| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 Feb 2010 : Column 501W—continued
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Total | |
| (1) Data on disciplinary cases are derived from the HR Discipline Database and the Shared Service Personnel Management Database. As with any large-scale administrative systems these are liable to a certain level of inaccuracy. It includes all centrally recorded disciplinary cases excluding those resulting in dismissal from service. (2) Data includes dismissals for inefficiency, conduct and performance reasons and are derived from the Oracle HR system and the former Personnel Corporate Database. As with any large-scale administrative systems these are liable to a certain level of inaccuracy. | ||||||
Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average duration of standard initial training for prison officers is in (a) privately and (b) publicly managed prisons. [318061]
Maria Eagle: In privately managed prisons the duration of initial training for prison custody officers (equivalent to prison officers in the public sector) is nine weeks. The training is mainly classroom based but includes job shadowing in the prison.
All newly recruited prison officers in public sector prisons are required to complete a one year foundation training programme, leading to a level 3 National Vocational Qualification in Custodial Care (CCNVQ). Training begins with an eight week prison officer entry level training course, which is mainly college-based. This provides staff with all the underpinning knowledge and understanding in core skills required to successfully complete their CCNVQ within 12 months of joining the National Offender Management Service.
Prison: Offences
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisons were free from (a) illegal drug use and (b) mobile telephone smuggling in each year since 1997. [317762]
Maria Eagle: Prisons have achieved considerable success in reducing the level of drug misuse against a background of continuing high demand for drugs. Drug misuse as measured by random mandatory drug testing has fallen 68 per cent. since 1996-97.
The following table gives the number of prisons that reported no drug misuse, as measured by random mandatory drug testing (MDT), in each year since 1996-97. Many prisons also report very low levels of drug misuse. The varying nature of individual prison populations can result in fluctuating month to month MDT positive rates. Many prisons achieve periods of zero positive rates but are not drug free over an entire 12 month period.
| Number of prisons reporting no drug misuse, as measured by random MDT | |
These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
The data are not subject to audit.
Due to the covert nature of mobile phone use in prisons, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is not able to identify definitively prisons where there is a complete absence of mobile phone smuggling. NOMS is acutely aware of the threat posed by mobile phone use in prisons and has introduced measures to assist prisons in minimising the number of mobile phones entering prison, finding mobile phones within prisons and disrupting the use of mobile phones that cannot be found. NOMS is working to implement systems to improve the reporting by prisons of mobile phone seizures which will assist in understanding the scale of the issue.
Prisoners
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what (a) high, (b) medium and (c) low projections he has made for the prison population in each of the next five years. [317134]
Mr. Straw: The Ministry of Justice produces annual projections of the prison population in England and Wales, most recently in August 2009.
These project the prison population under three different scenarios, based on different assumptions about future sentencing trends: the Medium scenario assumes no increases or decreases in custody rates or determinate sentence lengths. The High/Low scenarios reflect a 1 per cent. per annum increase/decrease in custody rates and a 0.5 per cent. increase/decrease in the average (determinate) custodial sentence lengths.
Other impacts included in the projections, such as those of legislation and processes, are applied equally to all scenarios. These cover the anticipated impacts of policy and process initiatives that have agreed implementation timetables. These assumptions and anticipated impacts have remained unchanged since last year projections.
The requested information is shown in the following table:
| Projected prison population (end June figures) | |||
| High | Medium | Low | |
| Notes: 1. All numbers rounded to the nearest hundred. 2. The prison population is influenced by diverse factors that can mean that the actual future prison population may not be the same as that projected: changes in sentencer behaviour, policy decisions and the criminal justice process, which can respond to a multitude of environmental factors such as high profile criminal cases and public debate; implementation of new policies and processes without a timetable, or for which a quantitative assessment of the impact is currently not possible; unknown future policy, process and political changes. | |||
More details on the projections may be found in the latest published bulletin, "Prison Population Projections 2009-2015" Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin, 28 August 2009. This is available at the following webpage:
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what representations he has received on projections for prison (a) population and (b) capacity over the next two years. [317135]
Mr. Straw: The latest projections for the prison population were published on the 28 August 2009, in the Ministry of Justice publication "Prison Population Projections 2009-15" available at:
They cover the period August 2009-June 2015 and investigate three future scenarios.
These projections were produced using a version of the long term prison population projections model that was developed in the 1990's and has worked well. However, in line with good practice, further development of the long-term modelling of the prison projections is being undertaken in 2009 and 2010, to ensure the model continues to perform and is using the most up to date techniques and data. A new, more flexible framework will be developed.
This development process has provided the opportunity for stakeholders to influence the way in which the model is developed and they have been asked to comment, or ask for further details, via the MoJ website. At the current time no comments or other representations have been received.
With regards to prison capacity the Ministry of Justice has received different forms of representation on future prison capacity from a variety of sources, among them Members of Parliament, non-governmental organisations and members of the public. Details of all these representations are not all held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what his most recent estimate is of the average annual cost to his Department of holding in prison (a) an adult and (b) a person aged under 21 years; [317277]
(2) what criteria are used to determine the average cost of a prison place in England and Wales; and whether this includes the cost of the National Offender Management Service national and regional structures. [317278]
Maria Eagle: For 2008-09, the average cost per prisoner in an adult prison was £39,600 and in a young offender institution was £53,400.
These average costs comprise the expenditure on public and private prisons (as recorded in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Agency Annual Report and Accounts), increased by an apportionment of relevant costs borne centrally and in the regions by NOMS. This involves some estimation. In addition, expenditure met centrally by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) is included. The figures do not include the cost of prisoners held in police or court cells under Operation Safeguard, nor expenditure met by
other Government Departments (e.g. Health and Education). The prisoner escort service costs are included. Where the costs of young people are recharged by NOMS to the YJB, expenditure is shown gross and not reduced by income from the YJB.
Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his Department's (a) high, (b) medium and (c) low projections of the prison population are for each month to December 2011. [318057]
Mr. Straw: The Ministry of Justice produces annual projections of the prison population in England and Wales, most recently in August 2009.
These project the prison population under three different scenarios, based on different assumptions about future sentencing trends: the Medium scenario assumes no increases or decreases in custody rates or determinate sentence lengths. The High/Low scenarios reflect a 1 per cent. per annum increase/decrease in custody rates and a 0.5 per cent. increase/decrease in the average (determinate) custodial sentence lengths.
Other impacts included in the projections, such as those of legislation and processes, are applied equally to all scenarios. These cover the anticipated impacts of policy and process initiatives that have agreed implementation timetables. These assumptions and anticipated impacts have remained unchanged since last year projections.
The requested information is shown in the following table:
| Monthly values of projected prison population for High, Medium and Low scenarios | |||
| High | Medium | Low | |
| Notes: 1. Data are rounded to the nearest hundred. 2. Data are given for the last day of each month. 3. The prison population is influenced by diverse factors that can mean that the actual future prison population may not be the same as that projected: changes in sentencer behaviour, policy decisions and the criminal justice process, which can respond to a multitude of environmental factors such as high profile criminal cases and public debate; implementation of new policies and processes without a timetable, or for which a quantitative assessment of the impact is currently not possible; unknown future policy, process and political changes. 4. The July 2009 prison population figure is a provisional figure published on the 31 July 2009 by HM Prison Service: www.hm prisonservice.gov.uk/assets/documents/1000481131072009_ web_report.doc | |||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |