Search Results

1-8 of 8 results for subject:Misuse

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Rep and 3R:Crime and Disorder Bill (HL) 1997/98

Crime and Disorder Bill (HL). Report stage second day and third reading debate. Agreed to on question. Passed with amendments. (Corrigendum to c951 at 314 c1050. In Mr Michael's penultimate sentence, delete 7.3 per cent and insert 3.7 per cent).

Lead member

Alun Michael

Answering member

Lord Fowler

Department

Home Office

Type

Debates on bills

Date

23 June 1998

Reference

314 c842-951 (corrigendum),c1150;314 c842-951

House

House of Commons

Crime And Disorder Bill (HL) 1997/98

Crime And Disorder Bill (HL). Committee stage twentieth sitting (morning). Clause 79 agreed to as amended. Clause 80, discussed with Government amendments and Government new clause 33 (Re-release of prisoners serving extended sentences), agreed to as amended. Clauses 81 to 83, 85 to 87, 98 and 99 agreed to. Clause...

Lead member

Henry McLeish; Mike O'Brien

Department

Home Office; Scotland Office

Type

Debates on bills; Public Bill Committee proceedings

Date

9 June 1998

Reference

SCB

House

House of Commons

Crime And Disorder Bill (HL) 1997/98

Crime And Disorder Bill (HL). Committee stage fourteenth sitting (morning). Schedule 4 agreed to. Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to. Clause 63 under consideration.

Lead member

Alun Michael

Department

Home Office

Type

Debates on bills; Public Bill Committee proceedings

Date

21 May 1998

Reference

SCB

House

House of Commons

Crime And Disorder Bill (HL) 1997/98

Crime And Disorder Bill (HL). Committee stage thirteenth sitting (afternoon). Clauses 55 and 57 to 60 agreed to. Government amendment made to clause 54 with the clause agreed to as amended. Clause 56, discussed with a Government amendment and Government new clause 16 (Re-release of prisoners serving extended sentences), agreed...

Lead member

Alun Michael; Mike O'Brien

Department

Home Office

Type

Debates on bills; Public Bill Committee proceedings

Date

19 May 1998

Reference

SCB

House

House of Commons

Crime and Disorder Bill (HL) 1997/98

Crime and Disorder Bill (HL). Lords committee stage fourth day. Clauses 41 to 59 and 70 to 78 agreed to, clauses 41, 42, 52 and 78 as amended. New clauses considered. Schedules 2 to 5 agreed to, schedule 2 as amended.

Department

Home Office

Type

Committee of the Whole House (HL); Debates on bills

Date

24 February 1998

Reference

586 c548-59,573-618,634-74

House

House of Lords

Home Office

Statement on if he will publish the calculations on which the financial effects of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] are based. - Includes figures.

Asked by

Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

20 January 1998

For answer on

27 January 1998

Answered on

27 January 1998

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the calculations on which the financial effects of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] are based; and if he will make statement. [25053] Mr. Straw: The calculations used to estimate the financial effects of the Crime and Disorder Bill published in the Financial Memorandum, are as set out. Taken as a whole, the Bill is intended to address offending behaviour more effectively and to reduce crime and it is therefore expected that this will produce significant savings to the criminal justice system. Measures aimed at dealing with youth crime and disorder (child safety orders and parenting orders) will be piloted to enable a detailed assessment of costs. Full year costs are estimated to be £3 million, based on a cost of £180 per order per month and a planning assumption of 5,000 parenting orders per annum typically lasting around three months, and 1,000 child safety orders per annum typically lasting one and a half months. The introduction of anti-social behaviour orders is expected to lead to additional costs of £3 million to the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and in legal aid. This is based on an assumption of 5,000 orders annually with the majority of costs falling to magistrates' courts. Additional costs for the police and local authorities are expected to be fully offset by savings arising form the introduction of the new orders. The proposals relating to new racially aggravated offences and those concerning increased sentences for those offences are expected to result in some additional costs, but the innovative nature of the offences makes it difficult at this stage to estimate their likely financial impact. Proposals relating to the local provision of youth justice services and youth offending teams will be piloted before full implementation to enable a detailed assessment of costs. The establishment of a Youth Justice Board assumes a Board consisting of 10 members working part-time for standard daily rates of remuneration and travel and subsistence; and a small secretariat of 10 staff with a small budget for commissioning research and for developing good practice in work with young offenders. On this basis, full year costs are estimated to be in the region of £1 million. Proposals intended to reduce delay in the criminal justice system include the introduction of statutory time limits and increased efficiency, especially in the Youth Court. These are intended to be cost-neutral, since it is expected that any additional costs will be more than outweighed by the benefits of speeding up the progress of cases through the system. The introduction of statutory time limits may have limited resource implications which will be assessed once piloting has determined the level at which limits should be set. The final warning scheme, action plan orders and reparation orders will all be piloted to enable detailed costs and savings to be assessed before full implementation. Action plan orders are expected to lead to savings of around £2 million based on 6,000 juveniles per year receiving an order in place of current community penalties. The reparation order is estimated to cost around £1 million if applied to 11,500 juveniles per year. Initial estimates of the cost of introducing reprimands and warnings, including the costs of rehabilitation programmes, are in the region of £14 million. Around half of this sum is attributable to Youth Offending Teams running appropriate intervention programmes; these costs will not be incurred in every area as some areas already operate analogous "caution-plus" schemes. The other half reflects the impact of the scheme on the number of court cases and the change in sentencing patterns likely to arise from restricting the use of conditional discharge following final warnings. Proposals relating to improvements to supervision orders are expected to result in additional local authority accommodation costs of around £2 million per year. This assumes that, at most, around 160 juveniles a year might be given a residency requirement. The proposals for detention and training orders for young offenders are not expected to have any significant impact on the numbers held in secure facilities. The associated increased levels of supervision are estimated to result in additional costs of around £2 million per year based on an estimated 2,200 young people held under a detention and training order at any one time. The extended supervision for sex, violent, recalled and returned prisoners will eventually generate net additional probation service and electronic monitoring costs estimated to be about £20 million per year, assuming that this will require around 600 additional probation service staff to supervise 1,100 offenders on extended supervision will 110 recalls to custody (a breach rate of 10 per cent.). Proposals for drug treatment and testing orders will be the subject of local pilot projects, the cost of which are expected to be in the region of £l million. The findings of the pilot evaluation will inform consideration of the need for resourcing to extend the Treatment and Testing Orders nationwide. Full implementation based on 6,250 orders per year at a cost of £6,400 per order are estimated to be £40 million. The cost of introducing powers to release short-term prisoners on licence (home detention curfew) depends upon the extent of take-up and the outcome of a commercial competition but, on the take-up rate assumed for planning purposes, is not expected to exceed £26 million per year. Against this, home detention curfew will avoid the need for expenditure on around 3,000 new prison places at an estimated cost of £90 million per year which would otherwise be necessary to accommodate the rising prison population.

Legislation

Crime and Disorder Bill (HL) 1997/98

Date

27 January 1998

Reference

25053; 305 c138-40W

House

House of Commons

Crime and Disorder Bill (HL) 1997/98

Crime and Disorder Bill (HL). Lords presentation and first reading (HL Bill 52 1997/98).

Lead member

Lord Williams of Mostyn

Department

Home Office

Type

Debates on bills

Date

2 December 1997

Reference

583 c1245-6

House

House of Lords

Crime and Disorder Bill (HL).

Member

Lord Williams of Mostyn (Labour)

Department

Home Office

Type

Government bills

Notes

Received 10.02.98

Date

2 December 1997

Reference

HL Bill 52 1997/98

House

House of Lords

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher