|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hanson: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has in place a comprehensive drug treatment framework, based on the National Treatment Agencys revised Models of Care, to address the different needs of drug-misusers in prison. The interventions available are designed to meet the needs of low, moderate and severe drug misusersirrespective of age, gender or ethnicity.
NOMS does not collate centrally the number of individual prisoners accessing drug interventions. However, the following table shows the number of interventions delivered in the last full financial year (2007-08) in adult prisons by intervention type. Individual prisoners may have accessed more than one of these interventions in the time period.
|Intervention type||Interventions delivered 2007-08|
|(1) Programmes available in prison are split into four main categories: cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), The 12-Step approach, Therapeutic Communities (TCs), Short Duration Programme (SDP).|
(2) Drug and alcohol detoxification data cannot be disaggregated.
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent reductions there have been to budgets of (a) prisons and (b) other detention facilities in respect of the financial year 2008-09; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Hanson: Prison budgets for 2008-09 have not been reduced below 2007-08 levels. However, among various changes to prison budgets (e.g. for inflation, increased capacity, efficiency measures etc.) there was a package of savings totalling £29 million directed at public sector prisons, which included local efficiencies; further clustering of services; and a standardisation of the core day in most prisons which took place in June 2008.
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many people have been (a) prosecuted for and (b) convicted of common prostitution, loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution under the terms of the Street Offences Act 1959 in each of the last two years; and how many of them were (i) UK citizens, (ii) EU foreign nationals and (iii) non- EU foreign nationals; 
(2) how many people have been (a) prosecuted for and (b) convicted of placing an advertisement relating to prostitution in each of the last two years; and how many of them were (i) UK citizens, (ii) EU foreign nationals and (iii) non-EU foreign nationals; 
(3) how many people have been (a) prosecuted for and (b) convicted of kerb-crawling in each of the last two years; and how many of them were (i) UK citizens, (ii) EU foreign nationals and (iii) non-EU foreign nationals. 
Maria Eagle: The information requested covering offences relating to prostitution is provided in the table for 2006 and 2007 (latest available). The data held centrally by my Department on the Court Proceedings Database do not contain information about the nationality status of the offender other than the information that may be gleaned from the offence itself.
The figures given relate to defendants for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
|The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to prostitution, by year, 2006 and 2007( 1,2)|
|Offence||Statute||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty|
|(1) Figures given are on a principal offence basis.|
(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. 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.
Office for Criminal Justice ReformEvidence and Analysis unit
Mr. Hanson: Table 1 as follows shows the one year reoffending rates for offenders leaving custody in the first quarter of the years 2000 to 2006 (data for 2001 are unavailable due to problems with archived data for community sentences). The table shows the proportion of offenders that committed at least one further offence and the number of further offences committed per 100 offenders.
|Table 1: One year reoffending rates, offenders leaving custody, 2000-06|
|Number of offenders||Proportion of offenders offending (one year) (percentage)||Number of offences per 100 offenders (one year)|
Two year reoffending rates are available for the 2000 to 2005 cohorts. For these cohorts, the only figures available are the proportion of offenders who committed a further offence within two years. These figures are shown in table 2 as follows.
|Table 2: Two year reoffending rates, offenders leaving custody, 2000-05|
|Number of offenders||Proportion of offenders offending (two years) (percentage)|
It should be noted that comparisons between the one and two year rates should be interpreted with caution. This is due to a slight improvement in the method used to count offenders released from custody (or starting court orders under probation supervision) when we moved to measuring reoffending over one year rather than two.
We have had real success in reducing the reoffending of offenders released from custody. Between 2000 and 2006 the number of reoffences committed by offenders released from custody has fallen 15.1 per cent.
The figures showed a 22.9 per cent. fall in the frequency rate from 189.4 to 146.1 offences per 100 offenders between 2000 and 2006.The number of adult reoffences classified as most serious fell 11.1 per cent. from 0.78 to 0.69 offences per 100 offenders.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the reoffending rate among prisoners suffering from severe psychiatric disorders in each year between 2003-04 and 2007-08; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Hanson: There are no relevant figures for prisoners, but they are published for offenders who have been diverted to hospital. The bulletin, Statistics of Mentally Disordered Offenders, covering England and Wales, summarises information about mentally disordered offenders detained as restricted patients in psychiatric hospitals; it also provides information on their re-offending rates. The last bulletin is for 2006:
This shows that, for the combined figures of those released in 1999-2004 and then followed up for two years, 2 per cent. re-offended through violent or sexual offences; and 7 per cent. through any offence. These figures only relate to those first released on a conditional discharge, and exclude those recalled.
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many court orders have been issued for the repossession of homes in the Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency in each year since 2001. 
Bridget Prentice: Although figures for the Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency are not available, the following table shows the number of mortgage and landlord possession orders made in Bromley, Dartford, Gravesend and Woolwich county courts from 2001 onwards.
Obviously, Bromley, Dartford, Gravesend and Woolwich county courts also cover areas other than Bexleyheath and Crayford and therefore not all possession actions at these courts will relate to this constituency.
|Table 1: Number of mortgage( 1) possession orders made( 4,5) in Bromley, Dartford, Gravesend( 6) and Woolwich county courts, 2001 onwards|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|