8 Nov 2006 : Column 1662W—continued
| | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2005-06 |
|
Avon and Somerset
|
21
|
14
|
15
|
15
|
23
|
|
Bedfordshire
|
27
|
25
|
26
|
23
|
25
|
|
Cambridgeshire
|
24
|
22
|
22
|
23
|
27
|
|
Cheshire
|
30
|
26
|
26
|
27
|
27
|
|
Cleveland
|
21
|
20
|
23
|
21
|
30
|
|
Cumbria
|
34
|
32
|
31
|
32
|
35
|
|
Derbyshire
|
26
|
25
|
26
|
25
|
27
|
|
Devon and Cornwall
|
34
|
32
|
29
|
29
|
28
|
|
Dorset
|
25
|
27
|
25
|
26
|
30
|
8 Nov 2006 : Column 1663W
8 Nov 2006 : Column 1664W
|
Durham
|
33
|
32
|
34
|
29
|
27
|
|
Dyfed-Powys
|
63
|
64
|
68
|
47
|
45
|
|
Essex
|
26
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
31
|
|
Gloucestershire
|
32
|
30
|
29
|
28
|
32
|
|
Greater Manchester
|
22
|
21
|
22
|
22
|
25
|
|
Gwent
|
57
|
55
|
48
|
45
|
36
|
|
Hampshire
|
29
|
29
|
30
|
27
|
24
|
|
Hertfordshire
|
24
|
24
|
23
|
25
|
26
|
|
Humberside
|
21
|
20
|
20
|
19
|
23
|
|
Kent
|
28
|
28
|
28
|
25
|
26
|
|
Lancashire
|
27
|
26
|
27
|
27
|
32
|
|
Leicestershire
|
28
|
28
|
27
|
22
|
30
|
|
Lincolnshire
|
25
|
27
|
23
|
22
|
26
|
|
London, City of
|
27
|
34
|
36
|
33
|
43
|
|
Merseyside
|
28
|
24
|
25
|
27
|
28
|
|
Metropolitan Police
|
15
|
14
|
14
|
15
|
24
|
|
Norfolk
|
26
|
25
|
24
|
26
|
31
|
|
Northamptonshire
|
33
|
31
|
28
|
28
|
25
|
|
Northumbria
|
31
|
31
|
31
|
30
|
35
|
|
North Wales
|
31
|
28
|
29
|
33
|
43
|
|
North Yorkshire
|
30
|
26
|
26
|
28
|
35
|
|
Nottinghamshire
|
20
|
18
|
16
|
18
|
22
|
|
South Wales
|
31
|
33
|
29
|
29
|
26
|
|
South Yorkshire
|
25
|
23
|
21
|
24
|
27
|
|
Staffordshire
|
23
|
20
|
31
|
33
|
35
|
|
Suffolk
|
35
|
33
|
34
|
33
|
30
|
|
Surrey
|
28
|
25
|
22
|
22
|
25
|
|
Sussex
|
23
|
25
|
24
|
24
|
30
|
|
Thames Valley
|
22
|
24
|
25
|
23
|
28
|
|
Warwickshire
|
22
|
25
|
26
|
25
|
25
|
|
West Mercia
|
28
|
28
|
33
|
31
|
34
|
|
West Midlands
|
28
|
29
|
26
|
25
|
26
|
|
West Yorkshire
|
23
|
19
|
20
|
20
|
28
|
|
Wiltshire
|
29
|
30
|
28
|
28
|
32
|
|
England and Wales
|
24
|
23
|
24
|
23
|
27
|
Notes:
1. The expanded coverage of notifiable offences in 1998-99 means that detection rates are not comparable with earlier years, with this change thought to have had an effect in increasing detection rates overall, but reducing detection rates for violence.
2. Changes in guidance on counting detections were also introduced in April 1999, which is believed to have had an effect in reducing detection rates again making rates not comparable with previous years.
3. The National Crime Recording Standard in 2002-03 increased levels of recording of crime and it is thought to have reduced detection levels.
4. Rates quoted here relate to all detections, including non-judicial ‘non-sanction’ detections. Numbers of non-sanction detections have been found to vary widely between forces with some forces now recording very few non-sanction detections, reflecting an increasing emphasis by forces on securing sanction detections.
|
Criminal Records Bureau
Harry Cohen:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the Government have made of the effect of records kept by the Criminal Records Bureau on the ability of those on whom records are kept (a) to find employment and (b) to adopt children; and if he will make a statement. [100433]
Joan Ryan:
It has not proved possible to respond to my hon. Friend in the time available before Prorogation.
Harry Cohen:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how unproven allegations of child abuse are recorded by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB); how many such allegations are on CRB records; what procedure there is for the removal of an unfounded allegation; and if he will make a statement. [100459]
Joan Ryan:
It has not proved possible to respond to my hon. Friend in the time available before Prorogation.
