Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

175968

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Domestic Abuse: Sentencing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many victims of domestic violence have been imprisoned for contempt of court in the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Feltham and Heston
tabling member printed	Seema Malhotra
uin	222123
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>Domestic violence and abuse is a dreadful crime and has no place in our society. Tackling it has been one of this Government’s top priorities. We are determined to support victims in rebuilding their lives and reporting these crimes, and to make sure perpetrators are brought to justice. We have piloted and rolled out Clare's Law and domestic violence protection orders; extended the definition of domestic abuse to cover controlling behaviour and teenage relationships; run two successful campaigns to challenge perceptions of abuse; and placed Domestic Homicide Reviews on a statutory footing to make sure lessons are learned from individual tragedies. More recently we have added an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill at Commons Committee stage to create a new offence of domestic abuse.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible separately to identify from this centrally held information how many people imprisoned for contempt of court have also been victims of a crime. This detailed information may be held on court records but is not reported centrally to the Ministry of Justice. As such, the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 03/02/2015 17:50:01 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	4253 label Biography information for Seema Malhotra

175969

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Reparation by Offenders
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many offenders who have been part of a restorative justice scheme have reoffended in each of the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Strangford
tabling member printed	Jim Shannon
uin	222109
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p>Information about the numbers of offenders who participate in Restorative Justice activities, and the outcomes from those activities, is not collated centrally.<br> <br> We are committed to ensuring that good quality, victim-focused Restorative Justice is made available for victims and offenders at all stages of the criminal justice system across England and Wales. Research by the Ministry of Justice of a number of Restorative Justice pilots suggests that Restorative Justice has the potential for positive impacts both on victim satisfaction and on re-offending, with evaluation of the pilots finding that overall there was an estimated 14% reduction in the frequency of re-offending.</p> answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire answering member printed Andrew Selous question first answered 03/02/2015 17:21:17 answering member 1453 label Biography information for Andrew Selous
tabling member	4131 label Biography information for Jim Shannon

175970

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Open Prisons: Prisoner Escapes
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance his Department has issued to open prisons on reducing the number of absconders.
tabling member constituency	Hendon
tabling member printed	Dr Matthew Offord
uin	222143
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) conducted a fundamental review of the policy and practice related of Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) last year. NOMS have subsequently introduced a system that enhances the assessment of serious offenders and restricts access to ROTL to cases where there is a clear resettlement purpose. The enhanced or “restricted ROTL” approach for serious offenders involves tighter eligibility and monitoring, more risk assessment including case file reviews by psychologists, and greater involvement by offender managers.</p><p> </p><p>Changes have also been made to the allocation of prisoners to open conditions; foreign national prisoners with ongoing immigration matters and prisoners who have absconded or failed to return from ROTL during their current sentence will not be transferred to open conditions or have further ROTL.</p><p> </p><p>NOMS closely monitors absconds to identify trends and patterns. All absconds or failures to return by restricted ROTL prisoners are the subject of an internal investigation by a senior manager. The lessons learned are considered by a central forum of open prison Governors under the chairmanship of the Deputy Director of Public Sector Prisons.</p> answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire answering member printed Andrew Selous question first answered 03/02/2015 17:30:09 answering member 1453 label Biography information for Andrew Selous
tabling member	4006 label Biography information for Dr Matthew Offord

175971

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Driving under Influence
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) breathalysed and (b) convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol in December in each of the last five years.
tabling member constituency	Strangford
tabling member printed	Jim Shannon
uin	222116
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>Driving offences can have very serious and sometimes devastating consequences for victims and their families. That is why the Government is toughened the law by closing loopholes relating to breath tests conducted by the police.</p><p> </p><p>The number of breath tests carried out by police in England and Wales between 2008 and 2012, the latest year available, and the number of tests that were positive or refused is set out in the table below. For reporting purposes the Home Office does not differentiate between ‘positive’ and ‘refused’ breathe tests. If an individual refuses a breath test, this is an offence which carries the same maximum penalty as a positive breath test.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Number of breath tests</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Positive/Refused</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008</p></td><td><p>711,658</p></td><td><p>91,666</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>815,290</p></td><td><p>93,348</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>736,846</p></td><td><p>84,436</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>685,992</p></td><td><p>80,761</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>682,558</p></td><td><p>75,868</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The table below sets out the total number of offenders found guilty of drink driving offences in England and Wales per year between 2009 and 2013 (the latest year available) and in December of each year.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total number of offences </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Of which December =</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>68,335</p></td><td><p>5,041</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>53,305</p></td><td><p>3,823</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>50,320</p></td><td><p>3,774</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>50,192</p></td><td><p>3,498</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>47,844</p></td><td><p>3,645</p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 03/02/2015 17:15:39 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	4131 label Biography information for Jim Shannon

176139

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Computer Misuse Act 1990
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in each year since it entered into force.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Mr Elfyn Llwyd
uin	222192
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>The Government is absolutely clear that abusive or threatening behaviour, stalking or harassment, are totally unacceptable, whether online or offline. A number of offences may be committed by misusing the internet or social media in this way, in particular under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Changes to the law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will help to ensure that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished.</p><p> </p><p>Stalking causes misery for victims. That is why in 2012 we added to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 two new specific offences of stalking (section 2A) and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A), the latter of which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or a fine, or both. Online stalking or harassment could amount to one of these offences if it is carried out as part of a ‘course of conduct’ which amounts to stalking, and could amount to the more serious offence if that course of conduct puts someone in fear of violence, or if it causes them serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities</p><p> </p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found</p><p>guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990,</p><p>from 1990 to 2013 (latest data available), can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information convictions and sentences involving the use or misuse of social media, or cyber crime. This detailed information may be held on the court record but due to the size and complexity is not reported centrally to the MoJ. As such, the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England &amp; Wales, 1990-2013<sup>(1)(2)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>Proceeded<br> Against</td><td>Found<br> Guilty<sup>(3)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>16</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>18</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>21</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>24</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>25</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2008<sup>(4)</sup></td><td>17</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>55</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>339</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(-) Nil</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(1) The figures given in the table 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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(3) The number of defendants found guilty in a particular year may exceed the number proceeded against as the proceedings in the magistrates' court took place in an earlier year and the defendants were found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year; or the defendants were found guilty of a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td></tr><tr><td>PQ 222192</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 222193 222194 question first answered 04/02/2015 18:01:41 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	549 label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd

176140

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Social Media: Misuse
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) charged, (b) convicted and (c) sentenced to custody following a conviction involving misuse of social media in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what offences they were (i) charged with, (ii) convicted of and (iii) sentenced for.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Mr Elfyn Llwyd
uin	222193
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p>The Government is absolutely clear that abusive or threatening behaviour, stalking or harassment, are totally unacceptable, whether online or offline. A number of offences may be committed by misusing the internet or social media in this way, in particular under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Changes to the law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will help to ensure that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished.</p><p> </p><p>Stalking causes misery for victims. That is why in 2012 we added to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 two new specific offences of stalking (section 2A) and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A), the latter of which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or a fine, or both. Online stalking or harassment could amount to one of these offences if it is carried out as part of a ‘course of conduct’ which amounts to stalking, and could amount to the more serious offence if that course of conduct puts someone in fear of violence, or if it causes them serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities</p><p> </p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found</p><p>guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990,</p><p>from 1990 to 2013 (latest data available), can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information convictions and sentences involving the use or misuse of social media, or cyber crime. This detailed information may be held on the court record but due to the size and complexity is not reported centrally to the MoJ. As such, the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England &amp; Wales, 1990-2013<sup>(1)(2)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>Proceeded<br> Against</td><td>Found<br> Guilty<sup>(3)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>16</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>18</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>21</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>24</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>25</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2008<sup>(4)</sup></td><td>17</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>55</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>339</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(-) Nil</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(1) The figures given in the table 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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(3) The number of defendants found guilty in a particular year may exceed the number proceeded against as the proceedings in the magistrates' court took place in an earlier year and the defendants were found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year; or the defendants were found guilty of a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td></tr><tr><td>PQ 222192</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 222192 222194 question first answered 04/02/2015 18:01:42 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	549 label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd

176141

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Cybercrime
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of people convicted under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 used social media or cyber crime to harass or stalk their victims.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Mr Elfyn Llwyd
uin	222194
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/02/2015 answer text <p>The Government is absolutely clear that abusive or threatening behaviour, stalking or harassment, are totally unacceptable, whether online or offline. A number of offences may be committed by misusing the internet or social media in this way, in particular under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Changes to the law in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will help to ensure that people who commit those offences are prosecuted and properly punished.</p><p> </p><p>Stalking causes misery for victims. That is why in 2012 we added to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 two new specific offences of stalking (section 2A) and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A), the latter of which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or a fine, or both. Online stalking or harassment could amount to one of these offences if it is carried out as part of a ‘course of conduct’ which amounts to stalking, and could amount to the more serious offence if that course of conduct puts someone in fear of violence, or if it causes them serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities</p><p> </p><p>The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found</p><p>guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990,</p><p>from 1990 to 2013 (latest data available), can be viewed in the table.</p><p> </p><p>Information held centrally by the Ministry of Justice on the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances behind each case beyond the description provided in the statute. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information convictions and sentences involving the use or misuse of social media, or cyber crime. This detailed information may be held on the court record but due to the size and complexity is not reported centrally to the MoJ. As such, the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p><p>Court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, England &amp; Wales, 1990-2013<sup>(1)(2)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td>Proceeded<br> Against</td><td>Found<br> Guilty<sup>(3)</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>16</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>19</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>25</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>18</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>21</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>24</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>25</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2008<sup>(4)</sup></td><td>17</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>19</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>11</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>25</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>55</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>339</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>(-) Nil</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(1) The figures given in the table 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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(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.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(3) The number of defendants found guilty in a particular year may exceed the number proceeded against as the proceedings in the magistrates' court took place in an earlier year and the defendants were found guilty at the Crown Court in the following year; or the defendants were found guilty of a different offence to that for which they were originally proceeded against.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">(4) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates' court for April, July and August 2008.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.</td></tr><tr><td>PQ 222192</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning grouped question UIN 222192 222193 question first answered 04/02/2015 18:01:42 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
tabling member	549 label Biography information for Mr Elfyn Llwyd

176159

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Service
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which regions ranked best and worst with regard to prison staff shortfalls in the latest period for which figures are available.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	222317
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/03/2015 answer text <p /> <p>There is no specific ranking system used in regards to staffing shortfalls, which vary from month to month dependant on specific circumstances. However, at the date of the last published staffing data, 30 September 2014, the largest shortfall between benchmarked staffing level of officer grade staff and staff in post was in East Midlands region. Two regions, North East and Yorkshire and Humberside were showing as having no shortfall of officers at the latest published date.</p><p> </p><p>Staffing levels have been reviewed prison by prison as part of a ‘benchmarking approach’. Benchmark staffing requirements for each establishment have been agreed with the unions and the NAO has commented that the wider strategy for the prison estate is the most coherent and comprehensive for many years. It delivers efficiencies while ensuring that public sector prisons operate safely, decently and securely. It delivers efficiencies while ensuring that public sector prisons operate safely, decently and securely. Benchmarking optimises the skills of staff by introducing new ways of working and puts all prison officers in prisoner facing role.</p><p> </p><p>The Prison Service has been returning to large scale recruitment as the period of closures and benchmarking has been coming to an end.</p> answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire answering member printed Andrew Selous question first answered 02/03/2015 16:24:24 answering member 1453 label Biography information for Andrew Selous
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

176160

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Service
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data his Department holds on the number of prison staff on detached duty.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	222320
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p>A nationally co-ordinated detached duty scheme has been operating since 21 October 2013. Information on the number of officers serving on detached duty before the introduction of the national scheme is not available.</p><p> </p><p>The national scheme is co-ordinated by the National Offender Management Service.</p><p> </p><p>Information on the average weekly provision of staff, in terms of full time equivalent officers, that were provided as part of the nationally co-ordinated detached duty scheme, is shown in the table below for January to September 2014, which is the date of the latest published HR data.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Table: Average Monthly provision of staff on detached duty to prisons in England &amp; Wales January - September 2014</strong></p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Month</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Average Monthly Provision</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-14</p></td><td><p>210</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-14</p></td><td><p>160</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Mar-14</p></td><td><p>130</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Apr-14</p></td><td><p>210</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>May-14</p></td><td><p>160</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jun-14</p></td><td><p>170</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jul-14</p></td><td><p>230</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aug-14</p></td><td><p>240</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-14</p></td><td><p>230</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Staff numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10 in line with the department’s policy for presenting staffing data. Values of 5 or fewer are denoted as ~.</p><p> </p><p>Establishments that have provided staff on detached duty have been able to do so because of surplus staff available, as a result of displacement of staff following prison closures or change of role. Other prisons, without surplus staffing levels have supplied staff for detached duty where this was possible whilst maintaining stable and safe regimes.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Information on the ten establishments which have provided and received the highest number of staff on detached duty between January and September 2014 can be found below.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table: Average Monthly Provisions and Proportion of the ten prisons providing the largest number or the largest proportion of staff on detached duty in England &amp; Wales January - September 2014</strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Establishment</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Average </strong> <strong>Monthly </strong><strong>Contribution</strong></p></td><td> </td><td><p><strong>Establishment</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Proportion of Officers in Post</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Downview</p></td><td><p>50</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Downview</p></td><td><p>64%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>The Verne</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td> </td><td><p>The Verne</p></td><td><p>18%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Warren Hill</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Warren Hill</p></td><td><p>17%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Bure</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Bure</p></td><td><p>9%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Norwich</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Norwich</p></td><td><p>6%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Deerbolt</p></td><td><p>~</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Kirklevington Grange</p></td><td><p>5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Risley</p></td><td><p>~</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Thorn Cross</p></td><td><p>4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Leeds</p></td><td><p>~</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Kennet</p></td><td><p>3%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Stoke Heath</p></td><td><p>~</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Deerbolt</p></td><td><p>3%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Thorn Cross</p></td><td><p>~</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Coldingley</p></td><td><p>2%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Downview has been closed for the duration of the Detached Duty Scheme. The Verne was closed whilst being converted into an Immigration Removal Centre; it re-opened September 2014.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table: Average Monthly Provisions and Proportion of the ten prisons receiving the largest number or the largest proportion of staff on detached duty in England &amp; Wales January - September 2014</strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Establishment</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Average </strong><strong>Monthly </strong><strong>Contribution</strong></p></td><td> </td><td><p><strong>Establishment</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Proportion of Officers in Post</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feltham</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Aylesbury</p></td><td><p>9%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>High Down</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>High Down</p></td><td><p>7%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Woodhill</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Werrington</p></td><td><p>6%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aylesbury</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Rochester</p></td><td><p>6%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nottingham</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Portland</p></td><td><p>5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Rochester</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Isis</p></td><td><p>5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Elmley</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Cookham Wood</p></td><td><p>5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Portland</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Nottingham</p></td><td><p>5%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Isis</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Haverigg</p></td><td><p>4%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gartree</p></td><td><p>10</p></td><td> </td><td><p>Gartree</p></td><td><p>4%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>On some occasions detached duty is organised from a group of establishments at the same time and on these occasions it is not possible to attribute staff to particular establishments.</p> answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire answering member printed Andrew Selous grouped question UIN 222305 222306 222310 222330 question first answered 03/02/2015 17:30:20 answering member 1453 label Biography information for Andrew Selous
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

176161

registered interest
date	27/01/2015
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data the Government collects on the recruitment of prison officers and staff.
tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
uin	222321
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>Recruitment into the National Offender Management Service is managed by Shared Services Connect Limited on behalf of NOMS. Relevant information on the progress of each candidate through the recruitment stages is collected as part of the administration of the recruitment system.</p> answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire answering member printed Andrew Selous question first answered 03/02/2015 17:36:40 answering member 1453 label Biography information for Andrew Selous
tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman