It emerged in spring 2006 that 1,013 foreign prisoners had been wrongly released without first being considered for deportation, including murderers and rapists.

In spite of the continuing anger over the issue, less than a third of the 1,013 convicts have been deported two and half years after the scandal broke and subsequently cost Charles Clarke his job as Home Secretary.

Many more of these convicts could now end up staying in this country because 90 are still missing, 31 are in jail again and 160 are still going through the process.

Another 399 have been told they can stay in the UK, including some who have been convicted of the most serious category of crimes, which includes murder, rape and armed robbery.

The figures emerged as immigration minister Phil Woolas admitted too many migrant workers have been let in under previous Government policies.

The Shadow Home Secretary, said: “It is outrageous that over two and a half years after the former home secretary lost his job over this fiasco just a third of these offenders have been deported and 90 have not even been found.

“Not only does this put the public at risk, it shows the government are patently incapable of getting a grip on this longstanding problem.”

Commenting on claims that major drug barons may be escaping investigation because of the police’s funding arrangements, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said: “People will rightly be concerned that the police are going after soft targets rather than top drug barons.”

Chris Huhne continued, saying:

“The Home Office must ensure that money seized from criminals goes directly back into catching more of them.”

MPs have said that victims of violent crime are being discouraged from claiming compensation by excessive bureaucracy and complex forms. Fewer than 5% of those eligible for sums of up to £500,000 are applying, the public accounts committee found. It was added that two-thirds of victims are unaware of the scheme

Committee chairman Edward Leigh said compensation was a “low priority” for ministers. But the government said the system had improved since 2006.

The committee found that many victims of violent crime hired expensive lawyers because they were unaware that free legal help was on offer.

The report, Compensating Victims of Violent Crime, criticises the Ministry of Justice for failing to set the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) rigorous targets.

The committee said that, despite applications falling by 23%, the average time taken to resolve a complaint had increased from one year to 17 months.

The costs of administering the scheme had risen by £6m between 2000 and 2006, while staff productivity had fallen.

Sir Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough, said he was concerned about how well the Ministry of Justice was fulfilling its objective of “placing victims at the heart of the criminal justice system”.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it was “extraordinary” that the situation had not improved since his committee published a similar report about the payments offered by the CIA eight years ago.

He said: “There are long, difficult forms and it then takes more than 17 months to get compensation.

He said: “Up to 20% of people employ solicitors but this service is supposed to be free. Bearing in mind, these people have been traumatised by violent crime - they can receive up to £250,000 but they are getting nothing.

“I suppose that somebody at the Treasury doesn’t mind very much, because the money just stays in the public sector and it can be spent on other things.

“But I can’t believe that’s the motivation - I don’t think anybody is that Machiavellian.

“I suspect that this is just a rather dopey, not well-regarded part of the ministry, without high-flyers working in it, and it’s very poorly managed - and that’s the simple answer.

“I doubt if anyone will be sacked from this useless authority.”

Compensation lawyer Richard Crabtree told the BBC the system was a “bureaucratic maze” and it took far too long for complaints to be resolved.

MP Nick Herbert said”It’s a question of passing the buck from one person to another - nobody will actually deal with your enquiry, and it becomes quite frustrating both for the advisor and for the client.”

Adults caught with a knife have been fined as little as £20, with fines for children as low as £5, according to research by the Liberal Democrats.

The information, contained in a Parliamentary answer, also shows that:

· In 2004, an adult received a fine of just £1 for possession of a knife
· The average fine given to adults was £153; £123 to 16 to 18 year olds and £57 to under-16s
· Some adults were given fines as low as £20; £10 for 16 to 18 year olds and just £5 for under-16s

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:

“The Government claims to be tough on knife crime while at the same time dishing out penalties to knife carriers of less than twenty quid.

“Judges must have discretion, but these penalties are ridiculously lenient when you can get up to four years in jail for possessing a knife.

“If we are to tackle knife crime, a strong message must be sent to those who carry knives. These pitiful fines do not do that.

“Ministerial posturing on penalties is pointless if people feel they can carry knives and get away with a slap on the wrist.

“The best way to tackle knife crime is to ensure that more people carrying knives are caught through intelligence led stop and search, hot-spot policing and firm but fair penalties.”

North East Lincolnshire Council will receive £790,000 to help tackle youth crime over the next three years thanks to a new government support scheme across England and Wales.The funding is a major milestone in the youth crime action plan, which launched in July. It aims to tackle youth crime through a comprehensive strategy involving early prevention, non-negotiable support and tough enforcement.

All parts of England will be offered the funding to boost the drive to tackle youth crime, but 69 areas, including North East Lincolnshire, are being offered £700,000 for intensive action over the next three years, with an immediate cash injection of £90,000 available to each local authority this year.

