[holding answer 29 November 2013]: We want to ensure that all victims of rape and sexual violence are treated with dignity, and that police investigations are conducted thoroughly and professionally. Any officer suspected of falsifying crime figures should be investigated and punished if found guilty.

The Government is encouraged that the most recent crime statistics showed an increase in the number of rape and sexual violence cases reported to the police, indicating that more victims are having the confidence to come forward and report these crimes. In addition, the ‘no crime' rate for rape has fallen from 12.6% in 2009-10 to 9.6% in 2012-13.

The ‘no crime' rate for the Metropolitan police for rape has fallen from 12.9% in 2009-10 to 12.0% in 2012-13.

As part of their work to ensure the quality of police crime recording and service delivery to victims, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is inspecting forces to ensure standards are being met, including on the recording of rape, and will publish a national thematic report next autumn.

[holding answer 27 November 2013]: The published impact assessment estimates that replacing the antisocial behaviour order on conviction with the criminal behaviour order will have a negligible impact on prison places. The impact assessment also judges that replacing the antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) on application with the injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance will lead to a reduction in the number of prison places, although it is not possible to quantify the reduction at this stage.

The purpose of replacing ASBOs is to tackle antisocial behaviour more effectively, not to increase or decrease prison population numbers.

[holding answer 18 November 2013]: I provided a substantive answer to these questions on 12 November 2013.

[holding answer 8 November 2013]: It will be for frontline professionals to decide when use of the new Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA) is appropriate. However, our impact assessment, published alongside the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill in May, assumes that there will be a 5% increase in the number of injunctions in the first year, compared to the orders it will replace.

We also assumed in that document that approximately 30% of injunctions would be issued to under 18s, based on the current proportion of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders issued to those in that age group.

Our published impact assessment assumes that breach proceedings for the IPNA will be similar to the process for the Anti-Social Behaviour injunction. As such, the unit cost of a breach hearing is estimated to be approximately £600 for someone aged over 18 and £700 for someone aged under 18.

We have assumed that this cost will be the same whether the applicant is a local authority or a police force.

The lower test and lower civil standard of proof for the new injunction, compared to the anti-social behaviour order on application, means that it will be faster and easier for the police, councils and other frontline professionals to use it.

[holding answer 8 November 2013]: It will be for frontline professionals to decide when use of the new Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA) is appropriate. However, our impact assessment, published alongside the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill in May, assumes that there will be a 5% increase in the number of injunctions in the first year, compared to the orders it will replace.

We also assumed in that document that approximately 30% of injunctions would be issued to under 18s, based on the current proportion of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders issued to those in that age group.

Our published impact assessment assumes that breach proceedings for the IPNA will be similar to the process for the Anti-Social Behaviour injunction. As such, the unit cost of a breach hearing is estimated to be approximately £600 for someone aged over 18 and £700 for someone aged under 18.

We have assumed that this cost will be the same whether the applicant is a local authority or a police force.

The lower test and lower civil standard of proof for the new injunction, compared to the anti-social behaviour order on application, means that it will be faster and easier for the police, councils and other frontline professionals to use it.

[holding answer 8 November 2013]: It will be for frontline professionals to decide when use of the new Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNA) is appropriate. However, our impact assessment, published alongside the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill in May, assumes that there will be a 5% increase in the number of injunctions in the first year, compared to the orders it will replace.

We also assumed in that document that approximately 30% of injunctions would be issued to under 18s, based on the current proportion of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders issued to those in that age group.

Our published impact assessment assumes that breach proceedings for the IPNA will be similar to the process for the Anti-Social Behaviour injunction. As such, the unit cost of a breach hearing is estimated to be approximately £600 for someone aged over 18 and £700 for someone aged under 18.

We have assumed that this cost will be the same whether the applicant is a local authority or a police force.

The lower test and lower civil standard of proof for the new injunction, compared to the anti-social behaviour order on application, means that it will be faster and easier for the police, councils and other frontline professionals to use it.

[holding answer 8 November 2013]: The total number of occasions on which offenders received an immediate custodial sentence for breaching their antisocial behaviour order in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (latest currently available) is shown in the table. Antisocial behaviour orders can be breached more than once and in more than one year. This table counts all the occasions on which courts imposed sentences of immediate custody for breach of an antisocial behaviour order.

The breach rate of 58% for antisocial behaviour orders shows that enforcement alone is not effective at stopping antisocial behaviour. Importantly, the new injunction will give the court powers to include positive requirements to address the underlying issues that may be driving an individual's behaviour. That notwithstanding, the injunction will have serious penalties on breach—including imprisonment for adults and, as a last resort, for under-18s.