These figures only account for the contracts awarded by the ODA to its own top tier of contractors (tier one contractors). The figures do not include contracts further down the supply chain, in tiers two, three and so on, which are awarded by the tier one contractors and not by the ODA. The ODA estimates that tens of thousands of more contracts will be generated throughout its supply chains. More information on businesses that have won games-related contracts can be found at the business section of the London 2012 website at the following link:
www.london2012.com/business
Please note the figure published for number of suppliers in December 2010 included one supplier of a small contract that was incorrectly categorised as being from Wales by the ODA.
Hywel Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what the monetary value has been of London 2012 Olympics construction contracts awarded to companies registered in (a) Wales, (b) each region of England, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) elsewhere up to and including 1 May 2011. [57145]
Hugh Robertson: The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is responsible for developing and building the venues and infrastructure for the London 2012 games. As of May 2011, 1,500 businesses, including those directly involved in the construction programme, have supplied the ODA from across the devolved nations and the English regions.
The spend to date by the ODA, by nation and English region (based on their registered address on the supplier invoice), can be found in the tables.
| Nation | Committed spend to date (£) |
7 Jun 2011 : Column 143W
| English region | Committed spend to date (£) |
These figures only account for the contracts awarded by the ODA to its own top tier of contractors (tier one contractors). The figures do not include the values of contracts further down the supply chain, in tiers two, three and so on, which are awarded by the tier one contractors and not by the ODA. For example, the steel reinforcements for the Olympic Stadium’s podium structure came from Express Reinforcement in Neath, while Bluebay Building Products, based in Cardiff provided reinforced concrete for the bridges and highways on the Olympic Park.
The ODA estimates that the total value of supply chain contracts to the regions runs into hundreds of millions of pounds, but these are not public procurements and so the full value of contracts won across the UK is not captured by the figures provided. The ODA estimates that overall up to 50,000 contracts will be generated throughout its supply chains.
Please note the figure published for committed spend to date in December 2010 included one supplier of a small contract that was incorrectly categorised as being from Wales by the ODA.
Sports
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what criteria his Department applies when assessing the quality of the governance of the sports it supports. [57891]
Mr Jeremy Hunt: We continue to challenge all sporting bodies to create, improve and maintain the best possible governance structures. We believe that dedicated professionals working within strong, independent, transparent and accountable organisations are the best way of ensuring that sporting bodies are able to reflect the identity and expectations of the whole community.
Sport England and UK Sport specifically work to support core-funded sporting bodies through a formal governance assurance programme that includes an annual self-assessment, supported by an onsite independent audit every three to four years.
Tourism
Mr Ivan Lewis:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether Ministers in his Department met overseas travel companies to
7 Jun 2011 : Column 144W
discuss his Department's tourism strategy in advance of its publication. [57890]
Mr Jeremy Hunt: The outbound market is an important part of our tourism economy and in developing the Government's new strategy for tourism, published in March, the Minister for Tourism (John Penrose), met with representatives of the outbound travel trade including the Association of British Travel Agents and the Association of Independent Tour Operators. In creating a new four year international marketing fund for tourism, with support from major companies, the Minister and I also held discussions with a range of airline carriers and ferry operators.
Mr Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the contribution of (a) domestic and (b) international golf tourism to the visitor economy. [58048]
John Penrose: In response to surveys undertaken by VisitBritain, in 2007, 1.7% of holiday visitors, 0.6% of business visitors and 2.2% visiting friends and relations said that they had played golf during their visit to the UK. VisitEngland has not undertaken any specific research about the value of golf to the visitor economy in England.
Mr Ivan Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport when he last met the Mayor of London to discuss the potential effects on tourism of the (a) Queen's diamond jubilee and (b) London 2012 Olympics. [58174]
Mr Jeremy Hunt: I meet the Mayor of London regularly to discuss issues relating to the London 2012 Olympic games and Paralympic games, and opportunities such as like the Queen's diamond jubilee for promoting the capital. The establishment of London & Partners as the promotional vehicle for the capital is to be welcomed and I understand that they will be working with VisitBritain and VisitEngland on developing and growing the visitor economy.
VAT: Sports
Mr Ward: To ask Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the potential effect on the take-up of and participation in league sport of the decision to apply the standard rate of VAT to all sports league payments. [57388]
Mr Gauke [holding answer 24 May 2011]: I have been asked to reply.
HMRC’s view is that the provision of sports league services is liable to VAT at the standard rate. As a number of providers have been treating these supplies as exempt from VAT, HMRC issued further guidance in February 2011, confirming its view that the provision of sports league services is liable to VAT. There has been no change in policy.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 145W
Justice
Civil Litigation: Legal Costs
Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to his Department's document, “Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales”, what reports he received during the consultation period of the number and proportion of meritorious cases in Scotland that are not pursued as a consequence of funding arrangements. [57600]
Mr Djanogly: “Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales—Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson's Recommendations: The Government Response” was published on 29 March 2011. It includes a summary of responses received during the consultation period. The views of respondents who referred to the civil litigation funding regime in Scotland were clearly split. For example, one respondent pointed to Compensation Recovery Unit statistics suggesting a reduced recovery rate in Scotland than in England and Wales. Other respondents pointed to the Scottish system as an example of how conditional fee agreements can work in providing access to justice without recoverable success fees.
Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to his proposals for qualified one-way costs shifting, what the minimum contribution is that a losing claimant will be expected to pay towards a defendant's costs. [57551]
Mr Djanogly: As was indicated in the “Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales—Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson's Recommendations: The Government Response”, published on 29 March 2011, that the Government would discuss with stakeholders how the rules on qualified one-way costs shifting should be drafted. This would include whether any minimum payment to a successful defendant's costs should be payable by a losing claimant.
Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to his Department’s document, “Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales”, what the evidential basis is for his assessment that claimant solicitors will adapt to maximise profits under his proposals. [57598]
Mr Djanogly: “Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales—Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson’s Recommendations: The Government Response” was published on 29 March. The impact assessment published with the Government response sets out a number of assumptions, including that the legal sector will adapt to the changes.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 146W
Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to his Department’s document, “Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales”, how he expects claimants’ costs in appeal cases on significant points of law to be funded. [57599]
Mr Djanogly: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) on 26 April 2011, Official Report, column 135W. Claimants will be able to fund appeals in the same way that they fund cases at first instance.
Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to his Department’s document, “Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales”, what reports he received during the consultation period on the number and proportion of clinical negligence claims presented as meritorious but screened out by after-the-event insurers as unmeritorious. [57601]
Mr Djanogly: “Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales—Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson’s Recommendations: The Government Response” was published on 29 March 2011. It includes a summary of responses received during the consultation period, including—at paragraph 166—that:
“[After the event] ATE insurers and some lawyers, in particular, argued that ATE insurance providers currently risk assess claims so that only stronger claims are brought”.
Convictions
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many persons convicted of offences of rape in each of the last five years already had convictions for (a) another offence of rape, (b) another sexual offence, (c) another violent offence and (d) any other offence. [57533]
Mr Blunt: Table 1 gives the numbers and proportions of offenders sentenced between 2006 and 2010 for an offence of rape in England and Wales, who at the time of their sentence had at least one previous conviction for rape, for a sexual offence including rape, for an offence of violence against the person, or for any other offence.
These figures have been derived from the data used for table A7.10 of “Criminal Statistics Quarterly Bulletin” which was published by the Ministry of Justice on 26 May 2011.
These figures have been drawn from the police's administrative IT system, the police national computer, which, as with any large scale recording system, is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.
| Table 1: Number and proportion of offenders convicted of rape in England and Wales between 2006 and 2010, who had at least one previous conviction for a violent offence, a sexual offence, rape or any other offence (1) | |||||||||||
| Offenders who have been convicted previously for: (2) | |||||||||||
| Rape | Sexual offences (3) | Violence against the person | Any other offences | No previous conviction | |||||||
|
|
All offenders (2) (100%) | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % |
7 Jun 2011 : Column 147W
7 Jun 2011 : Column 148W
| (1) The figures are based on information drawn from the police national computer and may differ slightly from information recorded in the Crown Court. (2) The figures are based on counts of sentencing occasions where the primary offence was rape and where the offender had at least one previous conviction for one of the offence types specified. An offender may be counted more than once if he or she has been sentenced on more than occasion during the period or has both previous violent and previous sexual offences. Therefore the numbers in the table do not sum to the total number sentenced. (3) Including previous offences of rape. | |||||||||||
Convictions: Hunting
Neil Parish: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of convictions under the Hunting Act 2005 have related to hunts recognised and regulated by the Council of Hunting Associations. [57580]
Mr Blunt: The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts in England and Wales in 2010 (latest available) for offences under the Hunting Act 2004 can be viewed in the table.
The Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database contains information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Other than where specified in a statute statistical information available centrally does not include the circumstances of each case. It is not possible to separately identify those specific cases proceeded against under the Hunting Act 2004 related to hunts recognised and regulated by the Council of Hunting Associations.
| Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts, for offences under the Hunting Act 2004, England and Wales, 2010 (1, 2) | |
|
|
Number/percentage |
| (1) 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. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice. | |
Departmental Manpower
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make it his policy to publish monthly information on changes in the numbers of his Department's employees categorised by (a) seniority, (b) number of employees taking voluntary redundancy, (c) natural wastage and (d) involuntary redundancy. [57606]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: At this stage there are no plans to publish a more detailed breakdown of departmental work force statistics or to increase the current list of pre-announced publications.
Under Cabinet Office guidelines the Office for National Statistics collects employment figures from all Departments quarterly and while decision making internally makes use of such figures, to ensure the best use of departmental resources, the required data cleansing exercises would not currently allow statistics to be presented that matched publication guidelines. If in the future there is an opportunity to increase the frequency and detail of these published data we would revisit this publication issue.
In addition, the Ministry supports the coalition Government's transparency agenda and discloses details of senior staff salaries and work force statistics. The first round of this disclosure was published in October 2010 and reflected the position within the Ministry at 30 June 2010. The second round of disclosure is due to be published shortly and will show the position within the Ministry at 31 March 2011.
Drugs: Prosecutions
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds of 26 April 2011, Official Report, columns 139-42W, on drugs: prosecutions, how many and what proportion of those prosecuted for offences of (a) possession of and (b) dealing in (i) heroin, (ii) cocaine and (iii) amphetamines were (A) found not guilty, (B) fined and (C) imprisoned in each year since 2006. [57620]
Mr Blunt:
The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts, for offences relating to the possession and supply of cocaine, heroin and amphetamines, including
7 Jun 2011 : Column 149W
the sentence received at all courts in England and Wales, 2006 to 2010 (latest available) can be viewed in the table.
Defendants proceeded against, at magistrates court, in one year may not be the same individuals convicted
7 Jun 2011 : Column 150W
or acquitted at the Crown Court in that year. It is therefore not possible to directly compare proceedings in one year to the final outcome in that year.
| Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts, acquitted and sentence breakdown for selected drug offences, England and Wales, 2006-10 (1,2,3,4,5) | |||||
| Offence and outcome | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
7 Jun 2011 : Column 151W
7 Jun 2011 : Column 152W
7 Jun 2011 : Column 153W
7 Jun 2011 : Column 154W
| (1) 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) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008. (4) Acquitted includes: Discharged and Dismissed at magistrates courts and Acquitted at the Crown Court. (5) Other sentences include: Absolute and conditional discharge, community sentence, suspended sentence and otherwise dealt with. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice | |||||
Employment Tribunals Service
Mr Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what number and proportion of employment tribunal claims were multiple claims against private sector employers in each of the last five years; [58106]
(2) how many and what proportion of employment tribunal claims were multiple claims against public sector employers in each of the last five years. [58181]
Mr Djanogly: Claims to the employment tribunals may be classified into two broad categories: singles and multiples. Multiple cases are where two or more people bring cases, involving one or more jurisdiction(s) usually against a single employer but not necessarily so (for instance in transfer of undertaking cases) and always arising out of the same or very similar circumstances. As a multiple, the cases are processed, and judicially managed, together.
Statistics published annually and quarterly by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service provide a breakdown of claims received. In recent years this breakdown has included that between single and multiple claims. The following table sets out the claims received by employment tribunals in each of the last five financial years for which data are available, including the proportion of multiples and single claims lodged. However, employment tribunals do not categorise claims as “private sector” or “public sector”. Therefore, no statistics are collated centrally on this divide, whether in respect of multiple claims or more widely, and it is not possible to report on this aspect. While a manual search of individual case records might give some indication, such work could only be undertaken at disproportionate cost.
| Employment tribunal receipts | ||||||||||
| 2005 -0 6 | 2006 -0 7 | 2007 -0 8 | 2008 -0 9 | 2009 - 10 | ||||||
|
|
No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % |
| Source: Tribunals Service Statistics | ||||||||||
European Court of Human Rights
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost to the public purse was of cases in the European Court of Human Rights to which the UK was a party in the last 12 months. [57629]
Mr Kenneth Clarke:
The costs are not recorded centrally and can vary considerably depending on the circumstances of each case. As well as immediate expenses such as staff time, legal fees, travel etc., costs could include those associated with wider changes to policy or legislation.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 155W
An accurate total costing for the ECtHR cases to which the UK was a party in the last 12 months could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
Chris Heaton-Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice in which final judgments the European Court of Human Rights has found the UK to be in breach of an obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights since 2006; which Convention right or rights the UK was found to have breached in each relevant judgment; which provision of legislation in the UK was deemed to have breached a Convention right or rights in each relevant judgment; and what the Government's response was to each such judgement. [58001]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: According to data published by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), there have been 83 final judgments since 2006 in which the Court found that the UK breached one or more Convention rights. The following table sets out the name of the cases and the articles of the Convention found to have been violated, as well as any damages or costs award stipulated in the judgment.
An adverse judgment does not necessarily mean that the Court has found any legislation to be in breach of the Convention. For example, the common law or an administrative practice may be found to be in violation.
Information on which provisions of UK legislation have been deemed to have violated one or more Convention right in each relevant judgment and the Government's response to each such judgment is not held centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
| Case (1) | Articles violated | Individual measures (2) |
|
14. Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Fireman (ASLEF) |
||
7 Jun 2011 : Column 156W
7 Jun 2011 : Column 157W
| (1) In “Deak”, proceedings were taken against Romania and the UK jointly. The judgment found Romania to have violated Article 6 but the UK was not found to have breached any Convention right. In “MGN”, the judgment is final although there has not been final agreement on the level of just satisfaction. (2) Where the judgment said that the finding of a violation constituted adequate just satisfaction and/or no damages or costs were awarded, the entry here will read as 'violation'. | ||
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will estimate the cost to the public purse of complying with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights against the UK in each of the last five years. [57549]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: Such an estimate could not be provided without disproportionate cost. Information on costs is not collected centrally. Implementation of judgments from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the responsibility of the Government Department responsible for the policy area concerned and costs can vary considerably depending on the circumstances of the case.
Isis Prison and Young Offender Institution
Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he plans to make any changes to (a) the physical fabric and (b) staffing levels at HM Prison and Young Offenders Institution Isis as a result of the decision to increase the number of over-21-year-old offenders there. [57433]
Mr Blunt: HMP/YOI Isis was constructed to category B standard, which allows NOMS the opportunity to determine the population strategy of offenders without the need for significant investment in the fabric when such changes occur. There are no planned changes to the physical fabric of the site as it is capable of holding either young adult or category C offenders up to the age of 25, irrespective of the numbers in each category.
There are no plans to reduce staffing levels as a result of the change to the offender profile.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 158W
Legal Aid: Lone Parents
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many single parents were in receipt of legal aid for each category of justiciable matter in the latest year for which information is available; and what proportion of all recipients this represented in each case. [57416]
Mr Djanogly: Neither my Department nor the Legal Services Commission holds data on whether applicants for legal aid are single parents.
Legal Aid: Young People
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost to the public purse of providing legal aid to persons under the age of 18 years was in the latest period for which figures are available. [57962]
Mr Djanogly: The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is responsible for administering the legal aid scheme in England and Wales.
The following table outlines the total cost to the public purse of providing legal aid to persons under the age of 18 years for the financial year 2009-10.
The LSC does not record this information in relation to the Crime Higher scheme which accounts for cases heard at the Crown court and higher criminal courts.
|
|
Total (£) |
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department has undertaken an impact assessment to ascertain the potential effect on children and young people of the proposed changes to legal aid. [57963]
Mr Djanogly: The impact assessments published alongside the consultation paper detailed the potential impacts of the proposals. The equalities impact assessments set out the potential impacts on people based on their sex, race and whether they are ill or disabled. However, these did not consider impacts specifically on children and young people.
Members: Correspondence
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he plans to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton of 8 March 2011 with regard to Mr H. R. Chowdhury. [57384]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: Unfortunately I have no record of having received this letter when originally sent. However, I have now been provided with a copy and will ensure the right hon. Member receives a reply as soon as possible.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 159W
Military Corrective Training Centre: Young People
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on the detention of people under the age of 18 years at the Military Correction Training Centre; and if he will make a statement. [57726]
Mr Blunt: There have been no recent discussions between the Secretary of State for Justice and the Secretary of State for Defence on the detention of people under the age of 18 years at the Military Corrective Training Centre.
Portland Young Offender Institution
Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he plans to make any changes to (a) the physical fabric of and (b) staffing levels at HM Young Offenders Institution Portland as a result of the decision to begin to hold over-21-year-old offenders there. [57434]
Mr Blunt: There are no plans to make changes to the physical fabric of Portland or increase staffing levels as a result of the change to the offender profile.
