Table 4: Number of defendants aged 18 years and over convicted at all courts for possession of offensive weapons (excluding knives), by police force area, England and Wales, 1997 to 2009 (1, 2, 3)
Police force area 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Avon and Somerset

135

147

117

99

104

98

146

125

139

139

148

149

133

Bedfordshire

34

47

38

33

38

50

57

44

75

66

75

57

71

Cambridgeshire

43

63

54

41

46

51

62

46

58

61

64

78

72

Cheshire

91

67

80

74

61

72

67

80

106

92

92

94

108

City of London

10

7

6

3

9

20

12

13

10

6

7

12

10

Cleveland

55

59

40

66

47

74

78

90

87

101

97

114

103

Cumbria

41

61

43

45

40

33

37

53

58

49

73

56

58

Derbyshire

96

74

100

77

88

78

82

110

116

107

118

91

98

Devon and Cornwall

138

121

110

85

113

110

136

103

120

130

95

108

112

Dorset

26

39

40

44

40

37

51

57

71

41

54

49

53

Durham

64

86

90

90

88

69

77

82

112

89

89

77

80

Essex

131

129

114

101

123

107

99

147

149

146

135

159

159

Gloucestershire

49

51

29

37

46

54

41

48

62

47

36

50

41

Greater Manchester

334

443

355

324

367

341

387

492

459

446

480

413

386

Hampshire

172

158

138

130

133

155

191

184

177

196

184

192

149

Hertfordshire

54

42

63

80

73

65

80

100

122

98

90

83

67

Humberside

98

111

91

81

76

94

116

127

130

107

112

112

116

26 Apr 2011 : Column 159W

26 Apr 2011 : Column 160W

Kent

132

185

140

131

129

161

158

137

162

148

152

185

147

Lancashire

154

190

152

143

168

175

168

197

200

199

200

212

205

Leicestershire

86

119

95

119

97

112

113

126

140

116

132

114

65

Lincolnshire

74

69

61

53

81

67

51

76

73

58

58

54

64

Merseyside

198

223

169

129

158

207

211

244

264

282

290

275

280

Metropolitan police

1,249

1,158

937

950

1,202

1,564

1,458

1,492

1,554

1,460

1,448

1,593

1,386

Norfolk

76

72

73

51

62

73

64

87

89

96

66

58

56

North Yorkshire

78

91

53

54

52

42

48

57

69

61

77

74

93

Northamptonshire

45

61

55

52

34

50

61

63

53

36

33

59

58

Northumbria

239

281

303

237

280

263

258

251

259

235

269

297

284

Nottinghamshire

104

154

120

122

109

136

177

151

166

150

165

141

142

South Yorkshire

136

129

154

137

111

144

154

187

192

178

163

154

166

Staffordshire(3)

89

110

85

*

88

119

116

97

98

114

138

117

111

Suffolk

60

40

64

60

49

49

74

73

77

82

66

44

63

Surrey

36

34

22

39

34

34

38

40

39

42

46

65

57

Sussex

99

90

84

92

90

95

87

97

130

104

119

122

113

Thames Valley

137

122

116

85

105

141

127

134

163

155

153

161

126

Warwickshire

35

30

30

29

26

28

35

47

29

34

43

32

44

West Mercia

87

72

65

51

76

68

77

88

81

132

101

96

92

West Midlands

391

374

342

361

454

470

466

486

452

475

420

471

460

West Yorkshire

234

242

249

182

197

254

242

347

305

259

265

264

240

Wiltshire

31

42

49

46

47

48

39

43

54

52

48

49

59

                           

Dyfed-Powys

55

55

40

41

37

40

50

45

40

31

28

29

27

Gwent

52

68

52

46

44

60

56

71

70

82

72

71

74

North Wales

64

76

62

53

50

58

65

75

79

78

94

90

66

South Wales(4)

164

173

184

167

172

156

181

178

189

161

209

171

178

                           

