Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1349580

	registered interest
	date	22/07/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Courts: Coronavirus
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the consequences are for a (a) witness, (b) defendant, (c) complainant, (d) juror, (e) judicial office holder, (f) court employee and (g) visiting member of the public who does not wear a face mask in accordance with the mandatory covid-19 face covering policy in place from 19 July 2021.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	38195
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/09/2021 answer text <p>The relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions across respective parts of Great Britain this summer has allowed courts and tribunals to operate more flexibly, and so increasingly efficiently. But notwithstanding the success of the Government’s vaccine rollout, some safety measures must continue to remain in place.</p><p>There has never been a legal requirement to wear face coverings in a court or tribunal building. Regulations on the wearing of face coverings in place before 19 July in England, imposing criminal sanctions backed by appropriate enforcement powers, applied only in prescribed sectors like retail and transport. However, Public Health guidance has for some time made clear the benefits associated with face coverings, which other sectors have been encouraged to follow. Face coverings can help to minimise exposure to the virus, and therefore reduce the risk of transmission. Accordingly, and alongside a range of other measures embedded to manage Covid risks, in July 2020 HM Courts and Tribunals Service introduced a policy asking that face coverings be worn (unless exempt) across its estate, for the reasons set out in its <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012423/HMCTS589_Organisational_Risk_Assessment_A4L_Aug21_v1.pdf" target="_blank">Organisational Risk Assessment</a>.</p><p>Given the lack of any prescribed legal requirement to wear face coverings in court and tribunal buildings, the compliance and enforcement options open to HMCTS before the 19th July are essentially the same as those after 19<sup>th</sup> July. In determining its policy, HMCTS has considered a range of factors, including the clear balance to be struck between ensuring reasonable compliance of the policy on face coverings, and not damaging the efficacy of proceedings before the court (for example, allowing those who are legally compelled to attend court to avoid that appearance by refusing to wear a covering).</p><p>Insofar as members of staff are concerned, HMCTS employees will continue to be required to wear face coverings in court and tribunal buildings, unless exemptions apply. All HMCTS employees have an obligation to follow HR policies. The consequences of non-compliance would be dealt with, as appropriate, under usual personnel management procedures. Members of the judiciary are similarly asked to wear face coverings in certain areas of court and tribunal buildings (not including, for example, whilst presiding in hearing rooms). Any compliance issues would be a matter for the leadership judiciary, not HMCTS.</p><p>For court and tribunal users including parties, witnesses, jurors, and members of the public, Court and Tribunal Security Officers (CTSOs) will ask that face coverings are worn upon entry into the buildings and will provide free face coverings if needed. Signage around the buildings make clear where face coverings are to be worn. Ultimately, under the Courts Act 2003 section 53, CTSOs have the power to exclude or remove any person from a building for the purposes of securing the safety of those in the building – which includes for these purposes considering non-compliance with reasonable requests in respect of face coverings introduced and maintained in line with prevailing Public Health guidance. In assessing the need for (and proportionality of) deploying those exclusion/removal powers, CTSOs (acting in consultation with HMCTS managers and the judiciary as necessary) will have regard to the balance between furthering public safety, and ensuring the ongoing efficacy of proceedings, as described above.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 10/09/2021 12:25:40 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

1349612

	registered interest
	date	22/07/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Ministry of Justice: Protective Clothing
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what his current policy is on the wearing of face coverings in his (a) Department, (b) departmental agencies and (c) related bodies during the covid-19 outbreak.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	38211
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/09/2021 answer text <p>Throughout the pandemic, the Civil Service / Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has followed, and continues to follow, the latest government guidance in relation to managing the risk of COVID-19 in the workplace, including any variations between the four nations of the UK.</p><p> </p><p>In England, the BEIS ‘Working Safely during coronavirus (COVID-19)’ guidance provides sensible precautions employers can take to manage risk and support their staff. The guidance is available via this link: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-covid-19/offices-factories-and-labs#offices-7-2" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-covid-19/offices-factories-and-labs#offices-7-2</a>.</p><p> </p><p>It is for individual employers to determine which mitigations are appropriate to adopt as they review their workplace risk assessments in light of the updated guidance. Face coverings, which are no longer required by law, are one possible mitigation employers could adopt if the situation / context warranted it.</p><p> </p><p>The MoJ fully supports individuals who choose to wear a face covering in the workplace.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 10/09/2021 12:10:34 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

