House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 26 Apr 2011 (pt 0007)

Previous Section

Index

Home Page

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.

Next Section

Index

Home Page

Primary navigation

Land Registry: Electronic Government

Legal Aid: Gateshead

Legal Services Commission

Legal Services Commission: Witnesses

Magistrates

Magistrates: Costs

National Offender Management Service

National Offender Management Service: Race Relations

Personal Injury: Mediation

Police: Prison Accommodation

Prison Visitors: Drugs

Prisoners’ Discharge Grant

Prisoners: Females

Prisoners: Finance

Prisoners: Food

Prisoners: Injuries

Footer links

Site search

Primary navigation

Land Registry: Electronic Government

Legal Aid: Gateshead

Legal Services Commission

Legal Services Commission: Witnesses

Magistrates

Magistrates: Costs

National Offender Management Service

National Offender Management Service: Race Relations

Personal Injury: Mediation

Police: Prison Accommodation

Prison Visitors: Drugs

Prisoners’ Discharge Grant

Prisoners: Females

Prisoners: Finance

Prisoners: Food

Prisoners: Injuries

Footer links