (A) placed in the House Library.
Available data from the Homicide Index relate to offences currently recorded as homicide where the apparent method of killing was ‘sharp instrument’, as at 12 November 2007. Table (B) shows the number of such offences recorded by police force area and region in England and Wales in 2006-07 placed in the House Library.
Violent crime offences by police force area and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas for 2006-07 and 2007-08 are given in tables (C ) and (D) respectively placed in the House Library.
Crimes of Violence: Halifax
Mrs. Riordan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent crimes were committed in central Halifax in the last period for which figures are available. [220049]
Mr. Coaker: In response to the two reviews of crime statistics in 2007, the term ‘violent crime’ is no longer used in connection with recorded crime statistics and figures for violence against the person are now provided.
Recorded crime statistics are collected at crime and disorder reduction partnership (CDRP) level. Central Halifax comes within the Calderdale CDRP.
In 2007-08, there were 3,718 violence against the person offences recorded in the Calderdale CDRP. This represents a 5 per cent. fall compared with the previous year.
Criminal Records Bureau
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions the Criminal Records Bureau disclosed the personal history of one individual to another individual as a result of mistaken identity in each year since its inception; and how many complaints the Bureau has received as a result of such errors; [220700]
(2) how many applicants for Criminal Records Bureau checks were asked to supply fingerprint evidence to resolve cases of mistaken identity in each year since its inception; and what percentage of all checks this represented. [220836]
Meg Hillier: All the quality control procedures at the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) 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.
Over the past 12 months the CRB have issued 3,457,424 disclosures and have used applicants’ fingerprints 358 times to distinguish them from records held on the police national computer (PNC) to which they had originally been matched. Of these, 115 applicants were found to have been correctly matched to the record held on PNC. The number found to be incorrectly matched to a record on PNC following
fingerprints represents 0.007 per cent. of disclosures issued during the past 12 months.
No comparative data are available on either of these issues prior to the dates referred to.
Criminal Records Bureau: Standards
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many and what percentage of record checks processed by the Criminal Records Bureau were completed within (a) 10, (b) 14, (c) 25 and (d) 60 days in each year since 2002, broken down by police force area; and how many checks were not completed within 60 days; [219040]
(2) how many (a) standard and (b) enhanced record checks were processed by the Criminal Records Bureau in each year since 2002, broken down by police force area; [219166]
(3) how many certificates have been requested in respect of (a) people wishing to work in the voluntary sector, (b) unemployed people and (c) disabled people in each year since the Criminal Records Bureau's inception; how many certificates were requested in each year; and if she will make a statement; [219168]
(4) what the average waiting time was for a police check to be completed through the Criminal Records Bureau in the latest period for which figures are available; [219170]
(5) what assessment she has made of variations in police forces' performance in supplying information to the Criminal Records Bureau within 14 days; [219171]
(6) how many Criminal Records Bureau checks have been carried out in each year since 2000. [219179]
Meg Hillier: The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has issued over 16 million disclosures since inception and operates to a set of public service standards (PSS) which are to issue 90 per cent. of standard disclosures within 10 days and 90 per cent. of enhanced disclosures within 28 days.
Data concerning the average time taken to complete a disclosure by police force area are not collated by the CRB.
Average figures do not give an accurate indication of performance, since any forces' performance can be affected by a number of factors; the volume of cases sent to a force to process in any given month, the
number of staff available to process the checks and the IT resources on hand to forces. With these variables, performance can fluctuate within individual forces from one month to the next.
The CRB has been supporting those forces that have encountered problems in meeting their targets by a range of measures including the provision of additional resources, monitoring performance, providing demand forecasting data and assistance in introducing new IT initiatives.
The total number of standard and enhanced disclosures processed in each year since 2002 is shown in the following table.
| CRB checks processed | |||
| Financial year | Standard disclosures | Enhanced disclosures | Total |
| (1) April to June 2008 | |||
The CRB cannot provide figures broken down by police force area. This is because standard disclosures are processed without any requirement for the police forces to conduct checks and several different police forces may be required to conduct checks in order to produce one enhanced disclosure.
An internal service level agreement between the CRB and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has been in place since April 2006. This SLA has been agreed by ACPO on behalf of the 43 local police forces in England and Wales and the time taken by each force to complete their part of the enhanced disclosure process is measured against targets of 10 days, 14 days, 25 days and 60 days. By meeting these targets the police forces directly affect the CRB's ability to meet the public service standard for enhanced disclosures.
The following table illustrates the number of enhanced disclosure checks completed by each police force in 10 days, 14 days, 25 days, 60 days and over 60 days during 2006-07 and 2007-08.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |