The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number of prosecutions or convictions for abusive behaviour on social media platforms. This information could only be obtained by examining CPS case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.

The Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database holds information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. This database holds information on offences provided by the statutes under which proceedings are brought but not the specific circumstances of each case. It is not possible to separately identify from this centrally held information the location of an offence or the home address of an offender. 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 be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Public protection is the first priority in offender management and it is rehabilitation that best secures this in the long-term. Those working with offenders may routinely assess risk and progress of sentenced offenders under supervision in the community or custody. These assessments will in turn inform offender management decisions regarding the interventions offered or controls applied to an individual.

Progress against the Government's wider Cyber Security Strategy was published in December 2013.

Cyber crime is a serious threat to the UK and this Government has taken action to tackle it. The Home Office has so far spent £43 million from the National Cyber Security Programme to build law enforcement capabilities to tackle cyber crime, and we expect to invest further in 2014-15 to continue this work.

The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates court and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences relating to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, from 1990 to 2012 (latest available), can be viewed in the table.

Court proceedings data for 2013 are planned for publication in May 2014.

On conviction for any offence, it is for the court to determine the appropriate sentence in each case. Where a community order or custodial sentence is imposed, the allocation of resources to the management of individual offenders is usually based on an offender's risk of harm to others and likelihood of reconviction, taking into account a wide range of factors such as past offending, drug misuse, educational attainment or their thinking and behaviours. Typically, assessments are carried out by an offender manager and the legislation under which the offender is convicted would not determine the content of the sentence. Offenders convicted under the Computer Misuse Act will receive different levels of supervision and different types of intervention, within the parameters of the sentence handed down by the Court. It is not possible to provide information on funding allocated to offenders sentenced under different Acts.

Kirkham prison is helping to support our plans for developing through the gate resettlement services under transforming rehabilitation. It is part of

a test in partnership with health services that is being undertaken in nine resettlement prisons in the north-west to enhance drug and alcohol recovery services. The learning will be used to inform wider roll out of the new system and the delivery of substance misuse services to offenders more broadly.

Prisons have achieved considerable success in reducing the level of drug misuse against a background of a continuing high demand for drugs. Drug misuse as measured by random mandatory drug testing (MDT) has fallen 17.4 percentage points over the past 16 years despite the fact that more drugs are being tested for.

MDT, which runs to standardised procedures across prisons, has three main aims, one of which is to supply detailed information on patterns of drugs-misuse in prisons and is used by the National Offender Management Service to measure the level of drug misuse in prisons.

A single episode of drug misuse over a defined period, strictly interpreted, would deprive a prison of drug free status. Prisons can perform very well in keeping drugs out of prison but technically not be drug free.

Over the 2012-13 financial year, three prisons in England and Wales reported no drug misuse as measured by random MDT. 96 prisons in England and Wales reported no drug misuse, as measured by random MDT, in at least one month of the 2012-13 financial year.

The data in this answer have been drawn from live administrative data systems which may be amended at any time. 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. The data are not subject to audit.

At present drug tests under licence are paid for and administered by the National Offender Management Service but will, under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, be delivered and paid for by providers of probation services from across the public, private and voluntary sectors. The proposed extension of drug testing in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to impose a drug testing requirement on offenders released from custody. The Government will provide guidance but it will be for the individual providers to decide when and how frequently to test offenders.

There will be costs associated with breaching offenders who test positive for drugs following the extension of drug testing requirements. It is not known which offenders providers will choose to test. The Offender Rehabilitation Bill impact assessment provided an illustrative scenario where 10% of offenders released from custody are tested, which would be around 9,000 offenders per year. It is estimated that this could result in around 1,000 recalls to custody per year, at a cost of around £1 million per year but this has to be seen in the wider context of the savings made by reductions in reoffending.

At present drug tests under licence are paid for and administered by the National Offender Management Service but will, under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, be delivered and paid for by providers of probation services from across the public, private and voluntary sectors. The proposed extension of drug testing in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to impose a drug testing requirement on offenders released from custody. The Government will provide guidance but it will be for the individual providers to decide when and how frequently to test offenders.

There will be costs associated with breaching offenders who test positive for drugs following the extension of drug testing requirements. It is not known which offenders providers will choose to test. The Offender Rehabilitation Bill impact assessment provided an illustrative scenario where 10% of offenders released from custody are tested, which would be around 9,000 offenders per year. It is estimated that this could result in around 1,000 recalls to custody per year, at a cost of around £1 million per year but this has to be seen in the wider context of the savings made by reductions in reoffending.

The extension of drug testing under licence to Class A and Class B drugs is designed to assess how the offender is complying with their licence and supervision conditions and support efforts to reduce reoffending. This has been informed by the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction study which shows that 61% of offenders who reported using Class A drugs in the four weeks before custody reoffended, compared with 48% of those who reported using Class B and/or C drugs in the four weeks before custody, and 39% who had not used drugs in the four weeks before custody. In comparison, 30% of those who had never used drugs reoffended.