Total

5,676

5,965

5,264

4,840

5,444

6,122

6,293

6,790

7,078

6,741

6,804

6,892

6,472

‘—’ = Nil * = Not available (2) The figures given in the table on court proceedings 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 it 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. (2) 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. (3) Staffordshire Police Force were only able to submit sample data for defendants proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table. (4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice

Land Registry: Electronic Government

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 24 March 2011, Official Report, column 1286W, on the Land Registry: electronic government, what estimate has been made of the level of fraud which has occurred since Land Registry deeds were placed online. [52439]

Mr Djanogly: No estimate has been made of the level of fraud which has occurred due to Land Registry deeds being placed online. Land Registry does however hold the following information regarding indemnity claims relating to fraud or forgery.

Financial year Amount paid for claims relating to fraud or forgery (£) Number of claims paid

2004-05

491,655.74

15

2005-06

9,834,617.73

31

2006-07

2,123,496.34

24

2007-08

3,953,378.02

60

2008-09

5,072,113.43

62

2009-10

4,947,650.06

53

Please note these figures relate to the year in which the claim was paid, not the year in which the claim was received. All figures are inclusive of costs.

Legal Aid: Gateshead

Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many applications for legal aid from residents in (a) Gateshead constituency and (b) Gateshead borough were granted in each of the last three years. [51572]

Mr Djanogly: The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is responsible for administering the legal aid scheme in England and Wales. The LSC does not record the number of applications granted to individual people who apply for legal aid, whether successful or not, but

26 Apr 2011 : Column 161W

instead records the number of ‘acts of assistance’. One individual may receive a number of separate acts of assistance, and one act of assistance can help more than one person.

We are re-examining the data in respect of the geographical areas requested and I will write separately with this information.

Legal Services Commission

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many matter starts were held back by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) in respect of family law from the total number which the LSC indicated they were tendering for in respect of family law services when the LSC initially indicated the result of the family law tender in July 2010. [51778]

Mr Djanogly: Procurement Plans were published prior to the launch of the tender process for Social Welfare Law and Family Services. These specified the volume of matter starts the LSC would advertise in each Procurement Area/Access Point (based on usage in the period September 2008 to August 2009). No matter starts were held back at any point in the tender process, although in some Procurement Areas the volume of work tendered for was less than matters available. However, the tender process for Family and Family and Housing services was quashed following successful legal challenge and so these services continue to be delivered under the 2007 Unified Contract (Civil).

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice to which organisation liability for meeting the costs from legal action arising from the Legal Services Commission's 2010 family tender exercise has been assigned. [51779]

Mr Djanogly: The Legal Services Commission will meet the cost of this legal action.

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when, by whom at the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and on what basis a decision to

26 Apr 2011 : Column 162W

hold back matter starts in respect of the family law tender was taken; and when and by what means such a course of action was indicated by the LSC to

(a)

its own personnel,

(b)

providers and

(c)

others. [51780]

Mr Djanogly: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 March 2011, Official Report, column 1120W. No matter starts have been held back at any stage in the tender process. No such decisions have therefore been made.

Legal Services Commission: Witnesses

Sir Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many requests for prior authority the Legal Services Commission received from expert witnesses in each of the last five years; how many such requests were (a) approved (i) in full and (ii) in part and (b) declined; and if he will give a breakdown by category of the reasons why such requests were declined. [52200]

Mr Djanogly: The Legal Services Commission (LSC) does not receive requests for prior authority direct from expert witnesses. Legally aided expert witnesses are contracted directly by solicitors, who are able to apply to the LSC for prior authority in respect of expert costs which are either unusual in their nature or unusually high.

The following tables show the number of requests for prior authority to instruct an expert witness in civil legal aid cases that have been (a) granted, (b) refused and (c) rejected in the last five years in England and Wales; and a breakdown by category of the reasons why requests were refused.

The figures provided for granted applications include applications which have been partially granted, as this information is not recorded separately.

Applications for prior authority are rejected when the LSC is unable to make a decision on whether prior authority should be granted because the application is in some way incomplete. Such applications are returned to the provider with a request for the information required to make a decision.

Civil—Outcome of applications for prior authority
  Grant Refuse Reject  

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Total

2006-07

9,950

80

2,320

19

94

1

12,364

2007-08

8,220

77

2,337

22

125

1

10,682

2008-09

8,151

79

2,106

20

139

1

10,396

2009-10

8,662

75

2,690

23

175

2

11,527

2010-11

9,233

72

3,193

25

325

3

12,751

Total

44,216

77

12,646

22

858

1

57,720

Refusal reasons (1) 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Total

Justify on Taxation or assessment (The authority sought is neither unusual in its nature nor does it involve unusually high expenditure. It is therefore appropriate to justify this item on taxation/assessment.)

719

828

607

595

852

3,601

Excessive Estimate

506

393

428

490

526

2,343

No breakdown provided

332

446

392

322

674

2,166

No Estimate Details

382

292

293

380

443

1,790

No alternative Quotes

232

180

185

259

354

1,210

Not within the regulations

153

155

186

168

118

780

Not Completed Where Marked

90

112

131

221

554

26 Apr 2011 : Column 163W

26 Apr 2011 : Column 164W

Outside the scope of the certificate

84

91

82

163

134

554

Expense not reasonable/necessary

105

95

100

109

121

530

Court Order

51

166

259

476

Insufficient Information

59

48

48

122

191

468

Apportionment—insufficient information

32

33

81

179

136

461

S22(4) apportionment (family) (The request covers work which should be borne by the other party or apportioned between the parties having regard to section 22(4) Access to Justice Act 1999 and all the circumstances.)

20

158

231

409

Not retrospective (A prior authority cannot operate retrospectively. As the expenditure has been incurred it should be justified on taxation or assessment.)

84

67

60

59

101

371

No Expert Details

94

64

50

67

65

340

No breakdown of therapy

143

64

32

26

26

291

Excluded work (family)

13

102

128

243

Absence of evidence/opinion

83

90

45

6

12

236

Insufficient info on cost to be incurred

38

20

50

47

55

210

Non-allowable disbursement (family)

9

134

65

208

Form Not Signed

25

15

36

93

169

Leading Counsel (It is not considered that the use of more than one counsel is justified having regard to the issues of the case and/or the value of the claim.)

43

21

36

44

8

152

Contact Assessment, not Risk Assessment

68

67

135

Joint instruct/apportionment-insufficient info (Insufficient information provided on possible joint instruction and apportionment.)

18

8

19

43

35

123

No Documents

28

29

5

10

39

111

Further Report not justified

27

32

13

20

16

108

Authority already obtained

17

20

22

14

30

103

Parent Assess: No leave of court

39

14

3

16

13

85

Form Not Dated

13

8

18

45

84

Private client

4

10

23

21

8

66

(9) Residential assessment excluded

9

16

22

17

64

Parent Assess: Insufficient info

15

17

5

13

8

58

Other quotes

7

4

9

8

20

48

No Statement

11

1

5

12

17

46

Parent Assess: Not Costs Sharing Order

20

10

1

10

2

43

Contact assess—CAFCASS/reasonableness

12

10

14

4

40

Contact assessment—no court order

13

14

9

2

38

Jurisdiction/vires-not disbursement

8

16

11

3

38

Contact assess—reasonableness/extent

8

11

8

3

30

Use of Counsel

3

2

9

1

15

30

Cost limit increase required

9

11

5

3

28

Local experts (In the absence of details of alternative quotes from local experts, it is not possible to be satisfied that the quote obtained is reasonable.)

3

3

7

7

8

28

Assisted persons financial resources

3

3

4

10

7

27

Jurisdiction/not within reg.61

1

8

10

5

3

27

Insufficient estimate details (family)

3

12

10

25

Transcript not justified

5

4

3

8

5

25

Counsel’s Opinion/Solicitor’s Report

5

2

3

2

7

19

Attendance unnecessary

1

2

4

3

4

14

Parent Assess: Unreasonable despite CSO (While the court has made an order/direction in this matter, it is not considered reasonable to grant the authority sought having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Local Authority’s role and Note for Guidance 8-18.)

