|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for the
Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness
of field impairment tests in
identifying drivers with illegal drugs in their bodies. 
Mr. McNulty: The drug driving offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 is that of driving whilst unfit through a drug. Field impairment tests are intended to help an assessment of whether a driver is impaired and whether that impairment might be due to alcohol or a drug. Whether the drug is a controlled substance or obtained legally on prescription or over the counter is not relevant to the offence. There is no offence if the driver has a drug in his body but his driving ability is not impaired. We understand from the police that the tests are useful in making such an assessment. If impairment is suggested and it appears a drug may be responsible, the driver can be required to provide a specimen of blood or urine for laboratory analysis.
Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the use and effectiveness of roadside drugalysers. 
Mr. McNulty: Under s 6C (1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended, a device used to test a driver for the presence of a drug in his body has to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State. There are at present no devices which have received type approval. International research has suggested that such drug screening devices as are currently available commercially are not suitable for type approval for the purposes of the Act.
John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of the pilots in five areas of the Drug Intervention Programme. 
Mr. Coaker: The hon. Member originally raised this question on 7 November 2005. Given that there were no pilots in any "five areas of the Drug Interventions Programme" it was agreed that the question would be withdrawn and re-tabled. The re-tabled question was answered on 6 February 2006 and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 February 2006, Official Report, column 937W.
I am now pleased to give the hon. Member the latest position on numbers into treatment. Since the introduction of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) in April 2003, over 48,000 drug misusing offenders have entered treatment through DIP (May 2006). We are on track to achieve the overall target of 1,000 offenders a week into treatment by 2008 and we exceeded the interim (March 2005) target by 54 per cent.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has made for the review of the (a) UK and (b) UN drug strategies in 2008; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. McNulty: The Governments Drug Strategy is delivering tangible improvements in communities across the country. The Drug Harm Index, which measures a range of harms caused by drug misuse, shows a 24 per cent. reduction since the introduction of the updated Drug Strategy in 2002.
In advance of 2008, a full review will be undertaken to inform the next stage of the Strategy. Departments delivering the Drug Strategy are currently participating in the comprehensive and in-depth value for money programme led by HMT as part of the preparations for the Comprehensive Review 2007, due to report next year.
With its European Union partners, the Government are seeking to ensure that the 10-year plan of action, established by the 1988 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, is evaluated rigorously and realistically, through the best available scientific and statistical evidence; and that the results of the evaluation will lay firm foundations for realistic future UN strategies against illicit drugs.
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the findings and evidence contained in the study into the prevalence of drug use across the 149 drug action team areas commissioned by his Department from the Centre for Research into Drug Misuse at Glasgow University in partnership with the University of Manchester. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 25 July 2006]: A publication date for this report has not been finalised yet. We intend to publish this in one collated volume with a number of other related drugs research studies.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of possession with intent to supply (a) cannabis, (b) ecstasy, (c) cocaine, (d) crack cocaine and (e) heroin in each London borough in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Coaker: Available data relates to court proceedings within London's City and Metropolitan police areas between 2000 and 2004. Information cannot be broken down to London borough level.
|Table A: Persons found guilty for possession with intent to supply( 1) drug offences( 2) , City of London police force area,2000 to 2004|
Excludes operations dealt with by HM Revenue and Customs.
(2) As an offence can involve more than one drug type, columns
cannot be added together to produce sub-totals or totals.
(3) On 29 January 2004 cannabis was re-classified from being a
class B to a class C
|Table B: Persons found guilty for possession with intent to supply drug offences( 1) , Metropolitan police area, 2000 to 2004|
Excludes operations dealt with by HM Revenue and
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) x-ray and (b) ultrasound scanners are in use by the police for dealing with those suspected of possessing class A drugs. 
John Reid: Section five of the Drugs Act 2005 gave police forces in England and Wales the power to require a person believed to have swallowed a class A drug to undergo an x-ray or ultrasound scan in certain circumstances. The provision was commenced on 1 January 2006. Such a procedure may only be carried out by a suitably qualified person, and only at a hospital, a registered medical practitioners surgery, or some other place used for medical purposes. It follows that no scanners are used solely by the police or solely for this purpose.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) adult and (b) under-age offenders were found guilty of (i) drunken and disorderly behaviour and (ii) drunken and aggravated behaviour providing figures in (A) rural and (B) non-rural areas in (1) absolute terms and (2) per 1,000 population in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: From data held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, it is not possible to identify convictions in rural and non-rural areas separately as this information is not collected.
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been released under the early release scheme in each year since its introduction; and what assessment he has made of the scheme's effect on demand for prison places. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, those sentenced to determinate sentences of four years or more are eligible for parole halfway through their sentence. If parole is not granted then release occurs at the two-thirds point of the sentence (or at a subsequent parole review if earlier). Numbers of prisoners recommended for parole are shown at table 10.4 of the offender management caseload statistics 2004, a copy of which can be found in the Library.
Detention Curfew scheme (HOC) has been in operation since January 1999.
meeting the eligibility criteria and passing a careful risk assessment, prisoners serving sentences of between three months and less than four years may be released up to four and a half months (135 days) early from prison subject to an electronically monitored curfew normally between 7pm and 7am. Although not its primary purpose, HDC plays an important role in managing the prison population by reducing overcrowding at the same time as improving resettlement opportunities for less serious offenders. Information on the numbers of prisoners released under Home Detention Curfew (HDC), can be found in tables 10.3 in the offender management caseload statistics 2004.
The figures provided in the tables referred to have been drawn from administrative IT systems. 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, and so is not necessarily accurate to the last whole number.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced new arrangements for prison sentences. They apply only to offences committed on or after 4 April 2005. A new indeterminate public protection sentence was introduced. Those offenders judged to be dangerous, and who have committed serious sexual or violent offences, can be kept in prison until the Parole Board judges it is safe to release them. If they have committed less serious offences they may serve a determinate sentence followed by an extended period on licence after release of up to eight years for sexual offences and five years for violent offences. Other determinate sentence prisoners will be released automatically at the half way point of their sentence.
At any one time about 2,700 peoplewho would otherwise be filling prison placesare serving the last part of their sentence on HOC. The other early release arrangements described above inform projections of the prison population. Projections to 2011 have been produced for a range of scenarios and are published in Home Office statistical bulletin 10/05, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. Further projections will be published shortly.
Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring procedures are in place for prisoners released before their sentence expiry date. 
Sutcliffe: Prisoners sentenced to a determinate sentence
of 12 months or over who fall to be released under the provisions of
the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are subject to probation supervision from
the point at which they are released until their licence expiry date
(which will extend up until the three quarter point of their sentence).
Prisoners recalled during that period are re-released at the discretion
of the Parole Board and are normally subject to further probation
supervision until the expiry of their sentence. Prisoners sentenced to
a determinate sentence of 12 months or over under the provisions of the
Criminal Justice Act 2003 are subject to probation supervision from the
point of release until the expiry of the sentence. Prisoners sentenced
to an extended sentence are subject to probation supervision for the
normal licence period
as well as the extension period of the sentence. All prisoners subject to probation supervision are required to report to their supervising officer and may be required to live where directed and to comply with a range of other licence conditions which assist the Probation Service to monitor their behaviour in the community. Failure to comply can result in the offender's licence being revoked and the offender's being returned to custody. Determinate sentence prisoners serving a sentence of three months or over but less than four years may be released up to 135 days before their automatic release date on the home detention curfew scheme. These prisoners are subject to an electronically monitored curfew and liable to recall if they breach the terms of the curfew. Young offenders (those aged under 22 years upon their release) who are serving a sentence of less than 12 months and who fall to be released under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 receive a period of statutory supervision upon their release, which runs for three months (or until the offender reaches 22 years of age).
Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for the right of establishment in business under EU association agreements in ECAA switching cases were submitted using standard-form business plans identical or materially similar to those submitted by other such applicants. 
Mr. Byrne: Information in the form requested is not available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether (a) he and (b) his Department are aware of any applications for the right of establishment in business under EU association agreements in ECAA switching cases having been granted in error between 1 June 2003 and 30 April 2004. 
Mr. Byrne: The report by Ken Sutton published on 17 June 2004, found that there was clear evidence that the ECAA category had been exploited and that applications were granted to some individuals who were unlikely to have been able to demonstrate that they could sustain themselves in business.
Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for the right of establishment in business under EU association agreements in ECAA switching cases were refused between 1 June 2003 and 30 April 2004, broken down by (a) reason for refusal and (b) nationality of the applicant. 
Mr. Byrne: Between 1 June 2003 and 30 April 2004 1,006 applications for the right of establishment in business under EU association agreements in ECAA switching cases were refused. A breakdown of the nationalities of the refused applicants is given in the following table. There is no facility on the Management Information System to produce a breakdown of reasons for refusal.
|Country of origin||Number|
| Notes: This
information has not been quality assured, and is not a National
Statistic. It should be treated as provisional management information
and may be subject to
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|