| Number issued | |||||||
| All years | |||||||
| Offence description | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
20 Jun 2011 : Column 89W
20 Jun 2011 : Column 90W
| Table 2 : Offenders issued with a reprim and, warning, or caution (1,2) aged 10 to 17, and all ages by offence type 1995 to 2010 (3) | ||||||||
|
|
1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
|
|
2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
20 Jun 2011 : Column 91W
20 Jun 2011 : Column 92W
| (1) From 1 June 2000 the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force nationally and removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and replaced them with reprimands and warnings. (2 )The cautions statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When an offender has been cautioned for two or more offences at the same time the principal offence is the more serious offence. (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. (4) Standardisation of offence groups—‘concealment of birth’, will be included in the offence group ‘other indictable offences’, moving from ‘violence against the person’; changing the classification of an offence committed by approximately five defendants each year. (5) Standardisation of offence groups—‘bigamy’, will be included in the offence group ‘other indictable offences’, moving from ‘sexual offences’, changing the classification of an offence committed by approximately 20 defendants each year. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice | ||||||||
Courts Cases
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many cases in (a) magistrates courts and (b) the Crown court were awaiting trial on 1 January of each year since 1995; [59907]
(2) how many cases (a) magistrates courts and (b) the Crown court received in each year since 1995. [60005]
Mr Djanogly: The total number of cases received by the Crown court and the number of trial cases outstanding at the end of year, in England and Wales, from 1995 to 2010 are provided in the following table.
Information on cases received and cases awaiting trial in the magistrates courts can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since 2009 information on cases received is collected on central systems, but cannot be readily extracted and collated at the present time due to the way the data are held. The available statistics on magistrates court workloads relates to the number of criminal proceedings completed. Figures for all magistrates courts in England and Wales from 2008 to 2010 are also presented in the table. Statistics are not available prior to April 2007 on a comparable basis due to changes in the data collection method. Information regarding the number of cases awaiting trial is also not available since it is not collected centrally and could be obtained from court files only at disproportionate cost.
| Table 1. N umber of cases received and trials outstanding in the Crown court, and completed criminal proceedings in the magistrates courts, England and Wales, 1995 to 2010 (6) | ||||
|
|
Total number of cases received in the Crown court (1) | Total number of trial cases received in the Crown court (2) | Total number of trial cases outstanding at the end of each year | Total number of criminal proceedings completed in the magistrates courts (4,5) |
| (1) Receipts in the Crown court include committals direct from the magistrates court, bench warrants executed (trial and sentence only) and cases transferred in, less cases transferred out. (2) Sent for trial cases under s51 CDA 1998 were introduced nationally on 15 January 2001 before this figures are from the pilot programme, resulting in an increase in the number of trials received in the Crown court in 2001. (3) Crown court statistics before 2000 were obtained from CREST via our historical database. (4) Criminal proceedings completed in the magistrates courts includes indictable only cases, triable either-way cases, summary motoring, summary non-motoring, youth proceeding and breaches. These figures are based on the number of completed proceedings. (5 )Magistrates courts changed their data collection systems from legacy systems to Libra during this time. Statistics are not available prior to April 2007 on a comparable basis due to changes in the data collection method, so figures for 2007 are not provided. (6) The figures for 2010 are provisional; revised statistics will be published in ‘Judicial and Court Statistics’ on 30 June 2011. Source: HMCTS CREST system and Completed Proceedings, HMCTS Performance Database (‘OPT’) | ||||
20 Jun 2011 : Column 93W
Crown Courts
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many cases destined for the Crown court which involved the submission of a guilty plea received a reduction in the sentence handed down of (a) up to 10%, (b) up to 25% and (c) up to one third in each year since 1995. [59908]
Mr Blunt: Information about the extent to which sentences in individual cases are reduced by reason of a guilty plea is not recorded centrally.
20 Jun 2011 : Column 94W
The number of persons sentenced for indictable offences at the Crown court, broken down by plea, immediate custody and average sentence length, in England and Wales, 1995 to 2010 (latest available) can be viewed in the table.
Court proceedings data for 2011 are planned for publication in the spring of 2012.
| Persons sentenced (1) for indictable offences at the Crown court: Plea (2) , immediate custody and average sentence length, England and Wales, 1995 to 2010 (3,4) | |||||||||
| Number of persons, percentages and average sentence length (months) | |||||||||
| Total number sentenced | Immediate custody | Average length of sentence (5) | |||||||
|
|
Guilty plea | Not guilty plea | Percentage pleading guilty | Guilty plea | Percentage of guilty pleas | Not guilty plea | Percentage of not guilty pleas | Guilty plea | Not guilty plea |
| (1) Excludes offenders convicted at magistrates courts and committed for sentence at the Crown court. (2) Final plea recorded on completion of trial. (3) 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. (4) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by 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. (5) Excludes life and indeterminate sentences. (6) Plea data are only available from 1 July 1995. (7) Revisions have been made to 2009 figures to account for the late receipt of a small number of court records. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice. Ref: PQ 59908 (Table) (Data for 1995 to 2005 taken from 2005 sentencing publication Table 2.19, Data for 2006 to 2010 taken from sas run). | |||||||||
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) in what proportion of cases destined for the Crown court a guilty plea was entered (a) after the announcement of a trial date and (b) at the door of the court in the latest period for which figures are available; [59909]
(2) what proportion of young people pleaded guilty on a first appearance in court in each year since 1995; [59912]
(3) how many cases in the Crown court ended in a guilty plea in each year since 1995. [60006]
Mr Djanogly: Of the Crown court cases listed for trial in 2010, around 39% ended on the trial date before the jury was sworn (no further trial time required) due to a defendant entering a late guilty plea or pleading guilty to an alternative charge which was accepted by the prosecution. Information on the proportion of Crown court cases listed for trial that resulted in a guilty plea being entered after the announcement of a trial date can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost as the announcement date is not held centrally.
The proportion of youth defendants who pleaded guilty at first hearing in the magistrates courts in England and Wales from 1995 to 2010 is shown in Table 1.
Table 2 contains the number of cases in the Crown court that ended in a guilty plea in each of the years from 1995 to 2010. A case is treated as a guilty plea only if pleas of guilty are recorded in respect of all defendants involved. A guilty plea is recorded when a defendant: (i) pleads guilty to all counts; (ii) pleads guilty to some counts and not guilty to others and no jury is sworn in respect of the not guilty counts; and (iii) pleads not
20 Jun 2011 : Column 95W
guilty to some or all counts but offers a guilty plea to alternatives which are accepted (providing no jury is sworn in respect of the other counts).
| Table 1: Youth defendants pleading guilty at first hearing in the magistrates court, England and Wales, 1995 to 2010 (1,2) | |
|
|
Proportion of youth defendants where initial guilty plea given (%) |
| (1) From the June 2008 survey, the youth data is collected from the four-week sample via a web-based method of collecting TIS data called the One Performance Truth (OPT) (the pre-existing method of youth data collection has been available up until March 2009). Using this method has brought a number of improvements, including validation of the data ‘live’ as it is entered, collection of data at court level rather than clerkship level (as previously done). (2) A youth defendant is classified as being aged 10 to 17 on the date when an offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) From 1995 to 1998 data were collected based on the number of defendants appearing in either adult or youth courts. From 1999 onwards defendant details were collected specifically, therefore allowing the identification of youth cases listed in adult courts as well as those appearing in a youth court. As this may partly explain the increase in the proportion of those pleading guilty at the first hearing, caution should be applied when interpreting the figures shown in the table and comparing them with subsequent years' results. (4) From 1995 to 1998, the results are based on completed criminal proceedings in one sample week in February, June and October. From 1999 onwards, information on youth defendants in all criminal completed proceedings was collected in a four week period. (5) From the February 2000 survey, there is now one survey in each quarter. The results are now based on March, June, September and December surveys. Source: Time Intervals Survey (TIS) | |
| Table 2: Number of cases (1) in the Crown court that ended in a guilty plea, England and Wales, 1995 to 2010 (2,3,4,5) | |
|
|
Number of guilty plea cases |
20 Jun 2011 : Column 96W