1351379

	registered interest
	date	18/08/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Family Courts
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance is in place for family courts to ensure meaningful contact for children and parents.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	40789
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/09/2021 answer text <p>Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 sets out that the welfare of the child is the court’s paramount consideration. This fundamental principle applies when the court is making a decision with respect to contact arrangements for children.</p><p> </p><p>Section 1 also provides that in such cases, the court is to presume that involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare, unless there is evidence to suggest that involvement of a parent would put the child at risk of suffering harm. Involvement can be direct or indirect. The Government is currently undertaking a review of the courts’ application of this presumption and its exception, and its impact on children.</p><p> </p><p>Judges are also guided in their decision-making by the ‘Welfare Checklist’ set out in the Children Act 1989. This guidance is not exhaustive but requires the court to consider factors such as the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child (considered in light of the age and understanding of the child), the range of powers available to the court, risk of harm, and the likely effect on the child of any change in their circumstances.</p><p> </p><p>‘Contact’ can mean direct or indirect contact between a child and a parent. The court will determine appropriate contact arrangements in the light of all of these provisions and in all the circumstances of the individual case.</p><p> </p><p>Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and Practice Directions (PDs) also provide supplementary rules and direction to courts in their determination of contact questions between children and parents.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 10/09/2021 12:06:33 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

1338488

	registered interest
	date	21/06/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Ministry of Justice: Training
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement of 15 December 2020, HCWS652, on Unconscious bias training, what steps he has taken to phase out unconscious bias training in his Department.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	19546
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/06/2021 answer text <p>In December 2020, the Government Equalities Office commissioned the Behavioural Insights Team for a summary of the evidence on unconscious bias and diversity training. The report highlighted that ‘there is currently no evidence that this training changes behaviour in the long term or improves workplace equality in terms of representation of women, ethnic minorities or other minority groups’. It also states that there is emerging evidence of unintended negative consequences.</p><p>In light of these findings, Ministers concluded that the unconscious bias learning provision did not achieve its aims and should be phased out in the Civil Service.</p><p>The Ministry of Justice has taken the following actions to phase out Unconscious Bias training.</p><p>In December 2020, department Senior Leadership Group directors, along with HR practitioners in Learning &amp; Development and Diversity &amp; Inclusion, were alerted to the withdrawal of Unconscious Bias training. Guidance explained that MoJ group should also look to wind-up the use of unconscious bias stand-alone products.</p><p>The same information was also cascaded through the Diversity &amp; Inclusion and Learning &amp; Development networks in department business areas, staff support networks and through subject champions.</p><p>The Diversity, Inclusion &amp; Wellbeing team is currently refreshing the strategic approach to diversity and inclusion. In the meantime, staff who are looking for diversity training are encouraged to make use of 'Inclusion in the Civil Service', a revised version of Diversity and Inclusion that has been added to the Civil Service Learning website. This includes four modules:</p><ol><li>Equality, diversity and inclusion in the Civil Service</li><li>Our inclusive workplace</li><li>Our customers</li><li>The legal framework</li></ol><p> </p><p>Unconscious Bias has also been removed from the department Learning Management System and the 'Essential Learning' learner pathway has been updated to include 'Inclusion in the Civil Service' instead.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 29/06/2021 16:38:35 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

1329577

	registered interest
	date	04/06/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Crimes of Violence: Emergency Services
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of people convicted of assaulting an emergency worker have been given an immediate custodial sentence of longer than six months since that offence was introduced.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	10273
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/06/2021 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice has published information on convictions and sentencing outcomes up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool:</p><p><a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx" target="_blank">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx</a></p><p> </p><p>In the ‘Offence’ filter, select ‘8.22 Assault of an emergency worker’. Number of defendants convicted will populate Row 24, and those sentenced to immediate custody will populate Row 35. The number of defendants who received sentence lengths greater than 6 months will populate Rows 60 to 77.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 14/06/2021 14:18:43 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

