|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Bridget Prentice: HMCS is currently in the process of implementing the HMCS Criminal Compliance and Enforcement Services: A Blueprint for 2008 to 2012 across England and Wales. The Blueprint sets out HMCS's strategic objective for enforcement which is for a cheaper, faster and more proportionate system that primarily focuses on 'first time' compliance while continuing to apply the principles of rigorous enforcement to the hard core of defaulters. Wales is currently developing and implementing plans to increase compliance with court orders and make more efficient use of resources.
The rollout of the HMCS Modernising Money Handling Project (MMHP) in Wales has also contributed to reducing costs associated with collection of financial penalties. The objective of the MMHP was to provide an enhanced range of payment methods that optimise accessibility, convenience and low cost for the fine payer and HMCS by maximising the use of electronic payment methods. The automated systems introduced have reduced the costs associated with cash handling and processing of payments.
Mr. Straw: On 29 September at the Labour party conference I announced my intention to create a national victims' service. I and my officials have discussed the development of the national victims service with a range of partners including: Gillian Guy, chief executive of Victim Support, the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police and Sara Payne, the Victims' Champion. This service is currently being developed and the effectiveness of the service in meeting victims' needs will be core to its development.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps are being taken to increase levels of co-ordination between police constabularies to ensure that penalty notices for disorder are not repeatedly issued to the same offender. 
Mr. Straw: A 24-hour fixed penalty database (PentiP) will be available nationally from 2011. The system will record details of all PNDs and road traffic fixed penalties. At present, police officers can access the Police National Computer which records some, but not all, PNDs, as well as local records to identify if someone has previously received a PND.
Operational guidance issued to the police states that a penalty notice may not be appropriate for issue where it is known that the suspect has been issued with a number of tickets for disorder offences in the recent
past. Revised operational guidance to forces on the issue of PNDs for retail theft and criminal damage was issued on 16 July 2009, making it clear that, for these offences, only one ticket is appropriate. Guidance on PNDs for cannabis possession makes it clear that only one ticket should be issued, as part of the police three-stage escalation enforcement procedure for the offence.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he has made an assessment of the efficiency gains made by police forces consequent on the introduction of penalty notices for disorder; and if he will make a statement. 
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent assessment he has made of the merits of amending the operational guidance issued to police forces to ensure that penalty notices for disorder are issued in police custody; and if he will make a statement. 
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the outcomes were of his Department's study of criminal histories and re-offending rates of penalty notice for disorder recipients for shop theft; and when that study will be published. 
Mr. Straw: Provisional, unpublished results from a study of recipients of penalty notices for disorder (PNDs) show that of a sample of 13,800 juvenile and adult offenders given a PND for theft during 2005, 33 per cent. reoffended within 12 months of receiving the PND. 35 per cent. of offenders receiving a PND for theft in 2005 had no previous convictions or cautions.
This study used data recorded on the police national computer and counted as a 'reoffence' any offence committed during the 12-month period that resulted in a conviction or caution. This estimate of reoffending cannot be directly compared to the published reoffending rates for three reasons:
it includes offences leading to a caution as well as a conviction while the published National Statistics on adult reoffending counts only convictions;
it covers offenders who in general have very different offending backgrounds to those in the published cohorts; which cover offenders discharged from prison and offenders commencing a court order under probation supervision; and
it covers both juvenile and adult offenders together, whereas reoffending data are published separately for adults and juveniles.
The Ministry of Justice will, by the end of 2009, consult on plans to publish a range of reoffending related analyses that are not currently published. This consultation will include data on the criminal histories and reoffending of recipients of penalty notices for disorder.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 2 November 2009, Official Report, column 742W, on prisoner release reoffenders, what the original conviction was of the two offenders released on end of custody licence who were later convicted of murder. 
Mr. Straw: The original offences of the two offenders released on end of custody licence and who were later convicted of murder were assault (two counts) and possession of an offensive weapon respectively.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) adult prisons and (b) young offender institutions (i) had a body orifice security scanner (BOSS) chair and (ii) were using a BOSS chair on 1 June 2009; and how many discoveries of (A) illegal drugs and (B) mobile telephones had been made using those chairs on the latest date for which figures are available. 
Maria Eagle: I have today issued a written ministerial statement to clarify details around the roll-out of the BOSS chairs. NOMS has now purchased and delivered at least one BOSS chair to every prison that did not already have one (five extra BOSS chairs were purchased for prisons with split sites)-128 in total. This includes the female, open and contracted estate, and nine prisons which have a main function as a young offenders' institution. Immigration removal centres were not included, as the use of mobile phones is not prohibited in those sites.
NOMS headquarters have not mandated how BOSS chairs must be used. As is the case for many searching technologies and techniques, the decision on how to use the BOSS chairs is for individual Governors to make, and will depend on their local circumstances, including their existing local searching strategies. The relevant Prison Service Instruction (PSI) states: "The frequency of searches using the BOSS and policies for its use are for local discretion".
The pattern of use will vary over time and it is not possible to say how many BOSS chairs are operational on any given day. According to a recent survey of BOSS chair usage, 115 prisons reported that the BOSS chair was in use. Reasons for non-operation include chairs awaiting repair or return from repairs and awaiting building work to accommodate the chair. Steps have been taken to improve the .provision of maintenance services. Prisons deploy hand-held detection wands as an effective alternative.
NOMS does not hold records centrally of the number of mobile phones discovered using the BOSS chair. In order to provide the information requested, we would need to contact all Prison Service establishments, ask them to check their local records and to submit this information to headquarters. This would incur disproportionate cost. BOSS chairs are not designed to detect illegal drugs.
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 20 October 2009, Official Report, columns 53-54WS, on temporary transfer of prisoners prior to inspection, whether the prisoners moved between HMP Pentonville and HMP Wandsworth were transferred by private contractors; and what record was kept of (a) the transfer of each prisoner and (b) the physical condition of each prisoner upon (i) departure and (ii) arrival. 
Mr. Straw: All but two of the prisoners subject to temporary transfers between Wandsworth and Pentonville during May and June of this year were transferred by private contractors. Two prisoners were originally due to be transferred by private contractors from Wandsworth to Pentonville but, according to the investigation into these matters, were transferred by taxi, and escorted by prison officers.
All prisoner movements, within and between prisons, are recorded on the local inmate database. Furthermore, policy requires that all prisoner movements should have a prisoner escort record (PER) which contains all relevant information about a prisoner in addition to a documented chain of custody. It has not been possible, in the time available, to obtain the PERs of all the prisoners.
All the prisoners involved in these transfers were seen by a health care professional either on departure, arrival or both and had entries in their patient records to that effect. The substance of these records is covered by patient confidentiality.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the power point presentations the Prime Minister has received since January 2007 on the effectiveness of policies to reduce re-offending rates; 
Mr. Straw: PowerPoint presentations form part of the advice Ministers receive on the development of policy. This policy development continues to evolve, and as such it would not be appropriate to place them in the Library at this time.
Reoffending rates are published annually as National Statistics in accordance with arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority. The latest statistics were published on 21 May 2009 and show that the rate of reoffending in 2007 has fallen by 11.1 per cent. for adult offenders and 7.5 per cent. for juvenile offenders compared to 2005 (this is set against a target to reduce reoffending by 10 per cent. between 2005 and 2011). The results of research evidence on the effectiveness of policies to reduce reoffending rates can be found on the Ministry of Justice website:
Maria Eagle: The reducing reoffending pathways were first proposed by the Social Exclusion Unit in their 2002 report 'Reducing Reoffending by Ex-Prisoners'. The concept was developed in the NOMS National Reducing Reoffending Action Plan (2004) and Delivery Plan (2005). The pathways have been embedded in the cross-government work informing the Delivery Plan for PSA 23: Priority Action 4 which seeks to reduce the volume and seriousness of adult reoffending.
providing over 27,000 places on cognitive behavioural programmes;
providing over 12,000 places on drug programmes and Drug Rehabilitation Requirements;
ensuring that over 40 per cent. of offenders were employed at the termination of their licence;
ensuring that 26 per cent. of prisoners entered employment on release;
ensuring that 70 per cent. of offenders are in settled and suitable accommodation at the end of their order or licence; and
ensuring that 80 per cent. of prisoners move into settled accommodation upon release.
The Government will shortly publish 'Improving Health, Supporting Justice', a national delivery plan for improving health and social care services for all those in touch with the criminal justice system. This follows the publication of Lord Bradley's report looking at the needs of offenders with mental health and learning difficulties in April 2009.
A framework document 'Reducing Reoffending, Supporting Families, Creating Better Futures' was launched last week by the Department of Children Schools and Families (DCSF) and The Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The framework sets out the Departments' shared commitment to working in partnership to improve the delivery of services to the children and families of offenders.
Work with the Financial Services Authority, Legal Services Commission and the Department for Work and Pensions has helped to develop a consistent approach which will enable offenders to manage their finances.
The work that has been done within the pathways supports the Government's target to reduce the number of reoffences by 10 per cent. between 2005 and 2011. Reoffending rates are published annually as National Statistics in accordance with arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority. The latest statistics were published on 21 May 2009 and show that the rate of reoffending in 2007 has fallen by 11.1 per cent. for adult offenders and 7.5 per cent. for juvenile offenders compared to 2005 (this is set against a target to reduce reoffending by 10 per cent. between 2005 and 2011).
Mr. Straw: Information showing the number of defendants found guilty at all courts for stealing from shops and stalls (shoplifting) in England and Wales from 2005 to 2007 (latest available) can be viewed in the table. Data for 2008 are planned for publication at the end of January 2010.
|Number of defendants found guilty at all courts for shoplifting( 1) , England and Wales, 2005 to 2007( 2,3)|
|(1)Stealing from "shops and stalls" (shoplifting) is an offence under Theft Act 1968, section 1. (2)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. (3)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. 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. Source: Evidence and Analysis Unit-Office for Criminal Justice Reform.|
Mr. Straw: There are 39 employees of the Supreme Court. The total pay wage bill for the first six months of the Court (October 2009 to March 2010) is £910,000. This figure is inclusive of ERNIC (earnings-related national insurance contributions) and ASLC (liability charges, including pension contributions).
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|