Previous Section Index Home Page

16 Feb 2006 : Column 2352W—continued

Pornography

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 25 January 2006 to the hon. Member for Crosby, Official Report, column 2135W, on pornography, how many successful prosecutions have been brought in each of the last three years under (a) the Obscene Publications Act 1959, (b) the Indecent Displays Act 1981, (c) the Communications Act 2003, (d) the Video Recordings Act 1984 and (e) the Protection of Children Act 1999 for the illegal transference of pornography to minors. [49306]

Fiona Mactaggart: Data from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice reform, showing the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for selected offences related to pornography, is provided in the attached table, for England and Wales, 2002–04. It is not possible to identify how many of these prosecutions relate to the illegal transference to minors because the individual circumstances of these prosecution are not collected centrally. Data for 2005 will be available in the autumn of 2006.
Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for selected offences related to pornography, England and Wales, 2002–04

2002
2003
2004
Offence descriptionPrincipal statueProceeded againstFound guiltyProceeded againstFound guiltyProceeded againstFound guilty
Prohibition of publication of obscene matterObscene Publications Act 1959 S.2(1) as amended by Obscene Publications Act 1964 8.1(1)524239313025
Take, permit to be taken or to make distribute or publish indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of childrenProtection of Children Act 1978 S.1 as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.845824341,4641,0481,097978
Indecent matter publiclyIndecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 SS.1 and 43632
Supplying video recording of unclassified workVideo Recording Act 1984 S.9 as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.88625944444231
Video recording of unclassified work for the purpose of supplyVideo Recording Act 1984 S.10 as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.88646240314943
Supplying video recording of classified work in breach of classificationVideo Recording Act 1984 S.11 as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.8822142517118
Certain video recordings only to be supplied in licensed sex shopsVideo Recording Act 1984 S.12 as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.889413106448
Supply of video recording not complying with requirements as to labels etcVideo Recording Act 1984 S.131
Supply of video recordings containing false indication as to classificationVideo Recording Act 1984 S.14 as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.88222
Improper use of public electronic communications networkCommunications Act 2003 S.127n/an/an/an/a214143



Note:
These data are on the principal offence basis
Source: RDS-Office for Criminal Justice Reform



 
16 Feb 2006 : Column 2353W
 

Prisoners

Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in Peterborough who were tagged on early release from prison have breached the rules governing their early release in each of the last five years. [49292]

Fiona Mactaggart: 15 people were recalled to prison in 2005 for failing to comply with the curfew conditions after being released early on home detention curfew from Peterborough prison. 204 people in total were released from Peterborough prison on home detention curfew during 2005. The prison opened on 28 March
 
16 Feb 2006 : Column 2354W
 
2005. Information on the total number of people serving their curfew period while living in Peterborough is not centrally available.

Prisons

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in (a) Chelmsford, (b) Coldingley, (c) Elmley and (d) Rochester prison have tested positive for drugs in each year since 1997. [50370]

Fiona Mactaggart [holding answer 8 February 2006]: There are three main types of drug testing in prisons: clinical; mandatory; and voluntary. Data on clinical and voluntary testing are not held centrally. The random mandatory drug testing programme is used to measure levels of drug misuse in prison. The random MDT figures are given in the following table:
Chelmsford
Coldingley
Elmley
Rochester
Positive
(Number)
PercentagePositive
(Number)
PercentagePositive
(Number)
PercentagePositive
(Number)
Percentage
1996–9711434.215036.215820.9215.3
1997–987524.014129.214513.5214.2
1998–999323.12913.711611.8184.2
1999–20004724.53712.210513.7143.0
2000–014116.2307.8498.2112.3
2001–025616.05011.77811.9113.7
2002–038322.95513.1519.9189.7
2003–048725.77616.67411.7229.3
2004–053710.87115.17913.0174.1
2005–06(51)2710.37218.6265.4184.8


(51) Year to date (April to December 2005).


 
16 Feb 2006 : Column 2355W
 

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates at each prison were subject to (a) closed visits and (b) visit bans in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [48420]

Fiona Mactaggart: Information relating to individual prisons is not collated centrally in the format required. I shall write to the hon. Member with available information and place a copy in the Library.

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of the performance testing exercise at HMP Wandsworth was; what assessment he has made of its impact; how he intends to monitor performance against the defined outputs of the exercise; what assessment he has made of the value for money of the exercise; and if he will make a statement. [48509]

Fiona Mactaggart: Performance testing was introduced as a mechanis, to improve performance in poorly performing establishments. The additional cost of the performance test process at Wandsworth prison was £200,000. This excludes any contribution made from within the establishment's existing resource.

Wandsworth was awarded a service level agreement as a result of their successful bid. The area manager and the regional offender manager monitor performance closely to ensure that performance levels are sustained. Performance testing has proved to be an extremely cost-effective mechanism for improving poorly performing establishments. A full report on progress made at Wandsworth since the performance test will be submitted to the interim chief executive of NOMS. This will highlight significant improvement against a range of indicators, including better basic conditions for prisoners, a more constructive regime and improved security and standards audit scores.

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) prison governors, (b) prison officers and (c) other prison staff have been found with (i) controlled drugs and (ii) other contraband at each prison establishment in each of the last five years; how many cases in each category were referred to the police for investigation; and if he will make a statement. [48512]

Fiona Mactaggart: The investigations database does not record whether cases are referred to the police for investigation. Investigations are not categorised by grade making it impossible to distinguish between governors, prison officers and administrative grades who have been investigated for drug-related offences. The total in the table relates to the number of staff and not investigations. Whether every individual was found with items in their possession could be established only at proportionate cost.
 