| (1) Includes cases which can be heard in either a magistrates court or the Crown court (a defendant can elect to be tried in the Crown court or a magistrate can decide that a case is sufficiently serious that it should be dealt with in the Crown court); and cases sent for trial by the magistrates court because they can only be heard by the Crown court. (2) The reporting period is defined by the date on which the defendants involved were dealt with. (3) A guilty plea is recorded when a defendant: (i) pleads guilty to all counts; (ii) pleads guilty to some counts and not guilty to others and no jury is sworn in respect of the not guilty counts; and (iii) pleads not guilty to some or all counts but offers a guilty plea to alternatives which are accepted (providing no jury is sworn in respect of the other counts). (4) A case is treated as a guilty plea only if pleas of guilty are recorded in respect of all defendants involved. (5) The figures have been rounded to the nearest 100. (6) Sent for trial cases under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were introduced nationally on 15 January 2001. Source: HM Courts and Tribunals Service CREST system | |
Custody: Young People
Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) if he will initiate a review into the deaths in custody of five adults aged between 18 and 21 in the last four months; [60870]
(2) how many of the young adults who died in custody in the last four months received full mental health assessments while in custody; [60871]
(3) how many of the young adults who have died in custody in the last four months were being handled under the Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork care planning system prior to their deaths. [60873]
Mr Blunt: Every death in prison is a tragedy, and affects families, staff and other prisoners deeply. Ministers and the Ministry of Justice including the National Offender Management Service are committed to learning from such events in reducing the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison custody.
All deaths in prison are subject to a police investigation and an independent investigation by the prisons and probation ombudsman, and a coroner's inquest is held before a jury. Until these investigations are complete I am unable to comment on the detail of any of these cases.
Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he proposes any assessment of the effects of mixing young adults in custody with the adult prison population. [60872]
Mr Blunt: Young adults sentenced to detention in a young offender institution (DYOI) are detained in young offender institutions (YOIs) as required by section 98 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. These are normally self-contained but in some instances are situated within an adult prison with which they share the majority of their facilities. Whatever the location, young adults detained in YOIs have separate sleeping accommodation and are always managed in accordance with the YOI rules. My officials are monitoring any effects of co-locating young adults with the adult prison population.
20 Jun 2011 : Column 97W
Departmental Manpower
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many members of staff his Department and its agencies have recruited since May 2010. [59998]
Mr Blunt: Currently, a recruitment freeze is in place, which affects all external recruitment into the civil service, with exemptions allowed for business critical and frontline posts. The Fast Stream graduate programme is also exempt. For the period 1 May 2010 to 30 April 2011 the Ministry of Justice and its agencies, including the National Offender Management Service, recruited 3,272 new members of staff to frontline and business critical posts. In addition, 596 new members were recruited from other Government Departments.
The Ministry both recruits people in line with the Civil Service Commissioners recruitment principles and is committed to recruitment on merit through fair and open competition.
Departmental Pensions
Dr Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) civil servants and (b) office holders of his Department at each grade have pension pots (i) currently valued and (ii) projected to be valued on retirement at more than (A) £1 million and (B) £1.5 million. [59355]
Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice has information in respect of cash equivalent transfer values (CETVs) for civil servants that are board members only. These are disclosed in the Remuneration Report in the annual Ministry of Justice Resource Accounts (of which a copy for the financial year 2009-10 can be found in the Library of the House and on the Ministry of Justice website). Projected values are not reported.
The Department does not hold information on CETVs for all its civil servants. This information can be obtained only by writing to the individual's Authorised Pension Administration Centre and obtaining this would involve disproportionate cost.
Drugs
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much funding his Department and its predecessors allocated to mandatory drug testing in each year since 1995. [59887]
Mr Blunt: A recent costing exercise estimated that the cost to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) of mandatory drug testing (MDT) was approximately £5.3 million in 2010. This includes staff time to collect urine samples from prisoners and the laboratory costs for the analysis of those samples.