1329578

	registered interest
	date	04/06/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judiciary: Retirement
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reason it is proposed to average over a 10-year period the raising of the judicial mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75; and how that averaging is planned to be implemented.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	10274
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/06/2021 answer text <p>The Impact Assessment and Equality Statement, published in 2020 as part of the Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age (MRA) consultation, outlined our assessment of the potential effects of raising the MRA. Analysis of retirement trends suggested that with an MRA of 75, the number of judges and non-legal members in post could be around 400 higher than if the MRA had remained at 70. For magistrates, this figure was 2,000. These estimates were calculated as an average over a 10-year period.</p><p>The government intends to legislate to raise the MRA to 75 through the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill, to be introduced shortly. When the MRA is changed to 75, it will immediately apply to all judicial office holders who are in office on the date that the legislative measure is commenced. The legislation will include a transitional provision to enable retired magistrates who are younger than the new MRA to apply to return to the bench, subject to business need.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 14/06/2021 15:15:51 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

1329598

	registered interest
	date	04/06/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Crimes against the Person: Sentencing
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in each of the last five years what the average immediate custodial sentence was for (a) each offence in the violence against the person category; (b) burglary; (c) robbery and (d) possession of weapons.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	10278
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/06/2021 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice has published information on convictions and sentencing outcomes up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool:</p><p><a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx" target="_blank">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx</a></p><p> </p><p>In the PivotTable Fields, remove the ‘Values’ variable from the ‘Rows’ field and replace with ‘Offence’. Then, drag the ‘Average custodial sentence length (months)’ variable into the ‘Values’ field. Use the ‘Offence group’ filter to select (a) ‘01: Violence against the person’, (b) ‘04: Theft Offences’, (c) ‘Robbery’ and (d) ’07: Possession of weapons’.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 14/06/2021 14:20:31 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

1329599

	registered interest
	date	04/06/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Crimes against the Person: Sentencing
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of offenders convicted of (a) each offence in the violence against the person category; (b) burglary; (c) robbery and (d) possession of weapons were not given a sentence of immediate custody in each of the last five years.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	10279
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/06/2021 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice has published information on convictions and sentencing outcomes up to December 2020, available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool:</p><p><a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx" target="_blank">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx</a></p><p>Use the ‘Offence group’ filter to select (a) ‘01: Violence against the person’, (b) ‘04: Theft Offences’, (c) ’03: Robbery’ and (d) ’07: Possession of weapons’. In order to identify the number of offenders sentenced who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, subtract the values of Row 35 (Total immediate custody) from the respective values of Row 25 (Sentenced).</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 14/06/2021 14:21:36 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

1312032

	registered interest
	date	26/04/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Magistrates' Courts: Sentencing
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of increasing the sentencing powers of Magistrates in accordance with Section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on the number of outstanding cases at Crown Courts.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	187181
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/04/2021 answer text <p>The government keeps this policy under review, but an assessment of the impact on outstanding cases at the Crown Court cannot be made available at this time.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 29/04/2021 12:00:41 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies

1312035

	registered interest
	date	26/04/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Emergency Services: Crimes of Violence
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 7 September 2020 to Question 78583 on Emergency Services: Crimes of Violence, when he plans to write to the hon. Member for Shipley to supply that information.
	tabling member constituency	Shipley
	tabling member printed	Philip Davies
	uin	187182
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/04/2021 answer text <p>Obtaining the necessary information to fully answer the question asked on 22 July 2020, involves accessing the Police National Computer (PNC). This system can only be accessed via a fixed location in our offices. Access to the PNC has been severely restricted since March 2020 due to the national restrictions and the need to minimise non-essential travel.</p><p> </p><p>Work to clear the backlog of parliamentary questions, alongside data uploads and other priority work using the PNC, has commenced but there is continued reduced capacity to do this due to the need to adhere to social distancing guidelines. I will write to the Hon Member with the requested information as soon as possible.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 29/04/2021 12:07:48 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1565 label Biography information for Sir Philip Davies