2

3

1

2

6

14

Single expert - insufficient information

1

4

4

5

14

Parent Assess: Parties views (The views of each party towards the assessment not provided. Request refused as without this there is insufficient information to consider it properly.)

2

3

1

6

1

13

Parent Assess: Insufficient experts info

2

3

1

4

2

12

Parent Assess: No info on joint experts

4

1

5

2

12

Amendment is appropriate

3

1

2

2

1

9

Late application

1

 

2

5

8

No costs benefit

5

2

1

8

26 Apr 2011 : Column 165W

26 Apr 2011 : Column 166W

Non section38(6) assess(parents/carers) (On the information provided it is not considered reasonable for the Community Legal Service Fund to bear the costs of an assessment having regard to all the circumstances, including the assessment work already carried out and the apparent history of the client.)

1

1

4

1

7

SCHAR—No prior authority (Prior authority cannot be granted as instructing a solicitor with higher court advocacy rights is not a step falling within the relevant regulations for such prior authorities.)

1

3

3

7

Sufficient financial resources (It appears from the information provided that the assisted person has sufficient financial resources to meet the proposed expenditure.)

2

2

2

1

7

Parent Assess: Request history

3

3

Use of More than One Counsel

1

1

1

3

(9) Full Representation—LH/FHL (It is considered on the information available that the nature and importance of the case is such that Legal Help and/or Family Help (Lower) would be more appropriate.)

1

1

2

Family - contracted mediator

1

1

2

Family - contracted mediator available

1

1

2

NHS Medical Negligence Mediation

1

1

2

Mediation costs excessive

1

1

No use of dev powers (Auth. Rep only) (It is considered that this is a matter for which devolved powers should have been exercised. As the use of devolved powers is mandatory this is a matter for your solicitors.)

1

1

Not recognised mediator—non family

1

1

Special reasons (Caseworker uses their own wording when refusing a request)

1

1

Tape Recording not justified

1

1

Grand total

3,360

3,263

3,142

4,145

5,225

(1) Some applications have more than one refusal reason. As a result the totals for this table will differ from those above.

The following table shows the total number of requests for prior authority to instruct an expert witness in criminal legal aid cases that have been (a) granted, (b) part granted and (c) refused in the last two years in England and Wales. The information requested is only available for 2009-10 and 2010-11. Prior to this date the information was only recorded manually on the relevant case file, and could be supplied only at a disproportionate cost.

It is not possible to provide a breakdown by category of the reasons why applications were declined as the LSC caseworker uses their own wording when refusing a request rather than choosing an option from a pre-determined list. In general, applications for prior authority are only refused if they fall outside the LSC’s published guidance.

Crime—Outcome of applications for prior authority
  Grant Part Grant Refused  

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Total

2009-10

22,080

80

5,260

19

282

1

27,622

2010-11

19,437

75

6,278

24

319

1

26,034

Total

41,517

77

11,538

22

601

1

53,656

Magistrates

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice on how many days on average a justice of the peace sat in the most recent year for which figures are available. [52196]

Mr Djanogly: Sittings are measured in half days. The average number of sittings for a justice of the peace for the year ending 31 March 2010 was 37.

Magistrates: Costs

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much on average justices of the peace claimed in expenses in the most recent year for which figures are available. [52195]

Mr Djanogly: Based on provisional data, the total cost of expenses claimed by justices of the peace for the financial year ending 31 March 2011, was £17 million. This approximates to an average of £767 per claimant, per annum.

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the average proportion of the costs arising from a day's hearing in a magistrates court attributable to expenses paid to justices of the peace. [52197]

Mr Djanogly: It is estimated that 7% of the total day's hearings costs (excluding rent and rates of the courthouse, if applicable) are attributable to expenses paid to justices of the peace.