Similar estimates for other years between 1995 and 2011 have not been undertaken.
The figures presented in this answer have been collected from management information held centrally in NOMS, data returns from prison establishments, regional offices and/or fieldwork carried out as part of the costing programme. The accuracy of the data, which are not subject to audit, cannot be guaranteed.
20 Jun 2011 : Column 98W
Drugs: Alcoholic drinks
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what research from (a) the UK and (b) abroad his Department has (i) commissioned and (ii) evaluated on the effectiveness of payment by results models in tackling drug and alcohol dependency. [59889]
Anne Milton: I have been asked to reply.
We are aware of other approaches to payment by results, such as in the United States and have considered the evidence and engaged colleagues.
Although tackling drugs and alcohol dependency is a challenging area in which to deliver payments by results, that does not mean we should not aim to make improvements for this group. This is exactly why we are piloting it and ensuring the detail is designed in partnership with the pilot areas.
The drug recovery payment by results programme of piloting will be subject to robust independent evaluation commissioned by the Department. A competitive tendering process for this is currently underway, closing on 21 June 2011, details available at:
www.dh.gov.uk/prp-ccf
Drugs: Females
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department is taking to develop intensive community-based drug treatment options for women offenders. [59890]
Paul Burstow: I have been asked to reply.
The Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are exploring how the provision of residential and other intensive treatment in the community can help those offenders with drug dependence or mental health problems. It is anticipated that a range of interventions will be required, varying in intensity, and would need to form part of a graduated response to what is provided in the community for different levels of need.
Drugs: Offences
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of those serving custodial sentences had been convicted of offences related to drugs in each year since 1995. [60004]
Mr Blunt: Available information on the immediate custodial population as a proportion of those convicted of offences related to drugs in England and Wales from 1995 to 2010 (latest available) can be found in the tables.
These figures are taken from published tables within the Statistical bulletins ‘Offender Management Caseload Statistics, England and Wales’ for the years 1995-2009 and the ‘Offender Management Statistics annual tables 2010’, available via these links:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hosbarchive.html
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/prisons-and-probation/oms-quartlery.htm
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
20 Jun 2011 : Column 99W
20 Jun 2011 : Column 100W
| Population in prison under immediate custodial sentence and proportion serving a sentence for drug offences, England and Wales, 1995-2010 | |||||||||
|
|
1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
|
|
2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2009 (1) | 2010 |
| (1) Due to the introduction of a new prison IT system the 2010 prison population data is taken from a different source. The 2009 figures from both the old and new system have been presented to aid comparison. Note: These figures have been drawn from large administrative data systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. | ||||||||
Legal Costs
Mr Buckland: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the merits of early intervention to prevent civil disputes about money and debt becoming matters for litigation. [59995]
Mr Djanogly: The Government's vision is for people to resolve their disputes at an early stage, ideally before entering the court process and before the costs of litigation escalate.
Early engagement is reflected in the rules of court, the Civil Procedure Rules, and in a range of pre-action protocols, which encourage early engagement and settlement where possible. Despite this, creditors often have to resort to court action because of a lack of debtor engagement for dealing with disputes including money, debt and other issues. Cases fall into the court system often for the wrong reasons, sometimes because people are unaware of alternatives or have not used the advice services that are available to help resolve disputes. To assist with resolving cases that have reached court without the need for further costs, county courts display notices giving the contact details of free advice providers.
The Ministry of Justice is currently consulting on a range of proposals for reforming the civil justice system, that include a greater role for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, as well as encouraging earlier settlement through a more robust pre-action procedure. The consultation closes on 30 June.
Life Imprisonment
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people received indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection in each year since 2003. [60002]
Mr Blunt: The number of persons sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection in England and Wales, 2005 to 2010 can be viewed in the following table.
