|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The drug related self-inflicted deaths refer to cases where an overdose of any drug resulted in death. Three of the four other non-natural deaths refer to situations where any drug may have contributed to the death but not in fatal amounts. The other case relates to a fatal attempt to smuggle drugs into prison.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2009, Official Report, columns 139-40W, on prisoners: mobile telephones, how many people have been convicted for taking an unauthorised mobile telephone or component part into a prison. 
We know that from April 2008 to September 2009, there have been 142 arrests and 36 people charged with offences under the Offender Management Act 2007, which includes taking mobile phones or components into prison.
To provide the full information requested, it would be necessary to contact all prisons and young offender institutions, ask them to check their local records and to submit this information to headquarters. This could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.
From April 2009, convictions under the Act have been included in the Home Office Counting Rules and will be published in next year's Annual Crime Statistics Bulletin (July 2010), providing a more accurate picture.
Maria Eagle: I regret that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only by approaching 135 prisons separately which would be at disproportionate cost. Prison Service Order (PSO) 4460 (Prisoners' Pay) sets out a minimum unemployed rate of £2.50 a week. The PSO has been placed in the House Library and can also be viewed at the following web address:
Prisoners' pay policy is set out in PSO 4460. Prisoners are eligible for unemployment pay if they are willing to work but the establishment cannot find suitable employment or the prisoner is unable to work. Those who refuse to work must not receive any pay.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the (a) average, (b) minimum and (c) maximum offender caseload was for a probation officer in each probation area in each year since 2002. 
|Average and maximum caseloads per p robation officer at 31 December 2008|
|Probation area||Average caseload per probation officer on 31 December 2008||Maximum caseload placed on any one probation officer on 31 December 2008|
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent progress has been made in relation to the proposal in the Youth Crime Action plan to delegate the budget for court-ordered secure remands to local authorities; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what recent assessment he has made of the implications for vulnerable young people of delegating the budget for court-ordered secure remands to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. 
Responses to the Youth Crime Action Plan consultation indicated that we should look broadly at how we can best incentivise local authorities to invest in alternatives to custody. The Youth Justice Board is, therefore, exploring options as to how we might do this, including the potential of devolving budgets for Court Ordered Secure Remands as set out in the Youth Crime Action Plan and the potential for devolving wider custody budgets. We recognise this is a complex issue and proper consideration needs to be given to the implications of any changes to the placement of vulnerable young
people. That is why the Youth Justice Board is undertaking a full analysis before providing advice to ministers in due course.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many employees in his Department and its agencies in England and Wales were subject to a basic disclosure check by Disclosure Scotland in each year since 2002. 
Bridget Prentice: In April 2007, the requirement for Baseline Personnel Security Standard (BPSS) came into effect. In May 2007 the Ministry of Justice was established and implemented BPSS with a Disclosure Scotland security check ratio of 1:5 of all new joiners (who are not subject to a Criminal Record Bureau standard or enhanced security checks).
The central recording of the numbers of Disclosure Scotland checks commenced from 1 October 2008 and up to 19 October 2009 there have been 505 checks. For the period 2002 to September 2008 it is not possible to provide the number of Disclosure Scotland checks because the Ministry holds no central records for it and its predecessor organisations. To obtain this information will require the examination of all employee records and this will incur a disproportionate cost.
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) security vetting framework has not and does not currently use Disclosure Scotland to undertake any checks for the organisation. NOMS uses the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to conduct their minimum baseline security checks.
Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average time taken to reach a decision by the Adjudicator's Office following the receipt of a complaint from a member of the public in respect of (a) a complaint relating to the Tax Credit Office and (b) an application for compensation from the Tax Credit Office was in each of the last five years. 
The Adjudicator's Office considers compensation in each case as part of the complaint handling process; no separate application is required. As such no separate figures for compensation applications are available.
Jim Cousins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in respect of how many children ordinarily resident outside the UK payments of child tax credit are being made; and what checks on the residence of children are made before payment of such tax credits; 
(2) what his policy is on obtaining evidence of a child's country of residence in relation to payment of child benefit; and what information he has on the number of children receiving child benefit who are not ordinarily resident in the UK. 
Mr. Timms [holding answer 15 October 2009]: Information about the payment of child tax credit to families with children resident outside the UK is only available at disproportionate cost. Data is available on child benefit awards to EEA nationals in respect of children resident in another member state and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on 13 October 2009, Official Report, column 787W.
Child benefit and child tax credit is intended to help families in the UK. Generally, therefore, it is not payable in respect of children resident outside the UK. However, under EC coordinating regulations on social security for migrant workers and their families, which the UK has administered since it joined the European Economic Community in 1973, a European Economic Area (EEA) national working in one member state can claim family benefits (child tax credit together with child benefit) in that member state in respect of members of their family resident in other member states.
All claims for family benefits are subject to a wide range of checks throughout the life of each claim. Where claims for family benefits are made under the EC Regulations on behalf of children living in another member state, HMRC carry out further checks to verify the information provided by the customer to prevent erroneous or fraudulent claims. These checks include requiring the relevant authorities in the member state where the worker's family resides to confirm the composition of the family and to find out whether there are any family benefits in payment in that other member state.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|