26 Apr 2011 : Column 167W

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has to amend the rate of expenses payable to justices of the peace; and if he will make a statement. [52201]

Mr Djanogly: Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service is in discussion with the Magistrates Association and the National Bench Chairs' Forum about possible changes to the travel and subsistence allowances that magistrates receive in the course of their judicial work. No decisions have been made.

National Offender Management Service

Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many probation officers the National Offender Management Service employs; [52258]

(2) whether he plans to reduce the number of probation officers working for the National Offender Management Service. [52259]

Mr Blunt: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) does not directly employ probation officers or other probation staff: they are employees of the 35 Probation Trusts, which are Non-Departmental Public Bodies sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.

As at 31 December 2010, 6,976.31 fully-qualified probation officers (full-time equivalents) were employed by Probation Trusts in England and Wales. This includes all those in the senior probation officer, senior practitioner, probation officer and practice development assessor job-groups and is the latest available staff-in-post figure for those grades. It has been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

To protect Probation Trusts and front-line probation services, the Government have undertaken a radical streamlining of NOMS, which will achieve savings of at least 33% at national and regional level. This means that the efficiency savings Probation Trusts will need to find are limited to about 10% of their expenditure over the four years of the spending review period. Like NOMS, Probation Trusts can make savings by reducing bureaucracy and finding new ways of working: this will enable resources to be concentrated on sustaining front-line provision.

National Offender Management Service: Race Relations

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he plans to take to address the gap between black and ethnic minority staff and Caucasian staff in relation to performance-related pay identified in the National Offender Management Service diversity review for 2009-10; and if he will make a statement. [51964]

Mr Blunt: The NOMS Equalities Annual Report 2009-10 reports that white staff are more likely to achieve the ‘exceeded’ marking in the Staff Performance and Development Review (SPDR) process that triggers performance pay for some grades of staff. The report expresses concern at this fact and explains that a programme of work is being taken forward to make the SPDR process more structured, and to increase the accountability

26 Apr 2011 : Column 168W

of those giving markings through the use of moderation panels. This is taking place alongside broader programmes of work to improve performance management across the piece and to provide better support for line managers.

Personal Injury: Mediation

Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to his Department's publication, Solving Disputes in the County Courts, Creating a Simpler, Quicker and More Proportionate System, Consultation Paper C56, March 2011, whether his proposals for compulsory mediation apply in respect of personal injury claims. [52460]

Mr Djanogly: It is proposed in the consultation that all small claims cases are automatically referred to mediation. However, only those personal injury cases valued at under £1,000 are dealt with in the small claims track, so only those cases would come under the scope of the automatic referral. We have also asked consultees whether certain categories of cases should be exempted from the mediation process. In addition, we are consulting on the possible introduction of mediation information or assessment sessions for cases outside the small claims track. These could apply to personal injury cases, but again we are asking consultees whether certain cases should be exempted from this process.

Police: Prison Accommodation

Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners were held in police cells in each police force area in 2010; and at what estimated cost to the public purse. [52403]

Mr Blunt: No police cells under Operation Safeguard were used in 2010. Police cells, under Operation Safeguard, have not been used since 22 September 2008 and no police cells, under Operation Safeguard, have been on stand by since the end of October 2008. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 March 2011, Official Report, columns 550-52W, which provided the aggregated total number of prisoner nights in which an Operation Safeguard police cell was used over the last five years.

Additionally, prisoners may also be held overnight in police cells as a “lockout”. Lockouts can arise from a number of factors, including late court sittings, which can compromise the contractors' ability to deliver the prisoner to prison prior to the reception closure time.

In 2010 a total of 220 prisoners were held overnight in a police cell as a lockout.

