|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Maria Eagle: The National Offender Management Service's National Security Framework (NSF) does not prescribe that a cell search should follow a positive mandatory drug test. Current NSF policy requires that cells must be searched using authorised national procedures set out in the document. The frequency of routine cell searching is a matter for local discretion and should be determined as part of local searching strategies to meet local security, control and resource needs of the establishment.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what guidance has been issued on the procedure to be followed by prison service staff when a sniffer dog makes a positive indication of the presence of illicit drugs on (a) a visitor, (b) a contractor, (c) a prisoner and (d) a prison officer. 
(a) and (b) when a passive drug dog indicates against a social visitor or contractor a repeat screen with the dog should be considered. Security staff should then question the visitor/contractor and investigate whether any further intelligence or evidence exists. If no further information exists, the visit can proceed but in closed conditions or the visitor can leave the prison. The prison's police intelligence officer should also be informed. If no further information exists on a contractor, they can be permitted entry to the prison. If further evidence and/or intelligence exists, depending on its nature, the visitor/contractor may be full (strip) searched and/or the police may be called;
(c) when a passive drug dog indicates against a prisoner the prisoner should be full (strip) searched. If no substance is found the prisoner should be required to undergo a suspicion mandatory drug test. The prisoner's cell should also be searched. If drugs are found the prisoner should be referred to the prison adjudication system. If drug finds are substantial, indicating intent to supply, the police may be called. Other evidence and intelligence will also be considered following which further administrative action may be taken;
(d) when a passive drug dog indicates against a member of prison staff the member of staff should be given a rub down search and asked to complete a questionnaire inquiring whether there is any reason why they may have come into contact with drugs. The member of staff should only proceed once all the information is verified. If drugs are found the police should be called.
Maria Eagle: The National Offender Management Service is trialling a variety of technologies in a number of establishments in support of our strategy to minimise the number of mobile phones entering prisons; find mobile phones that are smuggled into prisons; and disrupt mobile phones that we cannot find. For security reasons, it is not appropriate to disclose the location of these trials.
offender tier (there are four tiers in the National Offender Management Model describing different case management approaches and map against different resource levels and offender manager competences);
the length of the offender's sentence;
the offender's gender;
the grade of staff working with the offender; and
the time taken by staff to deliver the supervision requirement, which includes meetings with the offender, liaison with providers of specialist advice and feeding back to the offender manager. The level of engagement is primarily dependent on the tier of the offender.
Costs estimated using this bottom up process are not the full costs since they do not include overheads. Full costs of the supervision requirement will be collected and published in order to benchmark the whole of the probation system by the end of 2011.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average cost of probation supervision of an individual with a sex offender programme attachment was in the latest year for which information is available. 
Maria Eagle: The funding for the supervision of offenders and the delivery of sex offender programmes in the community is part of the general grant given to probation areas or trusts. The costs will vary and depend on a number of factors including the risk presented by the individual, the level of supervision required, the programme the individual attends, and the arrangements for delivery in the particular area. It is not possible to accurately disaggregate the cost of this work.
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department spent on (a) focus groups and (b) other deliberative forms of public opinion research in each month of the last two years. 
Mr. Straw: Monthly data on the amount spent on focus groups and other forms of deliberative public opinion research could currently be provided only at disproportionate cost as the information requested on expenditure is not held centrally. However, a search of local records has identified a number of projects undertaken in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 financial years where focus groups were used, the expenditure on which is provided as follows.
|Table 1: Focus Groups: Ministry of Justice|
With regard to deliberative research, between October 2009 and February 2010, the Ministry of Justice held a series of deliberative events on Identity, Values and a
possible Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. It is not possible to finalise the actual costs at this stage, however, it is anticipated that this will come to less than £1 million in total.
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many intensive fostering places are available under the Youth Rehabilitation Order in each youth offending team area; what the average cost per place is; and whether he plans to increase the number of places available under that Order. 
Maria Eagle: Intensive fostering is being piloted by the Youth Justice Board and 25 places are currently available in the youth offending teams (YOTs) that are taking part in the pilot. There are 10 places in Wessex, six in Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent, three in Trafford and six across London.
The cost of a placement currently ranges between £2,220 to £2,385 a week. A further six places will be provided in 2010-11, four in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough YOTs and two in Derby City YOT. Extension of intensive fostering more widely will be subject to future spending reviews.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average cost of supervising a person on unpaid work for (a) 160 hours and (b) 240 hours was in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Maria Eagle: The funding for the supervision of offenders sentenced to unpaid work is part of the general grant provided to probation areas. The actual costs will vary between areas and according to the type of work placement.
The National Offender Management Service Specification Benchmarking and Costing Programme, has produced a service specification for unpaid work/Community Payback based on an assumed operating model. This will enable more accurate calculations of costs and is currently being employed by probation areas and directors of Offender Management to assess Community Payback as part of a best value exercise.
The service specification for unpaid work/Community Payback calculates the cost of commencement, including risk assessment and offender induction during the first two hours of the sentence at £82.40. For an offender attending a weekday work group in an urban area, the ongoing cost is calculated to be £8.83 an hour. The cost of a 160 hour sentence is therefore £1,477.54 and the cost of a 240 hour sentence is £2,183.94. These calculations do not include indirect costs such as premises, which will vary between probation areas. The hourly cost of Community Payback work at agency placements, where supervision is undertaken by the organisation benefiting from the work is less costly, while operating work groups at weekends and in remote locations is proportionally more costly.
Maria Eagle: The following table shows the number of young people in each youth offending team area have been remanded in custody in each of the six months July-December 2009. Separate figures are given for young people remanded pending and during trial, those committed for sentencing and young people remanded to the care of a local authority with a secure requirement.
The data, which will be placed in the Library, have been supplied by the Youth Justice Board and have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time. Differences in counting rules may mean that figures from other databases are not directly comparable.
Kevin Brennan: Table 1 shows the number of apprenticeship starts in Salford parliamentary constituency, Eccles parliamentary constituency, Worsley parliamentary constituency and Salford local authority from academic year 2003/04 onwards, the earliest year for which comparable data are available. Salford is made up of Salford and Eccles parliamentary constituencies and part of Worsley parliamentary constituency.
|Table 1: Apprenticeship programme starts for Salford parliamentary constituency and Salford local authority, 2003/04 to 2008/09|
1. Figures by parliamentary constituency are rounded to the nearest 10. Figures for Salford local authority are rounded to the nearest 100.
2. Figures are based upon home postcode of the learner.
3. Figures include Apprenticeships, Advanced Apprenticeships and Higher Level Apprenticeships.
4. Salford is made up of Salford and Eccles parliamentary constituencies and part of Worsley parliamentary constituency.
Individualised Learner Record
Information on the number of apprenticeship starts by parliamentary constituency, local authority, Government office region and for England is published in a quarterly statistical first release (SFR). The latest SFR was published on 17 December, and reissued on 21 January to include provisional national estimates of the number of apprenticeship starts and achievements in the first quarter of 2009/10:
Andrew Stunell: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what the estimated (a) amount and (b) cost was of energy used in his Department and its agencies in each year since it was established; what proportion of the energy used was generated from renewable sources in each of those years; and if he will make a statement. 
|Amount used (KWh)||Costs (£000)|
Costs are inclusive of VAT which is not reclaimable.
I am responding in respect of the National Measurement Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 9 February 2010, to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills asking about the estimated amount and cost of energy used in the Department and its agencies in each year since it was established and the proportion of the energy used which was generated from renewable sources in each of those years.
Our records on both the amount and cost of energy usage are based on Financial Years. The National Measurement Office was created on 1st April 2009 when the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) merged with the unit in the then Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills which was responsible for the National Measurement System and that unit relocated to the NWML building in Teddington. Therefore we have information only with respect to the NWML building prior to the merger.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|