|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when the pilot on the use of FP10 prescriptions for those leaving prison will be assessed; and when the Prison Service plans to introduce the use of FP10 prescriptions for those leaving prison on a prescription. 
Mr. Hanson: The initial pathfinder sites for the use of FP10 prescriptions for prisoners leaving custody have been under continual review. Regional offender health teams have earlier this month been asked to nominate a further 12 sites to build experience in each region prior to national roll-out.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many female prisoners gave birth whilst in prison and subsequently (a) requested and (b) requested and were refused a place in a mother and baby unit in each of the last five years. 
From June 2007 (the earliest date for which information is currently available) until March 2008, 221 applications were made for places in a mother and baby unit, and 10 of these applications were refused; and from April 2008 until December 2008, 178 such applications were made and 14 were refused. There is no available breakdown of these figures to show whether the baby in each case was born before or after the mother was received into prison. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many female prisoners (a) applied for and (b) were refused a place in a mother and baby unit for a baby born before they were received into prison in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Hanson: While the National Offender Management Service keeps figures for the number of female prisoners who (a) applied for and (b) were refused a place in a mother and baby unit, there is no available breakdown of those figures to show whether the baby in each case was born before or after the mother was received into prison. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what mechanisms the Prison Service has in place to ensure continuity of care for people on a methadone or other opiate substitution prescription leaving prison. 
Mr. Hanson: Continuity of methadone or other opioid substitute treatments is initiated by prison-based healthcare professionals either directly with community colleagues or via the Drug Interventions Programme team. The Drug Interventions Programme includes access to rapid prescribing to avoid breaks in treatment.
Mr. Hanson: At 30 November 2008, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 2,259 adult male prisoners who were detained in prison establishments in Wales (Cardiff, Parc, Swansea and Usk/Prescoed). The figure provided excludes young adults aged 18 to 20 and those 21-year-olds who were aged 20 or under at conviction who have not been reclassified as part of the adult prison population.
These figures are a reworking to allow for the request for adults only of those published in Table 4 of the publication Population in custody monthly tables November 2008 England and Wales, and can be found at the following website:
The Ministry of Justice has been actively seeking potential sites for new prisons in Wales and a shortlist of four possible sites has been drawn up. An announcement regarding the final decision on the location of the new prison is expected shortly
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department has made an assessment for benchmarking purposes of the Japanese system of recruitment of volunteer probation officers; and if he will make a statement. 
Probation officers in England and Wales are required by law to be fully qualified to undertake the role of a probation officer. Currently this means that they undertake a two year training programme and work towards a Degree in Probation Studies.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he plans to take to increase awareness of the public and the judiciary of offender programmes in the community and prison which have the effect of reducing reoffending. 
Mr. Hanson: The National Offender Management Service will continue to provide information and advice to stakeholders including the police and judiciary about offender programmes. There is regular liaison between senior members of the judiciary and of the Ministry of Justice, including through the National Sentencer Probation Forum", which promotes communication between sentencers and offender managers and at which there is an open exchange of knowledge, views and experience of what is effective and practical in helping to reduce crime. Work is also undertaken at a local level where liaison can prove particularly effective.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the number of reductions in reoffending that have been achieved by offender behaviour programmes among those in (a) the community and (b) custody. 
(a) There are positive indications that offender behaviour programmes may be effective in reducing reoffending for offenders in the community. For example, Offender Management and Sentencing Analytical Services (OMSAS) conducted an analysis on accredited programmes in the community (Hollis, 2007). It compared actual reoffending rates in 2006 with rates predicted on the basis of 2004 data. The reoffending rate for all offenders who had undertaken interventions was 55 per cent., based on a two-year reconviction rate. Programme completers did statistically significantly better than those who did not start or who dropped-out of programmes. The rates were 38 per cent., 61 per cent. and 64 per cent. respectively. This analysis of management information, however, cannot determine whether these differences result from programme impact.
(b) There is considerable international evidence (Wilson et al. 2005; Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006) to support the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural programmes in reducing reoffending. However, UK research examining the effectiveness of programmes in prisons has produced mixed results (Friendship et al. 2002; Falshaw et al. 2003; Cann et al. 2003).
A recent prison-based study showed that the one-year reconviction rate for both adult men and young offenders who had completed enhanced thinking skills (ETS) and reasoning and rehabilitation (R+R) interventions in prison represented a positive 2.5 percentage points difference in reconviction for adult male completers (17.0 per cent. vs. 19.5 per cent.) and a 4.1 percentage point difference for young offender completers (31.4 per cent. vs. 35.5 per cent.) compared to matched comparison groups. There was no difference
in reconviction rates between programme starters and comparison groups. See tables 3 and 4:
A study of female participants of ETS and R&R (Cann, 2006) found no statistically significant differences in one and two-year rates between offenders and a matched comparison group. See:
The most robust evaluation of the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) in England and Wales (Friendship et al, 2003) examined the impact of the prison-based programme. This compared two-year reconviction rates for prisoners who participated in the programme with those who did not. Findings indicated that the SOTP had an impact on reconvictions for sexual and/or violent offences (as a combined measure).
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the number of reductions in reoffending that have been achieved by the drug programme among those in (a) the community and (b) custody. 
(a) For offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced the community order which replaced all previous community sentences, including community rehabilitation orders (CROs) and drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs), for adult offenders. Under the Act, the court may impose a community order with a drug rehabilitation requirement (DRR). No robust assessment has been made to date of DRRs effect on reducing reoffending, however research(2) concluded that DTTOs can reduce spending on drugs and reoffending, although it was not possible to determine to what extent these changes were due to the DTTO or whether other factors also contributed.
Prisoners who completed the 12-step RAPt programme had statistically significantly lower rates of reconviction after two years than a comparison group (40 per cent. versus 50 per cent.)although there may be selection bias(4) here.
(1 )Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006). Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not.Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (Available online at: www.wsipp.wa.gov)
Holloway, K., Bennett, T. and Farrington, D. (2005). The effectiveness of criminal justice and treatment programmes in reducing drug-related crime: a systematic review. Home Office Online Report 26/05. London: Home Office.
(2) Hough. M., Clancy, A., McSweeney, T. and Turnbull, P. (2003). The impact of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders on Offending: two year reconviction results. Home Office Research Findings 184. London: Home Office.
Turnbull, P., McSweeney, T., Webster, R., Edmunds., M. and Hough, M. (2000) Drug treatment and testing ordersFinal Evaluation Report. Home Office Research Study 212. London: Home Office
(3 )Ramsay, M. (ed) (2003). Prisoners' Drug Use and Treatment: Seven Research Studies. Home Office Research Study 267. London: Home Office.
Martin, C. and Player, E. (2000). Drug Treatment in Prison: An Evaluation of the RAPt Treatment Programme. Winchester: Waterside Press.
(4 )Selection bias is a distortion of evidence or data that arise from the way that the data are collected.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average length of the (a) sentence handed down to and (b) period served in custody prior to being released on home detention curfew was by each prisoner sentenced for (i) murder, (ii) manslaughter, (iii) violence, broken down by specific offence, (iv) sexual offences, (v) robbery, (vi) burglary, (vii) theft and handling, (viii) fraud and forgery and (vix) drugs offences was in each year since 1999. 
Mr. Hanson: The following tables show the average determinate sentence length for custodial sentences given in each year from 1999 to 2007 by offence group. These figures exclude those serving indeterminate sentences (which includes all those sentenced for murder). Prisoners serving indeterminate sentences are not eligible for HDC.
Details on the period served in custody prior to release on home detention curfew (HDC) could be provided only by examining individual prisoner records at disproportionate cost. However information is available on the number of prisoners released on HDC in each year from 1999 to 2007 by offence group, as shown in the following tables. These figures can be found in Prison Statistics England and Wales, 1999 to 2002 and Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2003 to 2007, copies of which can be found in the House of Commons Library, and also on the Ministry of Justice website at:
85 per cent. of those released have completed their period of HDC successfully. Only 4 per cent. of the total number of offenders released onto HDC over the entirety of the scheme has re-offended while on HDC.
|Home Detention Curfew release by offence group( 1) , 1999 to 200 7 , England and Wales|
|Population in sentence length band||Released||Release rate (%)||Population in sentence length band||Released||Release rate (%)||Population in sentence length band||Released||Release rate (%)|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|