Sentences of imprisonment for public protection were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on 4 April 2005. IPPs were therefore not available in 2003 and 2004.
| Persons sentenced to immediate custody and the number of indeterminate sentences for all offences, England and Wales 2005-10 | ||||||
| England and Wales | ||||||
| Persons given immediate custody and sentence length | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 (1) | 2010 |
| (1) Revisions have been made to 2009 figures to account for the late receipt of a small number of court records. (2) Sentences of imprisonment for public protection introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on 4 April 2005. | ||||||
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many prisoners serving indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection have served the minimum term under their sentence; [60008]
(2) how many prisoners serving indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection which were handed down before the implementation of changes introduced in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 have served the minimum term under their sentence; [60009]
(3) what the average minimum sentence handed down to prisoners given indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection was (a) before and (b) after the implementation of the changes introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. [60012]
20 Jun 2011 : Column 101W
Mr Blunt: Based on data on 17 November 2010, the number of prisoners who are serving indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) and have passed their tariff expiry date is 3,174. The number of prisoners serving an IPP sentence who have not passed their tariff expiry date is 3,119. A further 41 prisoners were serving an IPP where their tariff expiry date is not yet recorded.
The number of prisoners serving an IPP sentence imposed before the implementation of the changes introduced in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (CJIA08), on 14 July 2008, and have passed their tariff expiry date is 3,026.
The average tariff length for IPPs imposed before and after the CJIA08 implementation is shown in the table.
|
|
Average tariff (years) |
These data include prisoners serving an IPP sentence in prison and secure hospitals but exclude those who have been recalled to custody following release. The average length of tariff data included in the table does not include time served on remand.
National Offender Management Services: Managers
Ian Lavery: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many managers at grade C or above have left the employment of (a) his Department and (b) the National Offender Management Service in the last two financial years; and how many of those managers have subsequently been employed by Sodexo; [59986]
(2) how many managers at grade C or above have left the employment of (a) his Department and (b) the National Offender Management Service in the last two financial years; and how many of those managers have subsequently been employed by Reliance; [59988]
(3) how many managers at grade C or above have left the employment of (a) his Department and (b) the National Offender Management Service in the last two financial years; and how many of those managers have subsequently been employed by Mitie. [59990]
Mr Blunt: The grading structure in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) differs from the rest of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The definition of grade C is different in each case. Senior Manager C in NOMS refers to a more senior responsibility level than a Band C in MOJ. The equivalent of a Senior Manager C within MOJ is Band A. It is this level for which information is supplied in the answer.
The number of senior managers (Bands A and above) that left the MOJ between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2011 was 348. The number of senior managers (Senior Manager C and above) that left NOMS during the same period was 109. Of these, 38 staff were operational grades.
The MOJ and NOMS do not keep records of employment taken up by former staff after they have left. NOMS is however aware that a small number of senior managers resigned in 2010 to take up posts in the private sector, including the Governors of Holloway, Whitemoor, Moorland and the Isle of Wight prisons. One former Director of Offender Management also
20 Jun 2011 : Column 102W
took up an appointment with Sodexo in May 2011. There may have been others who joined private sector providers but there is no requirement for those leaving to advise the Department or agency of their future employment plans, save for any obligations under the Business Appointment Rules. These rules were applied in the appointment of the former Director of Offender Management with Sodexo.
Police Cautions
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will publish the outcomes of his Department's pilots on the availability of punitive conditions to police forces and prosecutors as part of a conditional caution. [59910]
Mr Blunt: The outcomes of the pilots are not yet available. We consulted on the availability of punitive conditions as part of the Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle”. We are considering the responses we received to the Green Paper consultation and will be publishing our plans shortly.
Prison Sentences: Methadone
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what proportion of persons in custody with sentences of (a) up to three months, (b) between three and six months, (c) between six and 12 months, (d) between one and two years, (e) between two and five years, (f) between five and 10 years and (g) 10 years and over were in receipt of methadone in the latest period for which figures are available; [59914]
(2) what proportion of those serving a custodial sentence were in receipt of methadone in each year since 1995. [60116]
Mr Blunt: The requested information on the proportion of persons in custody receiving methadone by length of sentence is not routinely collated and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by analysing prisoner records and disaggregating information which may be held on local data systems.
