|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people have been (a) investigated, (b) cautioned, (c) tried and (d) convicted for offences relating to fraud and forgery in each year since 1997. 
Claire Ward: The number of persons cautioned, proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts, for offences relating to fraud and forgery, in England and Wales, 1997 to 2007 (latest available) is shown in the table.
The cautions statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been cautioned for two or more offences at the same time the principal offence is the more serious offence.
Proceeded against and found guilty data are on the principal offence basis. The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons 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 persons cautioned, proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts, for selected offences relating to fraud and forgery in England and Wales, 1997 to 2007( 1,2,3,4,5,6)|
|Cautioned||Proceeded against||Found guilty|
|(1) The offence group of Fraud and Forgery includes 'Indictable only' and 'triable-either way offences', it does not include summary offences. 'Indictable only' are the most serious breaches of the criminal law and must be dealt with at the Crown Court. 'Triable-either-way offences' may be tried at either the Crown Court or at magistrates courts.|
(2) From 1 June 2000 the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force nationally and removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and replaced them with reprimands and final warnings. These figures have been included in the totals.
(3) The cautions statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been cautioned for two or more offences at the same time the principal offence is the more serious offence.
(4) Fraud and Forgery includes the following offence classes:
Fraud by Company Director etc.
Forgery etc. of Drug Prescription
Other Forgery etc.
(5) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence 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.
(6) 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 and police forces (police forces only for cautions though). 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.
OCJR-E&A: Office for Criminal Justice Reform-Evidence and Analysis Unit, Ministry of Justice
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many grants have been made by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform in the last 12 months; and what the total amount of those grants is. 
Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to paragraph 9.21 of the UK Strategy for Countering International Terrorism, Cm 7457, how many Muslim chaplains have received training from the National Offender Management Service (NOMS); where they are based; what estimate he has made of the size of the population they serve; what other NOMS staff have received further such training; where they are based; and at what cost to his Department the training has been provided. 
Maria Eagle: As part of the National Offender Management Service's programme of work to address the risks associated with violent extremism and radicalisation, a series of briefings, written material, and training events have been delivered at both national and local level to a range of operational and non-operational staff working across prisons and probation, including Muslim chaplains. At present, there is no single central point for management information relating to training for staff across NOMS. Given the range of people employed directly by NOMS in public service prisons and in national and regional offices, as well as those employed directly by probation areas and trusts, obtaining information on associated costs to the Ministry of Justice would involve identifying and contacting sources across numerous locations and prove disproportionately expensive.
Muslim chaplains, working as part of the prison's chaplaincy team, work with the entirety of the prison population, including staff, not just with Muslim prisoners, although figures show that as of March 2009 the Muslim population of the prisons estate stood at 9,930.
Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much the National Offender Management Service spent on consultants in financial year 2008-09; and how much was spent on consultants specifically for training and development purposes. 
Mr. Straw: Expenditure on external consultants by the National Offender Management Service in the financial year 2007-08 (latest available figures) was £6.9 million of which £3.5 million relates to HM Prison Service.
The information requested for how much was spent on consultants specifically for training and development purposes is not held centrally and would involve a manual trawl of each unit responsible for this work at a disproportionate cost.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the outturn expenditure on (a) the National Offender Management Service Head Office and (b) the Probation Service was in (i) 2007-08 and (ii) 2008-09. 
Although the expenditure heading in the published accounts is called NOMS headquarters, the £1,114 million expenditure does not solely represent the administration costs of running NOMS headquarters. The figures in the following table show that the majority of the expenditure related to centrally managed front line services, including electronic monitoring, prisoner escort services and prison and probation property. Other services at the centre of NOMS such as the prison and probation ombudsman, HM Inspector of Prisons and Public Protection are directly related to front line services.
|NOMS headquarters expenditure for 2007-08||£ million|
The administration costs of running NOMS headquarters in 2007-08 were £76 million; or £151 million if HM Prison Service's administration costs are included. This is 1.6 per cent. or 3.2 per cent. respectively of the total NOMS resource expenditure.
The £557 million expenditure on prison and probation property, estates and capacity planning relates to costs associated with the custodial and probation estate including: capital charges; estate management including major maintenance; and, where applicable, rent, rates, insurance and utilities.
The information cannot be provided because the National Offender Management Service Agency Resource Accounts for 2008-09, and the National Probation Service Consolidated Accounts for 2008-09, have not yet been finalised and audited by the National Audit Office prior to their sign-off by the agency's director general.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what reports he has received of allegations of the systematic gathering of information by the States of Jersey police on elected members of the States of Jersey. 
Mr. Wills: I have received updates about the allegations referred to. This is currently a matter under investigation by the Wiltshire Constabulary at the request of the Government of Jersey. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this time.
Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what discussions he has had with HM Revenue and Customs on the implementation of the new provisions in the Political Parties and Elections Bill on non-resident donors. 
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what guidance his Department provides to HM Prison Service on the procurement of halal meat; and whether that guidance differentiates between stunned and pre-stunned meat. 
There is no agreed national or international standard for Halal products. Additionally differing views in regard to interpretations of Islamic Law, in particular to stunning and mechanical slaughter issues, further compound the difficulty of fully ensuring consumer confidence among all Muslim prisoners when providing meals.
The NOMS Muslim adviser, together with some Muslim chaplains, has consulted widely on the issue of Halal meat. The work culminated in the introduction of a NOMS Halal Standard which has been agreed by senior Muslim scholars from across all the different Muslim schools of thought. It has also been acknowledged by a senior official at the English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX) as an example of best practice. The Halal Standard together with comprehensive commodity specifications helps ensure that all Muslim prisoners are provided with assured, quality products. Since 1 April 2009, all Halal raw poultry products have been accredited and supplied to this new standard.
If any prisoner has any doubt about the credibility of the Halal menu option offered, despite the introduction of these standards, there is always an option to choose a vegetarian or vegan option as an alternative.
"the animal may be stunned, anaesthetised or otherwise rendered wholly or partially insensible before slaughter."
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how long on average a prisoner spent in (a) production workshops, (b) education and (c) rehabilitation in each month in the last five years. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|