Table 1 shows the cost of with cause breathalyser testing of National Offender Management Service staff in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

Table 2 shows the number of individual with cause breathalyser tests of National Offender Management Service staff that took place in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally to indicate whether any member of staff has refused a breathalyser test and therefore the supplier was not called upon. There is no evidence that any members of staff' refused to undergo breathalyser testing after the collection officer had been called out.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally of staff that have been required to leave their place of work because (a) the breath alcohol level of the member of staff has breached the alcohol standard or (b) a member of staff has refused to participate in a breath test and concern remains about whether or not they are fit for duty as set out in the NOMS staff alcohol policy. However, Table 3 shows the number of positive breathalyser test in each of the last three financial years. Staff who provide a positive breathalyser test will be subject locally to the NOMS staff alcohol policy and the NOMS conduct and discipline policy.

Although the National Offender Management Service holds high level information centrally on staff who have been subject to disciplinary procedures, it is not possible

to extract detailed information for disciplinary action taken as a result of a positive breathalyser test or where a member of staff has refused a test.

Table 1 shows the cost of with cause breathalyser testing of National Offender Management Service staff in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

Table 2 shows the number of individual with cause breathalyser tests of National Offender Management Service staff that took place in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally to indicate whether any member of staff has refused a breathalyser test and therefore the supplier was not called upon. There is no evidence that any members of staff' refused to undergo breathalyser testing after the collection officer had been called out.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally of staff that have been required to leave their place of work because (a) the breath alcohol level of the member of staff has breached the alcohol standard or (b) a member of staff has refused to participate in a breath test and concern remains about whether or not they are fit for duty as set out in the NOMS staff alcohol policy. However, Table 3 shows the number of positive breathalyser test in each of the last three financial years. Staff who provide a positive breathalyser test will be subject locally to the NOMS staff alcohol policy and the NOMS conduct and discipline policy.

Although the National Offender Management Service holds high level information centrally on staff who have been subject to disciplinary procedures, it is not possible

to extract detailed information for disciplinary action taken as a result of a positive breathalyser test or where a member of staff has refused a test.

Table 1 shows the cost of with cause breathalyser testing of National Offender Management Service staff in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

Table 2 shows the number of individual with cause breathalyser tests of National Offender Management Service staff that took place in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally to indicate whether any member of staff has refused a breathalyser test and therefore the supplier was not called upon. There is no evidence that any members of staff' refused to undergo breathalyser testing after the collection officer had been called out.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally of staff that have been required to leave their place of work because (a) the breath alcohol level of the member of staff has breached the alcohol standard or (b) a member of staff has refused to participate in a breath test and concern remains about whether or not they are fit for duty as set out in the NOMS staff alcohol policy. However, Table 3 shows the number of positive breathalyser test in each of the last three financial years. Staff who provide a positive breathalyser test will be subject locally to the NOMS staff alcohol policy and the NOMS conduct and discipline policy.

Although the National Offender Management Service holds high level information centrally on staff who have been subject to disciplinary procedures, it is not possible

to extract detailed information for disciplinary action taken as a result of a positive breathalyser test or where a member of staff has refused a test.

Table 1 shows the cost of with cause breathalyser testing of National Offender Management Service staff in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

Table 2 shows the number of individual with cause breathalyser tests of National Offender Management Service staff that took place in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally to indicate whether any member of staff has refused a breathalyser test and therefore the supplier was not called upon. There is no evidence that any members of staff' refused to undergo breathalyser testing after the collection officer had been called out.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally of staff that have been required to leave their place of work because (a) the breath alcohol level of the member of staff has breached the alcohol standard or (b) a member of staff has refused to participate in a breath test and concern remains about whether or not they are fit for duty as set out in the NOMS staff alcohol policy. However, Table 3 shows the number of positive breathalyser test in each of the last three financial years. Staff who provide a positive breathalyser test will be subject locally to the NOMS staff alcohol policy and the NOMS conduct and discipline policy.

Although the National Offender Management Service holds high level information centrally on staff who have been subject to disciplinary procedures, it is not possible

to extract detailed information for disciplinary action taken as a result of a positive breathalyser test or where a member of staff has refused a test.

Table 1 shows the cost of with cause breathalyser testing of National Offender Management Service staff in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

Table 2 shows the number of individual with cause breathalyser tests of National Offender Management Service staff that took place in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally to indicate whether any member of staff has refused a breathalyser test and therefore the supplier was not called upon. There is no evidence that any members of staff' refused to undergo breathalyser testing after the collection officer had been called out.

The National Offender Management Service does not record information centrally of staff that have been required to leave their place of work because (a) the breath alcohol level of the member of staff has breached the alcohol standard or (b) a member of staff has refused to participate in a breath test and concern remains about whether or not they are fit for duty as set out in the NOMS staff alcohol policy. However, Table 3 shows the number of positive breathalyser test in each of the last three financial years. Staff who provide a positive breathalyser test will be subject locally to the NOMS staff alcohol policy and the NOMS conduct and discipline policy.

Although the National Offender Management Service holds high level information centrally on staff who have been subject to disciplinary procedures, it is not possible

to extract detailed information for disciplinary action taken as a result of a positive breathalyser test or where a member of staff has refused a test.