|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr Blunt: I have decided to continue to operate the Critical Public Protection Case Notification Scheme and have recently written to all Members, inviting them to receive information about the release of particular offenders into their constituencies. The scheme allows for Members to be informed of the robust arrangements in place to manage those offenders on their release from custody and to make further enquiries. As the vast majority of such offenders are released initially into Approved Premises, formerly known as probation and bail hostels, notifications will mostly be sent to Members with an Approved Premises in their constituencies.
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many victims of rape in England and Wales whose cases resulted in a conviction in each of the last five years were aged (a) under 18 and (b) under 25 years at the time of the attack. 
Mr Blunt: The Ministry of Justice does not hold centrally, details of the age of the victim other than where the offence is specified separately in law. I can therefore provide details of the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for rape (including attempted rape) of persons aged (i) under 13, (ii) under 16 and (iii) 16 and over, England and Wales 2004 to 2008 (latest available), which are shown in the following table.
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts of rape( 1, 2) , England and Wales 2004-08( 3, 4, 5)|
|Offence description||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty|
|(1) Includes: Rape and Attempted rape of a female or male.|
(2) Includes: Conspiracies, charges of participation in offences as accessories after the fact and charges of participation in offences by impeding the apprehension or prosecution of the offender.
(3) 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.
(4) 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 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.
(5) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July, and August 2008.
Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.
Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which (a) organisations and (b) individuals have informed his Department that they are in favour of anonymity for rape defendants; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Kenneth Clarke: As of 15 June 2010, our records show that no organisation had informed the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) that it favoured this proposal and no organisation had informed the Ministry that it opposed the proposal. Three correspondents have written to the Department in support of the proposal. It would not be appropriate to release their names.
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will place in the Library a copy of each piece of written evidence he considered before deciding to bring forward proposals to extend anonymity to defendants in rape trials. 
Mr Blunt: The Director of Analytical Services in the Ministry of Justice has been asked to compile all the available research and statistics relating to this issue into an independent report and publish this before summer recess.
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what meetings he has had with (a) members of the judiciary and (b) organisations representing victims of crime on proposals to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases. 
Mr Blunt: Integrated offender management (IOM) is developing locally as a partnership approach to the management and rehabilitation of offenders who cause the greatest harm in their area. Currently there is limited direct evidence to assess the effectiveness of IOM in reducing levels of reoffending, although it builds on offender based approaches such as local prolific and other priority offender schemes and the Drug Interventions Programme, for which there is positive indicative evidence of their impact on re-offending. Feedback from areas suggests that IOM has been effective in generating partnership working in responding to offenders needs.
Mr Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much funding he has allocated to commence new integrated offender management schemes in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12; and how many such schemes he expects will commence in each of those years. 
Integrated offender management is a locally led strategic approach to managing offenders and as such the Ministry has not allocated any direct funding
to commence new integrated offender management approaches in 2010-11 or in 2011-12. We are aware that some funding for integrated offender management approaches has been provided locally.
As IOM is a local strategic approach, the pace of development of IOM will be by agreement between local partners and will develop at different rates in different areas. All probation trusts without an IOM approach report that one is planned or being developed.
Mr Blunt: Six pioneer areas that have operated IOM over the last two financial years are continuing to deliver IOM without continuing central support. (Avon and Somerset, Lancashire, London, Nottinghamshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire)
Mr Blunt: The Sentencing Guidelines Council was abolished on 6 April 2010 and was replaced on the same date by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. The Council has an important role in ensuring consistency of sentencing and I am looking forward to working with the Council.
Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement of 24 May 2010 and pursuant to the answer of 7 June 2010, Official Report, column 69W, on public expenditure: Wales, if he will provide details of his Department's non-devolved public expenditure savings that will be incurred in Wales, including an estimate of the financial savings. 
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Ministry of Justice have identified £325 million in year savings to contribute to the £6.2 billion across Government. Each area of the Department is contributing to the delivery of these savings (including arm's length bodies). These savings will be achieved by reducing discretionary spend, reducing capital and IT spend and stopping or deferring planned change programmes. When identifying these savings we have sought to ensure that they will not adversely affect services.
None of the major MoJ capital projects that are being deferred are based in Wales. Some of the reductions in discretionary spend, ICT and recruitment spend will be proportionately allocated to services in Wales.