Prison Accommodation
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 10 May 2011, Official Report, column 1073W, on prisons: private sector, (1) under what circumstances a prison is permitted to operate with a population in excess of its operational capacity; and if he will make a statement; [57406]
(2) for what reasons HMP Lowdham Grange was operating with a population in excess of its operational capacity; and if he will make a statement. [57407]
Mr Blunt:
Governors, controllers and directors of contracted out prisons must ensure that approved
7 Jun 2011 : Column 160W
operational capacity at each prison is not normally exceeded other than on an exceptional basis to accommodate pressing operational need.
Published data on the prison population are drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Centrally held records indicate that on 25 March 2011, HMP Lowdham Grange had a population of 935 against an operational capacity of 930. This included 20 prisoners who were identified as an “authorised absence”. An authorised absence from prison can be for a number of reasons, such as release to outside hospital or for release on temporary licence to assist with prisoner resettlement. Release on temporary licence requires a prisoner to be absent from prison for at least one night. These prisoners are required to return to prison after their temporary release has concluded and therefore continue to form part of the overall population for which a prison place is required.
On further investigation Lowdham Grange has identified that 15 of the 20 prisoners recorded as an authorised absence had not had their records updated and should have been recorded as fully discharged (for example following final discharge or transfer to a mental health facility) with no expectation of return to the prison.
Taking this in to account, on 25 March 2011 Lowdham Grange was operating within its operational capacity.
Prisoner Escorts
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prison custody officers are certified to work in each of the prison and court escort contracts operated by the National Offender Management System. [57408]
Mr Blunt: The number of prisoner custody officers (PCO) employed by the prisoner escort contractors varies month to month due to staff changes. The following table provides details on the number of PCOs employed by each of the PECS contractors, within the last year.
| 2010 | 2011 | |||||||||||
|
|
May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr |
| (1) IPT = Inter prison transfers—a national contract held by G4S for the transfer of prisoners between prisons. | ||||||||||||
Prisons: Security
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 16 May 2011, Official Report, columns 48-52W, on prisons: security, what the nature of each security breach in each prison was in each of the last five years. [57461]
Mr Blunt: Security breaches are defined as any incident involving visitors or outsiders where the security or control of the establishment has been breached, or there has been an attempt to do so. To provide details of the nature of each security breach would involve locating, examining and summarising each of the 249 incident reports which could be done only at disproportionate cost.
Typically, though, incidents may involve unauthorised access to the prison by members of the public, such as authorised visitors attempting to gain access to non-authorised areas of the prison or intruders found in, or attempting to enter, the prison grounds. Some incidents may be connected with attempts to bring unauthorised articles into the prison, or damage to the physical security of the prison perimeter or other acts of vandalism.
7 Jun 2011 : Column 161W
Prisons: Television
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much each prison establishment received from prisoners in respect of payments for in-cell televisions in each of the last five years. [57535]
Mr Blunt: In-cell television is available across the prison estate as a key earnable privilege under local Incentive and Earned Privileges schemes. Eligible prisoners are able to rent televisions from the Prison Service for a weekly rental charge of £1 per set, per week or part week. The revenue raised is spent centrally to purchase new or replacement televisions and to fund the switchover of the prison estate from analogue to digital TV following the decision to end analogue broadcasts in 2012.
The following table provides payments from prisoners for in-cell televisions for each prison establishments in each of the last five years:
| Receipts from prisoners from the in-cell TV pr ogramme, 2006-11 | |||||
| £000 | |||||
| Establishment name | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 |
7 Jun 2011 : Column 162W
7 Jun 2011 : Column 163W
| Notes: 1. Figures for 2010-11 are provisional as the accounts have not been audited and may be subject to changes. 2. Private run prisons are not included. 3. These figures have been drawn to the nearest £000 from account code entries in our central accounting systems. As with any large scale recording system, it is possible that errors in data entry and processing may have been made at account code level. 4. Financial payment data for Elmley, Standford Hill and Swaleside are reported under the Isle of Sheppey Cluster. Similarly, data for Parkhurst, Camphill and Albany are reported under the Isle of Wight cluster. 5. Hewell cluster (June 2008) includes Brockhill, Hewell Grange and Blakenhurst. 6. HMP Bure and HMP and YOI Isis are new prisons. 7. Latchmere House—prior to 2010-11, when in-cell electricity was introduced, Latchmere had a battery operated system. For the years 2008-09 and 2009-10, no income was collected as the system did not support the full use of TVs. 8. Receipts for TV in-cells may vary during the periods shown for various reasons including: not all cells having electricity points; additional accommodation cells brought into use; charging mechanisms for double occupancy cells. | |||||