Third Sector
Mr Thomas:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much funding his Department gave to (a) the Stephen Lawrence
16 Apr 2012 : Column 205W
Trust,
(b)
Magic Breakfast,
(c)
Barnados and
(d)
the Children's Society in (i) 2010-11 and (ii) 2011-12; and if he will make a statement. [100540]
Robert Neill [holding answer 19 March 2012]:No monies were paid in 2010-11 and 2011-12 to the Stephen Lawrence Trust, Magic Breakfast or Barnardo’s. The Children's Society received £19,211 in 2010-11, in relation to a project on immigration.
Transport: Planning Permission
Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) how the National Planning Policy Framework will encourage alternative modes of transport, including cycling and walking; [99902]
(2) what steps his Department is taking to ensure new housing developments take into consideration cycling and walking when designing transport access. [99903]
Greg Clark [holding answer 13 March 2012]:The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that planning strategies should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes. As part of this, developments should be located and designed where practical to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, have access to high quality public transport facilities, and create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians.
Travellers: Caravan Sites
Charlie Elphicke: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether the Traveller encampment at Dale Farm, Essex has been valued or banded for (a) council tax or (b) business rates by the Valuation Office Agency. [101036]
Mr Gauke: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Treasury.
The remaining domestic dwellings at Dale Farm near Billericay, Essex are banded for council tax. No non-domestic property is currently identified.
Trees: Planning Permission
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the average time taken is by the Planning Inspectorate to deal with complaints relating to appeals against decisions on tree preservation orders in the most recent period for which figures are available. [101377]
Robert Neill [holding answer 22 March 2012]: During the current financial year up to the third quarter (April-December 2011), the Planning Inspectorate responded to complaints relating to tree preservation order appeals in an average of 33 working days from the date of receipt of the complaint.
16 Apr 2012 : Column 206W
Justice
Crime: Motor Vehicles
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the highest number was of previous convictions for vehicle interference for an individual convicted of an offence of vehicle interference without being sent to prison in each of the last three years; and how many offences the offender had committed in total at the point of sentence for this offence. [102413]
Mr Blunt: The following table shows the highest number of previous convictions for vehicle interference for individuals convicted of this offence in the years 2008 to 2010 who received a sentence other than immediate custody. It also shows the total number of previous offences for any offence at the point of sentence and the number of previous immediate custodial sentences for any offence. The figures provided cover vehicle interference under section 9 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and the offence has a maximum penalty of three months' custody.
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.
Criminal Proceedings
Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what representations his Department has made at an EU level on the sharing of best practice between member states on pre- and post-trial detention. [101343]
Mr Kenneth Clarke:
No specific representations on best practice have been made at EU level though there are, in practice, direct contacts and sharing of best practice at working level between officials in my Department and those in other individual member states. There are also ad hoc arrangements for best practice sharing at an EU level; for example, there was in March a meeting of experts from EU member states to discuss issues arising from the EU prisoner transfer framework decision. More generally, EU level work in this sphere is under way to build on the European Commission’s 2011 Green Paper on the topic, which itself flowed from an earlier EU resolution on criminal procedural rights which tasked the Commission to consider this area. The UK response to the Green Paper stressed that improving the sharing of best practice at an EU level would be a significant
16 Apr 2012 : Column 207W
and pragmatic way forward and we hope and expect this approach will feature in any forthcoming proposal. The UK’s interest here will be to ensure EU activity is directed at improving standards among all member states so as to promote trust and confidence across the EU and thereby enable the most effective delivery of justice throughout the Union.
Mr Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his policy is on the period for which e-mails sent and received by (a) Ministers, (b) officials, and (c) special advisers in his Department are retained; and whether such e-mails are recoverable from the IT systems in his Department after that period. [102949]
Mr Djanogly: The retention period relating to e-mails sent or received by anyone in the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), including Ministers, officials, and special advisers would be dependent upon the nature of any individual e-mail.
E-mails held in individuals' accounts do not necessarily form part of the Department's record keeping in their own right. However, e-mails which are significant enough to form part of the information to be held within an electronic or paper file, for example as part of a policy-making process, are subject to the Department's Record Retention and Disposition Schedules, and would be retained for the length of time the file is retained.
The Public Records Act 1958 [PRA] requires Government Departments to destroy any of their records which are not selected for permanent preservation. The Act does not specify when such destruction must take place but MOJ has Record Retention and Disposition Schedules (RRDS) setting out how long to retain each type of record. The length of time for which any record is held by MOJ, is determined by two criteria: the business need of the area holding the record; and any legislative requirements.
E-mails held in MOJ headquarters which are not transferred to corporate files are automatically deleted after a period of three years. If deleted before that by the user, e-mails are still stored elsewhere for a period of 30 days before being deleted from the system entirely. After that any retrieval would be dependent on the type of back-up which is performed.
Employment and Support Allowance
Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost to the public purse has been of additional funding for tribunal services in order to deal with the backlog of appeals against employment and support allowance decisions. [103050]
Mr Djanogly: Appeals against Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decisions on entitlement to employment and support allowance are heard by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS).
DWP funds the cost of increased volumes of appeals following welfare reform changes, above an agreed baseline. HMCTS received £1.3 million of additional funding in 2008-09, £9 million in 2009-10, £20.9 million in 2010-11 and £26.3 million for 2011-12 to deal with the increased volume of ESA appeals.
16 Apr 2012 : Column 208W
Employment and Support Allowance: Appeals
Martin Caton: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost to the public purse was of employment support allowance tribunal appeals in each of the years from 2008 to 2011. [102551]
Mr Djanogly: Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) hears appeals against Department for Work and Pensions decisions on entitlement to employment and support allowance (ESA).
The estimated total cost to HMCTS of ESA appeals during the period April 2008 to March 2011 is summarised in the following table. For each period the estimated costs were calculated by multiplying the average cost of an individual First-tier Tribunal Social Security and Child Support case in that year by the number of ESA appeals disposed of during the year.
| Total cost of employment and support allowance appeals | ||
| Number of ESA appeals cleared | Total cost (£ million) | |
| (1) Employment and support allowance was introduced in October 2008. | ||
Fines: EU Law
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many financial penalties have been transmitted by the UK to another EU member state under the Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties in each year since it came into force; and if he will make a statement. [103058]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The provisions of EU Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 were implemented into England, Wales and Northern Ireland law in 2009, through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. There was a minor amendment made through the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011. In Scotland the order was made under powers conferred by sections 56 of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, then implemented by the Mutual Recognition of Criminal Financial Penalties in the European Union (Scotland) Order (SSI 2009/ 342).
The first cases to be sent to and received from member states were in 2010.
| Number of cases transmitted to other EU member states | |
Insolvency: Civil Proceedings
John Glen: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) when his Department expects to outline its plans for the new model for insolvency proceedings as committed to during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill; [102225]
16 Apr 2012 : Column 209W
(2) what discussions his Department has had with the insolvency profession regarding maintaining and improving recoveries for the taxpayer and businesses following his commitment during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to a new model for insolvency proceedings; [102230]
(3) if he will provide details on the new model for insolvency proceedings as committed to by his Department during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. [102231]
Mr Djanogly: We have received a number of representations, including from insolvency practitioners and their representative bodies, about the implications for insolvency proceedings of the reforms to civil litigation funding and costs. These reforms were subject to full public consultation and are now contained in part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
We have had a number of discussions with stakeholders as part of that process. We have reached agreement across Government in respect of insolvency proceedings that in future these cases will need to proceed without recoverable success fees and insurance premiums.
We are working on a programme for implementing this part of the Bill and we will set out the details relating to insolvency proceedings in due course.
Legal Aid Scheme
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many applications for legal aid were (a) received and (b) granted by the Legal Services Commission in (i) England, (ii) the North West, (iii) Cumbria and (iv) Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency in each of the last five years. [102679]
Mr Djanogly: The information requested is not readily available as it involves matching data in different formats from several current and previous schemes. The information therefore could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Legal Aid Scheme: Travellers
Charlie Elphicke: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the policy of the Legal Services Commission has been on whether its funding could be used to support Travellers in relation to planning cases for (a) retrospective planning permission and (b) contesting planning enforcement notices in the last four years; and what the criteria were for qualifying for that funding. [101797]
Mr Djanogly: Under the current civil legal aid scheme, legal advice and assistance on most areas of law, including planning matters, is available to all clients, subject to the statutory tests of the client’s means and the merits of the case.
Legal representation is not usually available for planning inquiries as these inquiries are informal and inquisitorial processes for which legal representation is not necessary, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Under the current scheme, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, may
16 Apr 2012 : Column 210W
authorise the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to grant funding in individual excluded cases, where the LSC first requests it. For exceptional funding to be granted at a planning inquiry under the existing scheme, the statutory tests of means and merits must be met. In addition, the Lord Chancellor expects one of the following criteria to be met:
there is a significant wider public interest (as defined in the LSC Funding Code) in the resolution of the case and funded representation will contribute to it; or
the case is of overwhelming importance to the client (as defined in the LSC Funding Code); or
there is convincing evidence that there are other exceptional circumstances such that without public funding for representation it would be practically impossible for the client to bring or defend the proceedings or the lack of public funding would lead to obvious unfairness in the proceedings.
Police and Crime Commissioners
Debbie Abrahams: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he plans to take to ensure that services for victims and witnesses are maintained and improved in the event that the commissioning of such services is devolved to Police and Crime Commissioners. [102304]
Mr Blunt: In our consultation document, ‘Getting it right for Victims and Witnesses’, we proposed that the majority of support services for victims be commissioned by elected police and crime commissioners (PCCs). We believe services should be commissioned in a way that more closely reflects the needs and priorities of the local community and we think PCCs will be best placed to do this. Under our proposals service providers would in future be commissioned based on evidence of their ability to achieve two outcomes, namely to help victims first to cope with the immediate impact of the crime and subsequently to recover from the harm they have experienced. In the consultation document we also announced proposals which aim to raise up to an additional £50 million per annum for victims’ services from the Victim Surcharge and other financial impositions.
Procurement
Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many contracts his Department had with (a) Capita and (b) Serco in the last 12 months. [103165]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: In the period April 2011 to March 2012, the Ministry of Justice has awarded three contracts to Capita and seven contracts to Serco. Details of the contracts are as follows:
1. Provision of interims and specialist contractors
2. Provision of an authorised pensions administration service
3. Supply, installation and maintenance of a new digital radio system
1. Provision of external support following the launch of NOMS job evaluation scheme
2. Prisoner escort and custody services
3. Electronic monitoring
16 Apr 2012 : Column 211W
4. Provision of services to improve the employment prospects of offenders through NOMS ESF co-financing programme 2009-2011 for the east of England region
5. Provision of services to improve the employment prospects of offenders through NOMS ESF co-financing programme 2009-11 for the south-east region
6. Provision of services to improve the employment prospects of offenders through NOMS ESF co-financing programme 2011-14 for the east of England region
7. Provision of services to improve the employment prospects of offenders through NOMS ESF co-financing programme 2011-14 for the south-east region.
Sentencing: EU Action
Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent discussions he has had with the European institutions on sentencing. [102575]
Mr Blunt: Government Ministers have not recently had substantial discussions specifically on sentencing with European Union institutions. However, sentencing points are raised in numerous negotiations on EU instruments.
16 Apr 2012 : Column 212W
Sexual Offences
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many sex offenders are serving a prison sentence in England and Wales; [102422]
(2) what the length of sentence was of each sex offender received into prison in England and Wales in each of the last five years; [102423]
(3) how many sex offenders of each gender were received into prison in England and Wales under sentence in each of the last five years. [102424]
Mr Blunt: As at 31 December 2011 there were 10,125 offenders in prison under sentence for sexual offences.
Tables 1 and 2 as follows provide information on the immediate custodial sentenced receptions in prison establishments in England and Wales by sentence length and sex for sexual offences in each year from 2005 to 2009 (latest annual data available).
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.
| Table 1: Immediate custodial sentenced receptions into prison establishments, for sexual offences, by sentence length, 2005-09, England and Wales | ||||||
| All | Less than or equal to 6 months | Greater than 6 months to less than 12 months | 12 months to less than 4 years | 4 years or more (excluding ) indeterminate sentences | Indeterminate sentences | |
| Table 2: Receptions into prison establishments, under immediate custodial sentence, by sex, for sexual offences, 2005-09, England and Wales | |||
| All | Male | Female | |
Sexual Offences: Registration
Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the press notice issued by his Department on 5 March on tightening the law on sex offenders, how his Department intends to inform police forces and magistrates about the requirement for registered sex offenders to notify the police of all foreign travel. [101022]
James Brokenshire: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Department.
The Home Office has worked closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers and Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service throughout the consultation process and will continue to do so during the legislative and implementation stages to ensure that the appropriate people are informed of any changes.
We expect that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 to come into force from summer 2012, subject to other parliamentary business.
Social Security Benefits: Appeals
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average waiting time was between the submission of an appeal against a decision on the award of (a) employment and support allowance and (b) disability living allowance and the date of the appeal hearing in each administrative office in the Greater London area in (i) 2008-09, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2010-11 and (iv) April to December 2011. [102910]
Mr Djanogly: Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) hears appeals against Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decisions on entitlement to employment and support allowance (ESA) and disability living allowance (DLA).
The following table shows the average time taken from submission of an appeal to the DWP until the date of the first appeal hearing at HMCTS for ESA and DLA appeals at the Sutton Processing Centre, which serves the Greater London area.
16 Apr 2012 : Column 213W
16 Apr 2012 : Column 214W
HMCTS is working hard to increase the capacity of the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal (SSCS) and reduce waiting times. It has increased hearing rooms, the number of cases listed in each session and the number of sessions held; streamlined its administrative processes; started running double shifts in its largest processing centre so that more appeals can be processed each day; started running Saturday sittings in some of the busiest venues (where there is demand and where it is feasible); set up a customer contact centre to deal with telephone enquiries for the processing sites, freeing up other staff to focus on processing appeals and arranging hearings; and recruited more judges and panel members to hear more appeals.
All of this is having a positive effect. The number of disposals has increased significantly from 279,000 in 2009-10 to 380,000 in 2010-11. Disposals outstripped receipts in each of the 12 months between January 2011 and December 2011 and the number of cases waiting to be heard reduced by over 44,000 between April and December. The average waiting time has stabilised nationally, and is beginning to fall in many venues.
Victim Support Schemes
Yasmin Qureshi: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he plans to take to ensure that a new victims code is effectively monitored and enforced. [103103]
Mr Blunt: In our consultation document 'Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses', published on 30 January, we set out far reaching proposals for improving services and support for victims and witnesses. A key proposal is that there should be a new, clearer, Victims' Code and we have sought views on a set of principles on which we think the new code should be based.
The consultation closes on 22 April and we plan to publish the Government's response to the consultation in the summer.
As we begin to draft the new code we will consider how best to monitor and enforce it. There will be a further consultation on the code and on these arrangements before we lay it before Parliament.
Vodafone Group
Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what contracts his Department has with Vodafone; [103202]
(2) how many contracts Vodafone has been awarded by his Department in the last 12 months. [103201]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has not awarded any contracts to Vodafone in the last 12 months. The MOJ obtains mobile phones from Vodafone under the Government Procurement Service Mobile Solutions (2) Framework Agreement.
Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many times the Permanent Secretary in his Department has met Vodafone representatives in the last 12 months. [103203]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: My Department publishes details of meetings between the Permanent Secretary and external organisations on its website. Since March 2011 the Permanent Secretary has not met with Vodafone representatives.
Young Offenders: Greater London
Jon Cruddas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many juvenile offenders from (a) the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and (b) the London borough of Havering have been held in (i) a secure children's home, (ii) a secure training centre and (iii) a young offender institution in each month since May 2005. [102902]
Mr Blunt: The table shows the number of juvenile offenders (aged 10 to 17) either sentenced or remanded in custody attached to the (a) Barking and Dagenham Youth Offending Team (YOT) and (b) Havering YOT who have been held in a (i) secure children's home, (ii) secure training centre and (iii) under 18 young offender institution in each month since May 2005 to January 2012.
These data have been provided by the Youth Justice Board (YJB). The YJB holds data at the YOT area level, not at the local authority level. YOT area data may cover more than one local authority area.
This is based upon monthly snapshot data. Therefore one young person who is serving more than one month in custody, may be shown in more than one month in the table.
The data from April 2011 onwards are provisional and will be finalised when the 2011-12 Youth Justice Statistics are published in 2013.
16 Apr 2012 : Column 215W
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 and can be subject to change over time.
| Table 1: Young people in custody attached to (a) Barking and Dagenham Youth Offending Team (YOT) and (b) Havering YOT by establishment type in each month since May 2005 | ||||||
| (a) Barking and Dagenham YOT | (b) Havering YOT | |||||
| Secure Children's Homes | Secure Training Centres | Young Offender Institutions | Secure Children's Homes | Secure Training Centres | Young Offender Institutions | |
16 Apr 2012 : Column 216W
16 Apr 2012 : Column 217W
| Notes: 1. YJB data referring to Secure Training Centres (STCs), Secure Children's Homes (SCHs), and Under 18 Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). This does not include 18 to 21-year-olds held in YOI separate units for which the YJB do not hold data. This is based upon monthly snapshot data therefore one young person who is serving more than one month in custody, may be shown in more than one month in the table. The figures from April 2011 onwards are provisional. 2. Young people are defined as those aged 10 to 17 years of age, however some 18-year-olds remain in the secure estate for children and young people if they only have a short period of their sentence left to serve, to avoid disrupting their regimes (and are included in these figures). 3. The data comes from the Youth Justice Board's Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS). 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 and may be subject to change over time. | ||||||
16 Apr 2012 : Column 218W
Jon Cruddas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many young adult offenders aged between 18 and 20 years from (a) the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and (b) the London borough of Havering have been held in (i) young offender institutions, (ii) local prisons, (iii) women's prisons and (iv) other parts of the secure estate, in each month since May 2009. [102903]
Mr Blunt: All young offenders sentenced to Detention in a Young Offender Institution (DYOI), which is the most common custodial sentence for this age group, are held in appropriately designated YOI accommodation within the prison estate. The majority of this accommodation is in dedicated YOIs, although some establishments in the estate have a dual designation (designated both as a prison and a YOI) and hold both adult prisoners and young offenders.
The following tables show the number of offenders aged 18 to 20 years old with a recorded residential address or proxy in (a) the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and (b) the London borough of Havering who were held in predominant function male Young Offender Institutions, predominant function male local prisons, all female prisons and the rest of the male estate on a set day in each month where data are available since May 2009.
| Number and location of male and female young adult offenders (aged 18 to 20) originating from London borough of Barking and Dagenham | ||||||||||
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |||||||
| Location | May | Sept | Nov | Jan | Mar | May | July | Sept | Nov | Jan |
| Number and location of male and female young adult offenders (aged 18 to 20) originating from London borough of Havering | ||||||||||
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |||||||
| Location | May | Sept | Nov | Jan | Mar | May | July | Sept | Nov | Jan |
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.
Information on offenders' residences is provided by offenders on reception into prison and recorded on a central IT system. Addresses can include a home address, an address to which offenders intend to return on discharge or next of kin address and these figures are provided in the table above.
If no address is given, an offender's committal court address is used as a proxy for the area in which they are resident. These figures are also included in the table above. No address has been recorded and no court
16 Apr 2012 : Column 219W
information is available for around 3% of all offenders, these figures are excluded from the table above.
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many juvenile offenders from (a) the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and (b) Westminster City Council have been held in a (i) secure children's home, (ii) secure training centre and (iii) young offender institution in each month since May 2005. [102911]
Mr Blunt: The following table shows the number of juvenile offenders (aged 10 to 17) either sentenced or remanded in custody attached to the (a)Kensington and Chelsea Youth Offending Team (YOT) and (b) Westminster YOT who have been held in a (i) secure children's home, (ii) secure training centre and (iii) under 18 young offender institution in each month since May 2005 to January 2012.
This data has been provided by the Youth Justice Board (YJB). The YJB holds data at the YOT area level, not at the local authority level. YOT area data may cover more than one local authority area.
This is based upon monthly snapshot data. Therefore one young person who is serving more than one month in custody, may be shown in more than one month in the following table.
The data from April 2011 onwards are provisional and will be finalised when the 2011-12 Youth Justice Statistics are published in 2013.
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 and can be subject to change over time.
| Table 1: Young people in custody attached to (a) Kensington and Chelsea Youth Offending Team (YOT) and (b) Westminster YOT by establishment type in each month since May 2005 | ||||||
| (a) Kensington and Chelsea YOT | (b) Westminster YOT | |||||
| May 2005-April 2008 | Secure Children’s Homes | Secure Training Centres | Young Offender Institutions | Secure Children’s Homes | Secure Training Centres | Young Offender Institutions |
16 Apr 2012 : Column 220W
16 Apr 2012 : Column 221W
16 Apr 2012 : Column 222W
| Notes: 1. YJB data referring to secure training centres (STCs), secure children's homes (SCHs), and under 18 young offender institutions (YOIs). This does not include 18 to 21-year-olds held in YOI separate units for which the YJB do not hold data. This is based upon monthly snapshot data therefore one young person who is serving more than one month in custody, may be shown in more than one month in the table. The figures from April 2011 onwards are provisional. 2. Young people are defined as those aged 10 to 17 years of age, however some 18-year-olds remain in the secure estate for children and young people if they only have a short period of their sentence left to serve, to avoid disrupting their regimes (and are included in these figures). 3. The data comes from the Youth Justice Board's Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS). 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 and may be subject to change over time. | ||||||