16 Feb 2006 : Column 2356W
 

Investigations regarding trafficking drugs or other prohibited articles into prison establishments

EstablishmentStaff (Number)
Askham Grange1
Bedford1
Birmingham4
Bristol1
Brixton4
Bullingdon4
Bullwood Hall1
Camp Hill1
Chelmsford1
Durham1
Erlestoke1
Feltham2
Ford1
Frankland1
Grendon1
Guys Marsh2
Highdown3
Huntercombe1
Lancaster Castle1
Leeds1
Leicester1
Lincoln2
Liverpool2
Nor Sea Camp1
Onley1
Parkhurst1
Pentonville3
Portland1
Ranby1
Reading2
Risley1
Send1
Stoke Heath2
Sudbury1
Swaleside2
Swansea1
The Mount2
Wakefield2
Werrington1
Whitemoor1
Winchester1
Wormwood Scrubs1
Total64

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were reclassified by category in each of the last five years. [48793]

Fiona Mactaggart: The information requested is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in open conditions were returned to closed conditions during each of the last five years. [48794]


 
16 Feb 2006 : Column 2357W
 

Fiona Mactaggart: The information requested is not routinely recorded and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the capacity is of prisons in England and Wales; and how many prisoners were detained at the most recent date for which figures are available. [50155]

Fiona Mactaggart: As on 3 February 2006, the useable operational capacity of prisons in England and Wales was 78,712. The prison population was 76,070.

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the (a) Certified normal accommodation (CNA), (b) in use CNA and (c) prisoner unlock figure was for each prison establishment as of 28th October 2005. [51557]

Fiona Mactaggart [holding answer 16 February 2006]: The figures requested for 28 October 2005 are set out in the table. Certified normal accommodation (CNA) level is the uncrowded capacity of the establishment. All establishments operate within their operational capacity, which is the total number of prisoners that an establishment is certified to hold taking into account control, security and the proper operation of the planned regime.
Prison nameBaseline CNAIn use CNAUnlock
Acklington882882873
Albany526526522
Altcourse6146141,002
Ashfield407400374
Ashwell535535539
Askham Grange15112999
Aylesbury432432434
Bedford324324475
Belmarsh799799916
Birmingham1,1211,1211,378
Blakenhurst8278211,055
Blantyre House122122110
Blundeston420420460
Brinsford477477470
Bristol426426600
Brixton606606799
Brockhill164145147
Bronzefield451451436
Buckley Hall35011051
Bullingdon759759960
Bullwood Hall180167134
Camp Hill513513584
Canterbury196196306
Cardiff524524747
Castington400400381
Channings Wood634634662
Chelmsford441437574
Coldingley370370386
Cookham Wood137137175
Dartmoor598598612
Deerbolt513453357
Doncaster7717711088
Dorchester147147239
Dovegate800800829
Dover314314271
Downview350251248
Drake Hall315315287
Durham574555870
East Sutton Park949495
Eastwood Park310310300
Edmunds Hill372303262
Elmley753753984
Erlestoke426426423
Everthorpe603603651
Exeter316316528
Featherstone599599609
Feltham764764624
Ford541541525
Forest Bank8008001057
Foston Hall267267259
Frankland733718707
Full Sutton601601588
Garth633633660
Gartree651471474
Glen Parva668668803
Gloucester229214291
Grendon254241228
Guys Marsh519519568
Haslar160160125
Haverigg558558560
Hewell Grange176176167
Highdown643627735
Highpoint792792803
Hindley539455362
Hollesley Bay330330314
Holloway544476454
Holme House857857986
Hull820721960
Huntercombe360360359
Kingston194193193
Kirkham590570446
Kirklevington223223209
Lancaster159159241
Lancaster Farms480480485
Latchmere House207207198
Leeds8068061247
Leicester206206348
Lewes458458533
Leyhill520508479
Lincoln449307488
Lindholme802802810
Littlehey664664699
Liverpool1,1421,1221,342
Long Lartin599444448
Low Newton343278247
Lowdham Grange504504523
Maidstone548548551
Manchester9619541237
Moorland740740765
Moorland Open260260236
Morton Hall392392253
Mount704704703
New Hall367367380
North Sea Camp306306292
Northallerton153151244
Norwich587587757
Nottingham385385507
Onley640520543
Pare8398391,028
Parkhurst459459501
Pentonville9218681,188
Peterborough840840811
Portland530380385
Prescoed160160165
Preston418330605
Ranby9129121,011
Reading190190284
Risley1,0381,0381,064
Rochester392392389
Rye Hill600600594
Send220216213
Shepton Mallet163160184
Shrewsbury182168298
Spring Hill334334304
Stafford680680673
Standford Hill464464446
Stocken595595616
Stoke Heath574574648
Styal428405439
Sudbury563563546
Swaleside756756768
Swansea248248421
Swinfen Hall600600603
Thorn Cross316316240
Usk150150248
Verne552552581
Wakefield746566562
Wandsworth1,1138451,397
Warren Hill222222214
Wayland657657702
Wealstun885835828
Wellingborough638572572
Werrington146146144
Wetherby360360345
Whatton319319358
Whitemoor492464423
Winchester476476695
Wolds330330294
Woodhill677650763
Wormwood Scrubs1,1721,1561244
Wymott1,0219971,043

 
16 Feb 2006 : Column 2359W
 

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used for assessing the transfer of operation of prisons from the public to private sector. [51558]

Fiona Mactaggart [holding answer 16 February 2006]: The transfer of operational management of a prison from the public sector to the private sector, or vice versa, would normally occur under the terms of a market test. Under a market test of an existing establishment, an invitation to tender (ITT) is issued to potential bidders from all sectors, including the incumbent management.

The ITT contains the criteria against which tenders will be evaluated. The criteria for the evaluation of compliant bids for past market tests of prison management have been financial and operational deliverability and the consequent demonstration of comparative value for money.


Next Section Index Home Page