Number of lockouts in 2010 by police force area
Police force Total

Avon and Somerset

0

Bedfordshire

4

BTP

0

Buckinghamshire

0

Cambridgeshire

0

Cheshire

0

City of London

0

Cleveland

0

Cumbria

0

Derbyshire

0

26 Apr 2011 : Column 169W

Devon and Cornwall

4

Dorset

3

Durham

0

Dyfed Powys

0

Essex

9

Gloucestershire

0

Greater Manchester

1

Gwent

1

Hampshire

8

Hertfordshire

10

Humberside

3

Kent

19

Lancashire

0

Leicestershire

11

Lincolnshire

2

Merseyside

0

Met Police

101

Middlesex

0

Norfolk

0

N. Yorkshire

1

North Wales

0

Northamptonshire

1

Northumbria

0

Nottinghamshire

0

S. Yorkshire

1

S. Wales

0

Staffordshire

1

Suffolk

7

Surrey

2

Sussex

19

Thames Valley

10

W. Mercia

0

W. Midlands

0

W. Yorkshire

0

Warwickshire

2

Wiltshire

0

Total

220

Under an agreement between NOMS and ACPO, NOMS are charged a flat rate fee of £55.00 per prisoner per night for the use of these cells.

Prison Visitors: Drugs

Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many visitors to prison were found to be in possession of illegal drugs in 2009-10; how many such visitors were referred to the police; and what steps were taken in respect of those not referred to the police. [52402]

Mr Blunt: Information on the number of visitors to prisons in England and Wales found in possession of illegal drugs is not recorded centrally. Information on the actions taken in respect of visitors not referred to police is now held at local level. To provide the information would require a detailed investigation into all local records and incur disproportionate cost.

The number of visitors to prisons in England and Wales referred to the police and arrested in relation to drugs during the period 2009-10 was 354. It is NOMS policy to refer all visitors found to be in possession of drugs to the police.

26 Apr 2011 : Column 170W

Prisoners’ Discharge Grant

Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of the prisoner discharge grant in each of the last five years. [52415]

Mr Blunt: The cost of discharge grants for the last five years is shown in the following table.


£000

2009-10

3,883

2008-09

4,378

2007-08

4,407

2006-07

3,509

2005-06

3,737

Some expenditure on subsistence payments for prisoners released on End of Custody Licence during the period 2007-10 is included in the figures. To separate this amount, a survey of all prison establishments would be necessary.

The purpose of the discharge grant is to enable the prisoner to meet their immediate subsistence needs in the first week after release. Whether they are going straight into employment or applying for benefits, they will receive payment in arrears. Without a discharge grant, therefore, there would be an increased risk that prisoners would re-offend in order to meet their immediate financial needs.

Sentenced prisoners are eligible on release for a discharge grant of £46 unless certain exclusions apply. These exclusions include those serving a sentence of 14 days or less, those awaiting deportation or removal from the United Kingdom and those who are known to have in excess of £16,000 in savings (and who would therefore be ineligible for income support under the relevant regulations).

Prisoners: Females

Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of (a) drug and (b) mobile telephone smuggling in female prisons; and if he will make a statement. [52216]

Mr Blunt: The National Offender Management Service’s (NOMS) strategies to reduce drug and mobile telephone smuggling are designed to be implemented flexibly, based on local assessment of risk. Strategy is applied equally across the prison estate with the exception of the searching of prisoners, where slightly different arrangements apply to female prisoners.

Prisons deploy a robust and comprehensive range of security measures to reduce drug supply. These include the use of drug detection dogs, close working with the police, CCTV, use of more effective intelligence systems and mandatory drug testing.

NOMS has implemented a strategy to ‘minimise’ the number of mobile phones entering prisons, to ‘find’ phones that do get in and to ‘disrupt’ mobile phones that cannot be found.

Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many female inmates on the prison estate have access to (a) games consoles and (b) television; and if he will make a statement. [52217] [Official Report, 7 June 2011, Vol. 529, c. 1MC.]

26 Apr 2011 : Column 171W

Mr Blunt: It is not possible to the give exact number of prisoners who have access to televisions and games consoles, as this changes constantly. There are currently 4,241 (at 8 April 2011) women in prison in England and Wales, and most of them have access to television. Her Majesty's Prisons Askham Grange, Bronzefield, Eastwood Park, Holloway, Low Newton and New Hall do not allow access to television where prisoners have been placed on the basic level of the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme (IEPS).

Prisoners on the enhanced level of the IEPS are allowed to have certain games consoles in possession if they pay for them themselves. The National Offender Management Service does not collect centrally the numbers of prisoners who choose to do this and there would be disproportionate cost in obtaining this number. In addition, a very small number of consoles have been purchased for shared use in association by prisoners on the enhanced level of the IEPS at the following establishments: Askham Grange, Downview, Eastwood Park, New Hall and Styal. At Bronzefield, there is a games console in the Healthcare Centre.

Prisoners: Finance

Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on measures to increase the level of financial support available to prisoners (a) serving a custodial sentence and (b) recently released. [52443]

Mr Blunt: The Government recognise that the exclusion of offenders from accessing legal sources of funds can prevent offenders from re- integrating into the community after their release from custody, and increases the risk that they will reoffend.

To tackle the financial exclusion which offenders can experience a range of work is underway. In partnership with a range of other Government bodies and third sector organisations, officials from the National Offender Management Service are developing initiatives that will ensure that offenders who are in custody and those who have been recently released will have more timely access to state benefits, and financial services. Ministry of Justice Ministers are working with Ministers from HM Treasury and the banking sector to encourage greater availability of bank accounts to prisoners.

Prisoners: Food

Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when the amount allocated to the daily cost of food for a prisoner in a (a) prison cell and (b) police station cell was last increased. [52400]

Mr Blunt: The information requested is set out as follows:

For prisoners in prison cells:

Public sector prisons do not set a daily food allowance as the responsibility for determining prisoner food budgets lies with the governor who will set aside a realistic sum that will meet the dietary needs of the prisoner population. Meal requirements vary between establishments and are based on the prisoner population, local regimes and seasonal availability. The average cost(1) for food (including beverages) per prisoner per day in public sector prisons was £2.20 for the financial year 2010-11.

26 Apr 2011 : Column 172W

For prisoners in police station cells:

Under the current agreement (Operation Safeguard) between NOMS and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) an all-inclusive rate is charged which includes the cost of meals and other ancillary items. This agreement was finalised in May 2009.

Prior to this, the agreement between NOMS and ACPO placed an upper limit of £12 expenditure on meals for each prisoner over a 24-hour period.

Prisoners are also held as ad-hoc lockouts (i.e. when the designated prisons reception will be closed before the prisoner's arrival time). Under an agreement between NOMS and ACPO, NOMS are charged a flat rate fee per prisoner per night for the use of these cells. This fee covers incidental expenses such as food, cleaning and administration.

(1) Costs have been calculated using available management information from the NOMS finance systems and assumes that all transactions have been allocated and recorded against the correct accounting codes.

Prisoners: Injuries

Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners received a serious injury while in prison in (a) 2009 and (b) 2010; and what the nature of each such injury was. [52260]

Mr Blunt: The following table details the numbers of serious injuries arising from assault incidents in 2009. The nature of assaults and assaulting behaviour make it complex to capture the full range of information. Given that incidents may not be witnessed or victims may be unwilling to identify perpetrators, the focus of the figures is on numbers of incidents and not individuals. As more than one type of serious injury may occur in a single assault incident the total numbers of serious injuries will be more than the number of serious assault incidents.

Male and female assault incidents, England and Wales, 2009
Injury type Number

All serious injuries

1,032

Fracture

106

Scald or burn

70

Stabbing

37

Crushing

4

Extensive/multiple bruising

73

Black eye

152

Broken nose

57

Broken teeth

41

Cuts requiring sutures

343

Bites

143

Temporary/permanent blindness

6

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems. Care is taken when processing and analysing the returns but the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system, and so although shown to the last case, the figures may not be accurate to that level.

The figures provided are published annually on the MoJ website and those relating to 2010 are currently being verified for publication later this year. Statistical tables detailing levels of violence, including the further breakdown in to the use of weapons, fights, ages and injuries are available in MoJ Safety in Custody Assault Statistics.