|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Central data do not use the collective term violence therefore assault data have been provided. Assault data are complex and may include threatening behaviour, projection of bodily fluids, other non-contact incidents and allegations. Information on assault incidents may involve more than one assailant or more than one victim. In a proportion of incidents only the victim is known.
The information is set out as follows but is subject to important qualifications. The Prison Service Incident Reporting System processes high volumes of data which are constantly being updated. The numbers provide an indication of overall numbers but should not be interpreted as absolute. The numbers supplied refer to the number of individual assault incidents. Assault information is recorded at establishment level in four categories: Prisoner on Prisoner, Prisoner on Officer, Other (i.e. non-prisoner perpetrators) and Prisoner on Other. The recorded incidents of assaults on prison officers are not completely exclusive to officers; establishment recording sometimes includes assaults on other prison staff, i.e. non-uniform staff in this category.
|Prisoner on prisoner||Prisoner on officer||Prisoner on other||Other||Total|
|(1) Due to improved recording over the years, particularly for fighting, figures from 1998 to 2001 are not directly comparable with those from later years.|
A small number of unclassified assault incidents have been excluded from this table.
There is no disciplinary offence of theft under the Prison Rules, but the following table shows the number of offences by prisoners under Prison Rule 51(5) takes improperly any article belonging to another person or to a prison punished at adjudications in prisons in England and Wales from 1999 to 2006 (the latest year available).
These figures, based on adjudication data, have been extracted from Prison Statistics, England and Wales
1999-2002, and the Offender Management Caseload Statistics (OMCS) 2003-2006. The OMCS for 2006 and supplementary tables are available on the Ministry of Justice website at
where links to earlier publications may also be found. The OMCS do not include information on whether articles were taken from other prisoners or from staff, nor on the number of cases that may have been dealt with by the police (which would normally include those where the theft was accompanied by the use or threat of serious violence, or a weapon), nor those where the disciplinary charge was not proven.
The table also shows the number of other offences punished at adjudication, which has been calculated by subtracting the total number of violent offences (including all assaults, detaining another person, and fighting) and offences of taking improperly from the total of all offences for each year.
|Taking improperly||Other offences|
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 21 July 2008, Official Report, column 1247W, on prisons: mental health services, what the weekly cost is of commissioning treatment for an individual through a therapeutic community at (a) HMP Blundeston, (b) HMP Dovegate, (c) HMP Gartree, (d) HMP Grendon and (e) HMP Send; and what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the treatment of people in prisons with severe personality disorder. 
Maria Eagle: Information on the weekly cost of commissioning treatment within therapeutic communities is not collected separately nor reported centrally. A number of factors affect the costs of prisons and so comparisons must be made with caution. These factors include: the size of prison, its age, design, the occupancy level, the prison security level, the type of prisoner and the activities carried out in the prison. All of the therapeutic communities operating within prisons are part of a larger establishment or grouping and although the accommodation of each community is separate and distinct, costs are reported as part of the whole. The establishment costs per prison place are listed as shown, alongside the number of therapeutic community places provided in each institution.
|Establishment||TC places||CNA of prison||Cost per place (£)|
The Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health have over the past seven years, worked together to establish a range of pilot services for dangerous offenders with severe personality disorder. As part of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder Programme, a total of 150 places are available in prisons and 191 plus in secure hospitals. These treatment programmes are in the process of being independently evaluated, to help inform decisions about the future shape and direction of such services.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department plans to take in response to the recent child restraint rules court judgment; and if he will make a statement. 
The effect of the Courts decision is to remove the legal authority for custody officers to remove trainees at secure training centres from association with other trainees, or to use physical restraint, for the purpose of ensuring good order and discipline at the centre. The Youth Justice Board has advised secure training centres on the immediate implications of the Courts ruling.
Maintaining good order and discipline at a secure establishment is essential if those who live and work there are to be kept safe. The Ministry of Justice and Department for Children, Schools and Families, who share joint responsibility for youth justice, have examined the Courts judgment with great care. We are applying to the House of Lords for permission to appeal.
Mr. Wills: The Witness Charter is one of a number of criminal justice reform projects delivered by Local Criminal Justice Boards. The Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) is currently conducting an assessment of the benefits the charter will have for witnesses, drawing on the experience of areas in delivering it. In addition, OCJR has also collated good practice from these areas in implementing the charter.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he plans to make a decision on the appeal relating to the Sandridge bromate contamination in Hertfordshire. 
Jonathan Shaw: DEFRA is considering a Planning Inspectors report on this matter, which relates to appeals made under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Secretary of State expects to make a decision by October 2008.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the carbon price on page seven of the Financial Impact Assessment, if set at the optimal level, differs from the Shadow price of carbon set out on page 20. 
Mr. Woolas: The Shadow Price of Carbon (SPC) set out on page 20 of the Climate Change Bill: Final Impact Assessment is taken from DEFRAs cross-departmental guidance (published December 2007) on how to value the impact of Government policies on greenhouse gas emissions. The SPC captures the costs of climate change that are associated with each additional tonne of emissions, and is consistent with the carbon price referred to on page 7at the highest stabilisation level within the Stern Reviews recommended range.
The guidance adopting the SPC as the basis for valuing these impacts was fully informed by the Stern Reviews estimates of the cost of climate change. Under this approach, the SPC depends upon the expected costs of climate change, and consequently upon the emissions trajectory that the world is expected to move onto and the eventual stabilisation level that is expected. The value of the SPC used reflects the highest potential costs of climate change under the Stern Reviews recommended stabilisation range of 450-550 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent, in order to ensure that the UK is taking sufficient action to help us to achieve this stabilisation range.
DEFRA is currently reviewing the SPC, as committed to in the December 2007 publication. The scope of this review is to consider the case for moving to an SPC that is consistent with the marginal abatement cost that would be required to reach the UKs targets, rather than the current damage cost based approach. This review is ongoing.
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what purchasing process is used by his Department for the procurement of alcohol for hospitality purposes. 
Hospitality is intended to cover occasions where there is a need to provide hospitality for others. Hospitality may therefore be provided only if it is in the public interest and necessary for the conduct of departmental business to do so. As a general rule, expenditure on alcohol for hospitality purposes is not
allowed. The core-Departments catering services provider does not hold a licence to serve alcohol. Were alcohol to be purchased for hospitality purposes it should be acquired through formal purchase order, or through the Government Procurement Card, both of which methods are subject to formal authorisation procedures.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|