Data are available on the number of clinical drug interventions provided in prisons for drug dependency since 2007-08. There are no collated data prior to 2007.
In 2007-08, a total of 58,809 prisoners received a clinical drug intervention. Of these, 12,518 (21%) received a maintenance prescription for opioid dependency of either methadone or buprenorphine.
In 2008-09, a total of 64,767 prisoners received a clinical drug intervention. Of these 19,632 (31%) received a maintenance prescription for opioid dependency of either methadone or buprenorphine.
In 2009-10, a total of 60,067 prisoners received a clinical drug intervention. Of these 23,744 (39%) received a maintenance prescription for opioid dependency of either methadone or buprenorphine.(1)
(1) NOMS Performance Data
Prisoners
Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average cost to the public purse of an adult prisoner in England and Wales was in the last 12 months. [59994]
20 Jun 2011 : Column 103W
Mr Blunt: For the purpose of this answer, an adult prisoner is taken to be a prisoner held in an “adult” establishment, i.e. any prison that is not a young offender institution (which hold prisoners up to age 21). The overall average resource cost per prisoner held in an adult establishment in England and Wales for 2009-10 is £39,000. The average resource cost per place is £43,000. This is the latest period for which figures are available. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.
The costs represent the total cost per place/prisoner at each prison where the majority use at the end of each year was for adults. There is no adjustment for prisons holding prisoners both above and below age 21.
The overall average resource cost comprises the direct local establishment costs of public and private prisons, increased by an apportionment of relevant costs borne centrally and in the regions by NOMS. This involves some estimation. The figures do not include the cost of prisoners held in police or court cells under Operation Safeguard, or expenditure met by other Government Departments (e.g. Health and Education). Prisoner escort service costs are included.
Cost per prison place is expressed in terms of the Baseline Certified Normal Accommodation number of places.
Prisoners’ Release: Sexual Offences
Mr Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice at what stage of the process of release on licence of a sexual offender to approved premises the relevant local authority is notified; at what stage a meeting of the local Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) team is convened; and at what stage MAPPA is statutorily required to (a) have a representative at relevant meetings and (b) conduct an assessment of the risk to local public safety posed by a given offender. [60997]
Mr Blunt: Section 325(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) requires the responsible authority in each area (the police, probation and prison services acting jointly) to make arrangements for assessing and managing the risks posed by violent and sexual offenders. Further to this, section 325(3) of the 2003 Act requires the responsible authority to act in co-operation with the persons specified in section 325(6), and requires those persons to co-operate with the responsible authority. The list of persons in section 325(6) includes local authority representatives.
The detail of these arrangements for risk assessment, risk management and co-operation is set out in guidance issued to responsible authorities by the Secretary of State under section 325(8) of the 2003 Act. Under this guidance, the risk posed by sexual offenders must be assessed, and a MAPPA meeting convened, at least six months before the offender is due to be released on licence. Where release to an approved premises, or to local authority accommodation, is being considered, the responsible authority will invite the relevant local authority representatives to the initial MAPPA meeting and to subsequent review meetings.
Mr Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he is taking to ensure that Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements teams make the appropriate arrangements with regard to placement of sexual offenders in approved premises. [60998]
20 Jun 2011 : Column 104W
Mr Blunt: The decision to place a sexual offender in approved premises is taken by the Probation Trust which has statutory responsibility for supervising the offender, in consultation with the other local agencies involved in MAPPA and the manager of the relevant approved premises. The primary consideration is whether the risk of harm posed by the offender to others would be most effectively managed by the enhanced supervision provided in an approved premises. The decision to admit an offender to a particular approved premises is based upon an assessment of the risk of serious harm posed by the offender to the public, victims, and other residents or staff.
The Probation Trust may also ask for particular licence conditions to be imposed, in the case of a determinate sentence prisoner from the governor of the releasing prison and in the case of an indeterminate sentence prisoner from the Parole Board. Such licence conditions might include a requirement to comply with electronic monitoring and a requirement to stay away from specified places.
For the majority of sexual offenders who have served the custodial part of their sentence and have to be released into the community, it is better in public protection terms that they are placed in an approved premises immediately on release from custody rather than in other less suitable accommodation in the community, which is the only alternative.
Prisoners: Drugs
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what proportion of prisoners subject to random mandatory drug testing tested positive in (a) each year from 1995 to 2010 and (b) 2011 to date. [59920]
Mr Blunt: Mandatory drug testing (MDT) records held centrally are anonymous. For this reason data relating to the proportion of prisoners testing positive is not available. Available instead is the proportion of MDT samples that have tested positive.
The following table gives the percentage of random MDT samples that have tested positive in each financial year since 1995.
| Random mandatory drug testing 1995 to 2011 by financial year | |
|
|
Percentage of samples testing positive |
20 Jun 2011 : Column 105W
From 1 April 2009 buprenorphine was added to the standard panel of drugs tested for under MDT. This explains the slight increase in overall positive rates in 2009-10.
Data for 2010-11 will be published in July 2011 as part of the National Offender Management Service annual report for 2010-11.
These figures have been drawn from live administrative data systems which may be amended at any time. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
Prisoners: Training
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department has allocated to employment and learning services for prisoners in each year of the comprehensive spending review period; and how much funding his Department and its predecessors allocated for such purposes in each year between 1995 and 2010. [59891]
Mr Blunt: Education services for prisoners(1) are funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), devolved to the Skills Funding Agency, formerly the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).
(1) Offenders aged 18 and over.
The Learning and Skills Council assumed responsibility for planning and funding the integrated Offender Learning and Skills Service (OLASS) in England on 31 July 2006. OLASS funds the delivery of skills for offenders (aged 18 and over) held in English Public Sector prisons for both sentenced prisoners and those held on remand.
In Wales, from April 2006, commissioning responsibilities for offender learning and skills provision became the responsibility of Director of Offender Management in Wales. Responsibilities for learning and skills provision for those in custody in Wales transferred to the Welsh Assembly Government with effect from 1 April 2009.
Data are available on spend since 2001. Table 1 includes spend directly relating to the OLASS provision and also spend associated with the employment of Heads of Learning and Skills in prisons, Libraries and Higher Education in public sector prisons in England and Wales:
| Table 1 | |
|
|
Total spend (£ million) |
Over the comprehensive spending review (CSR) period, allocations are as follows:
Table 2 includes spend directly relating to the OLASS provision and also spend associated with the employment of Heads of Learning and Skills in prisons, Libraries and Higher Education in public sector prisons in England and Wales:
20 Jun 2011 : Column 106W
| Table 2 | ||
| £ million | ||
|
|
Total spend in England | Total s pend in Wales—funded by the Welsh Government |
| (1) Indicative. | ||
Allocations beyond 2012-13 have yet to be confirmed.
£34 million of the growth between 2005-06 and 2010-11 (inclusive) was as a result of additional education allocations to support the places flowing from the prison capacity programme.
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) provides both physical resources and staff to support educational activities and employment support for prisoners. Some employment support is delivered in partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions. It is not possible to separately identify these costs which are not held centrally.
Training for prisoners is undertaken, mainly by Prison Service staff, while prisoners work or are engaged in various areas such as prison industries, catering, physical education, land based activities, industrial cleaning and laundries. The central costs of the training elements of these, mainly production functions, are not kept centrally.
NOMS gained co-financing organisation status in January 2009 and successfully bid for a total of £50 million of European Social Funding to enhance the skills and employment services to offenders in prison and the community. NOMS has been granted the funding over 27 months to increase offenders' employability and improve their access to mainstream support provision. Funding has been extended into a second phase up to 2013.
Prisons: Drugs
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department has allocated to tackle drug addiction on the prison estate in each year of the comprehensive spending review period; and how much funding his Department and its predecessors allocated for such purposes in each year since 1995. [59888]
Mr Blunt: From April 2011, the Department of Health assumed responsibility for funding all drug treatment in prisons in England. They are providing £69.4 million(1) of prison funding previously allocated by the Ministry of Justice and £44.5 million from their Integrated Drug Treatment System (IDTS) budget in each of the three years of the comprehensive spending review period (2011-14).
Drug treatment funding allocated to prisons from 1999-2000 to 2010-11 is shown in the following table. Information from 1995-99 is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
| Funding allocated to prisons in England and Wales for drug treatment | |
|
|
£ million |
20 Jun 2011 : Column 107W
| (1) This includes £63 million for adult prisons and £6.4 million for young people's secure settings. (2) Figures from 1999-2000 to 2007-08 include CARATs (Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare service), YPSMS (Young People's Substance Misuse Services) and intensive drug rehabilitation programmes as well as funding from the Department of Health for clinical interventions (detoxification and maintenance prescribing). (3) Figures from 2008-09 to 2010-11 exclude Department of Health funding for clinical interventions. | |
Probation Trusts
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how much his Department and its predecessor spent on probation trusts in each year since 1995; [60003]
(2) what budget he has set for each probation trust in each year of the comprehensive spending review period. [60007]
Mr Blunt: The information is as follows:
Financial period 1995-96 to 2000-01
Prior to 2001-02, local probation committees were financed partly by local government under a different financial regime. NOMS are therefore unable to answer this element of the question.
Financial period 2001-02 to 2009-10
Probation Trusts have only been in existence since April 2008, following the implementation of the Offender Management Act 2007.
The following table has been compiled to illustrate the costs of probation boards/trusts over the 2001 to 2010 financial period using the annual net operating costs.
| £ million | ||
| Financial year | Boards and Trusts expenditure | Trusts included in expenditure |
| Notes: 1. The figures for financial years 2001-02 to 2007-08 are the net operating costs recorded in the annual consolidated accounts of local probation boards. These accounts are available from the House Library. 2. The figures for 2008-09 and 2009-10 are taken from the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Agency annual accounts and supporting data. 3. Following standard accounting practice, local boards. and trusts. pension contributions are not fully reflected in the figures. 4. Expenditure on probation met centrally by the National Probation Directorate (as was) and the National Offender Management Service is not included in local areas’ expenditure. 5. Comparisons over time are difficult due to changes in accounting methodology. | ||
20 Jun 2011 : Column 108W
Data for 2010-11 are not yet available as financial accounts for the 2010-11 have yet to be finalised.
Comprehensive Spending Review Period Year 2011-12
The following table sets out the contract values for financial year 2011-12 as agreed with each Probation Trust. These individual contract values may vary through the year but are as stated at the beginning of the financial year. There are some probation costs for specific offender related initiatives not embedded in the contracts and therefore excluded from the following table.
|
|
£ |
Comprehensive Spending Review Period: 2012 to 2015
Given the demanding settlement the Department received we are continuing to finalise our savings plans for the remainder of the SR period, and as a result detailed budgets for individual trusts are not yet available.
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what output measures his Department will use to assess the performance of probation trusts over the comprehensive spending review period. [59903]
Mr Blunt:
Orders or Licences Successfully Completed, Employment at Termination and Accommodation at Termination are the output measures which currently form part of the data-driven performance assessment of
20 Jun 2011 : Column 109W
probation trusts. These output indicators complement a range of measures in the Probation Trust Rating System (PTRS), including the key outcome Reducing Reoffending, quality measures from HMI Probation and engagement indicators such as Offender Feedback and Victim Feedback.
In addition to the measures in the formal performance assessment, the probation contracts contain a number of targeted output measures including Sustained Employment, Education Awards, Sex Offender Treatment Programmes Completions, Domestic Violence Completions, Offending Behaviour Programme Completions, Drug Rehabilitation Requirement Completions, Alcohol Treatment Requirement Completions and Community Payback Completions among other measures used for assurance purposes.
There is an annual cycle of review on measures, targets and the contents of the PTRS model. In line with this Government's policy direction the review is focused to be less prescriptive with the aim of reducing the burden of data collection on the front line. The introduction of Payment By Results (PBR) will be reflected in the future performance framework.