Key measures include:

• Using safeguarding laws to remove young people at risk from the streets at night
• Building street-based teams of youth workers and ex-gang members to tackle groups of young people involved in crime and disorder
• Increasing visible police patrols during after-school hours
• Expanding family intervention projects to respond more effectively to families at risk
• Providing positive activities for young people
• Placing youth offending team workers in police stations so that young offenders can be dealt with and directed to the most appropriate service at the earliest opportunity

Lib Dem Councillor Steve Beasant, portfolio holder for communities and neighbourhoods, said: “This cash will build upon the excellent work already being carried out by the council’s community care team and Safer Communities to engage youngsters and give them the empowerment to make positive choices that will improve their prospects and confidence.

“Whether its working with the youngsters who sometimes fall between the cracks through our excellent family intervention project or by providing diversionary activities, this cash reflects our drive and desire to achieve excellence within North East Lincolnshire, and leave a positive legacy for future generations.”

Tony Hunter, chief executive of North East Lincolnshire Council, said: “‘The council is determined to tackle youth crime and improve the quality of life for young people, families and communities. This money will help tackle youth crime by addressing both the causes of offending and offering the right support to help young people get their lives back on track.”

In my opinion this new cash award will make an enourmous difference to the quality of life for many of the people in N E Lincs.  As I speak to people all over the Borough it is clear that one of the most important issues for people of all ages includes the matter of youth crime, and the provision of positive activities for young people.  This new money will help us to address this problem, and make life better for all of us.

Commenting on the Home Affairs Select Committee report on Policing in the 21st Century, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said: “This report is right to highlight how mistaken the Government has been to try to run policing through Whitehall targets, which have proved an expensive disaster.”

Chris Huhne went on to say:

“The result has been a priority for trivial offences, the abandonment of local concerns and the swamping of officers in red tape.

“The best thing ministers could do for policing in this century would be to scrap the ID cards scheme and put 10,000 more police on our streets.”

Commenting on Government figures showing that criminals being supervised by the probation service have committed more than one murder every week in the past two years, Liberal Democrat Justice Spokesperson, David Howarth said: “The probation service does an excellent and often thankless job in difficult circumstances.”

David Howarth continued, saying:

“However, this Government’s obsession with criminalising people in the name of looking tough has left the service hugely overstretched.

“If its workload increases, funding is cut and morale is shattered by endless Whitehall tinkering, then it is increasingly likely that people will slip through the net.”

Commenting on the announcement that hand-held fingerprint scanners could be available to every police force in England and Wales by next year, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said:

 ”The existence of a reliable system of checking fingerprints against a criminal database is yet another reason why the ID cards scheme will be a costly and intrusive irrelevance in crime-fighting.”

“But there must be cast iron guarantees that fingerprints collected from innocent people are not stored.”

 Responding to today’s speech by Jack Straw in which he calls for more to be done to help people who suffer at the hands of criminals, Liberal Democrat Justice Spokesperson, David Howarth said: “It is hard to see how victims benefit from prisons bursting at the seams, offenders being released early and sky-high re-offending rates.”

“The Government’s obsession with punishment for its own sake, regardless of the consequences for future victims of crime, proves that ministers care more about getting a few easy headlines than they do about actually reducing crime.

“The best thing Jack Straw can do is to try to ensure that there are fewer victims, which is achieved through catching criminals, not posturing on penalties.”

David Howarth

Convicted criminals given electronic tags can break their curfews for more than 11 hours and still not be hauled before the courts, a report has revealed.

Inmates released from prison early only face automatic re-arrest if they break the whole of their curfew, which is typically 12 hours,  in one go, inspectors found, but by being at home for as little as a few minutes they could qualify for a warning. They will only be rearrested when they break their order a second time.

The report also revealed that more than third of those given tags broke the terms of their orders.

Tags can be given to prisoners for the last four and a half months of a sentence of less than four years. Tags can also be given out as punishment in themselves. Criminals must spend their curfew time at a particular address during the times set out by the courts.

A joint inspection by police, probation and court inspectors found that rules for enforcing tags were not what the public would expect.

Andrew Bridges, HM Chief Inspector of Probation said it “doesn’t seem right” that criminals were given so much leeway. “We found that enforcement policy with court-sentenced curfews is significantly different both from the way other community requirements are enforced and from what the courts and the public might reasonably expect,” Mr Bridges said.

He called for a “major re-think” of how the orders are applied adding that they “did not promote compliance”.

He said the rules were deliberately designed to prevent too many prisoners breaking them. “The intention of this approach was to avoid breaching too many cases, while also avoiding publicising to offenders the fact that curfews were not as strict in practice as they might first appear,” he said.

“Ironically, we nevertheless found that a high proportion (a third) of court-sentenced electronically monitored curfew cases still reached the point of requiring breach action.”