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 grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1300223

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Magistrates: Retirement
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 the Under Secretary of State to the Rt Hon Member for New Forest East on 20 January 2021, Official Report, col 980, on reinstating recently retired magistrates, if he will make it his policy to permit people aged 70 or over to resume their duties if this would enable them to serve for a significant further period prior to reaching any newly-raised maximum age for magistrates to continue in post.
tabling member constituency	New Forest East
tabling member printed	Dr Julian Lewis
uin	164329
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/03/2021 answer text <p>On 8 March 2021 the government announced its intention to legislate to increase the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders, including magistrates, to 75. The legislation will include a transitional provision to enable retired magistrates to apply to return to the bench, subject to business need. The process by which such applications are to be made and considered will be set out in due course.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 11/03/2021 17:32:01 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
tabling member	54 label Biography information for Sir Julian Lewis

1300229

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prisons: Visits
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the update posted on www.gov.uk on 23 February 2021, what steps he is taking to allow prison visits to resume.
tabling member constituency	Bristol East
tabling member printed	Kerry McCarthy
uin	164385
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/03/2021 answer text <p>Social visits to prisons are currently suspended given the risks from Covid-19 and the need to minimise non-essential travel at this time. We continue to support social visits in compassionate circumstances, including visits to children in custody.</p><p>In line with the community position, over the coming weeks and months we will support establishments to ease some of the restrictions currently in place, guided by public health advice and as it becomes safe to do so. To support the delivery of greater regime activity, significant additional measures have been put in place to reduce the risk of Covid-19 as much as possible. The mitigations we have introduced mean that we are now much better prepared for managing Covid-19 in prisons.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk question first answered 11/03/2021 17:19:46 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
tabling member	1491 label Biography information for Kerry McCarthy

1300241

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prisons: Crimes of Violence
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many violent incidents were recorded in August (a) 2018, (b) 2019 and (c) 2020 in the following prisons (i) Hull, (ii) Humber, (iii) Leeds, (iv) Lindholme, (v) Moorland, Hatfield Woodhouse, South Yorkshire, (vi) Wealstun, near Wetherby, West Yorkshire, (vii) Nottingham, (viii) Ranby, Nottinghamshire, (ix) Wormwood Scrubs, and (x) Isis, south-east London.
tabling member constituency	Hendon
tabling member printed	Dr Matthew Offord
uin	164425
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/03/2021 answer text <p>The number of assaults in each of the prisons listed for the months requested can be found in the Safety in Custody summary tables available at the following link:</p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly-update-to-september-2020" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly-update-to-september-2020</a>.</p><p>Despite the progress made, the level of violence in prisons remains too high. We are continuing work to address this by giving all staff the tools and training needed to help them reduce violence.</p><p>We are spending £100 million across the estate to bolster prison security, clamping down on the weapons, drugs and mobile phones that fuel violence and crime behind bars.</p><p>We are also giving officers tools like PAVA pepper spray and body-worn cameras to make their jobs safer.</p><p>Violence in prison is a crime and will never be tolerated. Any prisoner who commits an act of violence should expect to have action taken against them, including being imprisoned for far longer.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk question first answered 16/03/2021 17:32:41 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
tabling member	4006 label Biography information for Dr Matthew Offord

1300243

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Service: Training
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many officials in the Prison Service have completed a military-style leadership course while in employment.
tabling member constituency	Hendon
tabling member printed	Dr Matthew Offord
uin	164426
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/03/2021 answer text <p>Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) would not characterise any of its leadership offer as ‘military-style’ and so the answer is none.</p><p>Since 2016 HMPPS has, however, built a successful partnership with the Ministry of Defence Academy, Shrivenham. Fifty-two leaders from across all parts of HMPPS, including the Prison Service, National Probation Service and Youth Custody Service have attended the Command, Leadership and Management course at Shrivenham. This is a one-week stand-alone leadership course which, for the military attendees, is part of a one-year programme.</p><p> </p><p>Breakdown of numbers of HMPPS delegates by year is given below.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Year</p></td><td><p>Number of HMPPS leaders in attendance.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2018</p></td><td><p>25</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2019</p></td><td><p>16</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2020</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>This has been targeted for those in senior roles (i.e. Prison Governors) or those with the potential to move to this level.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk question first answered 16/03/2021 17:35:27 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
tabling member	4006 label Biography information for Dr Matthew Offord

1300302

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
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 2 March 2021 to Question 158908, Prison Officers: Pay, if he will place a redacted copy of that Equality Impact Assessment in the Library.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Liz Saville Roberts
uin	164558
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/03/2021 answer text <p>In line with the practice of successive administrations, the Government does not routinely publish Equality Impact Assessments (EIA). The scope of the legal advice in the EIA was surrounding options that the Department was considering as part of the its decision-making regarding prison officer pay and allowances. These options were ultimately not pursued as they were not cost viable.</p><p> </p><p>The EIA recognised that rejecting recommendation 3 from the PSPRB 20/21 report would adversely impact staff on Fair &amp; Sustainable (F&amp;S) terms and conditions, who (as per the data published on 2 March) are a more diverse staffing group than their counterparts on closed-grades terms. The Government’s consideration of recommendation 3 took this into account, alongside other factors such as the exceptional costs associated with implementing this recommendation, the impact on the overall pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p> </p><p>The Department identified as part of the EIA that the adverse impact of rejecting recommendation 3 would be addressed by efforts to close the pay differential between staff on closed-grades terms and those on F&amp;S terms. This remains a key component of the Department’s longer-term pay strategy.</p><p> </p><p>The Government’s Public Sector pay restraint policy for the current (2021/22) financial year was announced by the Chancellor on the 25 November 2020. He detailed that pay rises in the public sector will be restrained and targeted, and that anyone earning less than £24,000 will be protected and will receive a minimum uplift of £250, or the National Living Wage (whichever is the higher) should they qualify. An equalities impact assessment was undertaken as part of the Chancellor’s decision and it did not find that the implementation of public sector pay restraint will result in any unjustified differential impact to individuals with protected characteristics. It can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2020-spending-review-public-sector-pay-policy-full-impact-assessment.</p><p> </p><p>The national equivalent basic pay of Band 3 prison staff on F&amp;S terms (our largest staffing group), as well as both F&amp;S and closed grade Band 2 operational support grades is below the protected earnings floor of £24,000. The Department’s proposals on how the uplift should apply to prison staff will be published and submitted to the PSPRB for their consideration shortly.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk grouped question UIN 164559 164560 164562 question first answered 11/03/2021 17:22:26 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
tabling member	4521 label Biography information for Liz Saville Roberts

1300303

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
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 2 March 2021 to Question 158908, Prison Officers: Pay, what the scope of the legal advice contained in that Equality Impact Assessment is.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Liz Saville Roberts
uin	164559
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/03/2021 answer text <p>In line with the practice of successive administrations, the Government does not routinely publish Equality Impact Assessments (EIA). The scope of the legal advice in the EIA was surrounding options that the Department was considering as part of the its decision-making regarding prison officer pay and allowances. These options were ultimately not pursued as they were not cost viable.</p><p> </p><p>The EIA recognised that rejecting recommendation 3 from the PSPRB 20/21 report would adversely impact staff on Fair &amp; Sustainable (F&amp;S) terms and conditions, who (as per the data published on 2 March) are a more diverse staffing group than their counterparts on closed-grades terms. The Government’s consideration of recommendation 3 took this into account, alongside other factors such as the exceptional costs associated with implementing this recommendation, the impact on the overall pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p> </p><p>The Department identified as part of the EIA that the adverse impact of rejecting recommendation 3 would be addressed by efforts to close the pay differential between staff on closed-grades terms and those on F&amp;S terms. This remains a key component of the Department’s longer-term pay strategy.</p><p> </p><p>The Government’s Public Sector pay restraint policy for the current (2021/22) financial year was announced by the Chancellor on the 25 November 2020. He detailed that pay rises in the public sector will be restrained and targeted, and that anyone earning less than £24,000 will be protected and will receive a minimum uplift of £250, or the National Living Wage (whichever is the higher) should they qualify. An equalities impact assessment was undertaken as part of the Chancellor’s decision and it did not find that the implementation of public sector pay restraint will result in any unjustified differential impact to individuals with protected characteristics. It can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2020-spending-review-public-sector-pay-policy-full-impact-assessment.</p><p> </p><p>The national equivalent basic pay of Band 3 prison staff on F&amp;S terms (our largest staffing group), as well as both F&amp;S and closed grade Band 2 operational support grades is below the protected earnings floor of £24,000. The Department’s proposals on how the uplift should apply to prison staff will be published and submitted to the PSPRB for their consideration shortly.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk grouped question UIN 164558 164560 164562 question first answered 11/03/2021 17:22:26 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
tabling member	4521 label Biography information for Liz Saville Roberts

1300308

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
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 2 March 2021 to Question 158908, Prison Officers: Pay, what risks involving the impact of rejecting the recommendation on (a) eliminating unlawful discrimination and (b) advancing equality of opportunity were identified in that Equality Impact Assessment.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Liz Saville Roberts
uin	164560
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/03/2021 answer text <p>In line with the practice of successive administrations, the Government does not routinely publish Equality Impact Assessments (EIA). The scope of the legal advice in the EIA was surrounding options that the Department was considering as part of the its decision-making regarding prison officer pay and allowances. These options were ultimately not pursued as they were not cost viable.</p><p> </p><p>The EIA recognised that rejecting recommendation 3 from the PSPRB 20/21 report would adversely impact staff on Fair &amp; Sustainable (F&amp;S) terms and conditions, who (as per the data published on 2 March) are a more diverse staffing group than their counterparts on closed-grades terms. The Government’s consideration of recommendation 3 took this into account, alongside other factors such as the exceptional costs associated with implementing this recommendation, the impact on the overall pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p> </p><p>The Department identified as part of the EIA that the adverse impact of rejecting recommendation 3 would be addressed by efforts to close the pay differential between staff on closed-grades terms and those on F&amp;S terms. This remains a key component of the Department’s longer-term pay strategy.</p><p> </p><p>The Government’s Public Sector pay restraint policy for the current (2021/22) financial year was announced by the Chancellor on the 25 November 2020. He detailed that pay rises in the public sector will be restrained and targeted, and that anyone earning less than £24,000 will be protected and will receive a minimum uplift of £250, or the National Living Wage (whichever is the higher) should they qualify. An equalities impact assessment was undertaken as part of the Chancellor’s decision and it did not find that the implementation of public sector pay restraint will result in any unjustified differential impact to individuals with protected characteristics. It can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2020-spending-review-public-sector-pay-policy-full-impact-assessment.</p><p> </p><p>The national equivalent basic pay of Band 3 prison staff on F&amp;S terms (our largest staffing group), as well as both F&amp;S and closed grade Band 2 operational support grades is below the protected earnings floor of £24,000. The Department’s proposals on how the uplift should apply to prison staff will be published and submitted to the PSPRB for their consideration shortly.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk grouped question UIN 164558 164559 164562 question first answered 11/03/2021 17:22:26 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
tabling member	4521 label Biography information for Liz Saville Roberts

1300313

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
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 2 March 2021 to Question 158908, Prison Officers: Pay, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of imposing a pay freeze on prison officers earning more than £24,000 on (a) unlawful discrimination and (b) advancing equality of opportunity.
tabling member constituency	Dwyfor Meirionnydd
tabling member printed	Liz Saville Roberts
uin	164562
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/03/2021 answer text <p>In line with the practice of successive administrations, the Government does not routinely publish Equality Impact Assessments (EIA). The scope of the legal advice in the EIA was surrounding options that the Department was considering as part of the its decision-making regarding prison officer pay and allowances. These options were ultimately not pursued as they were not cost viable.</p><p> </p><p>The EIA recognised that rejecting recommendation 3 from the PSPRB 20/21 report would adversely impact staff on Fair &amp; Sustainable (F&amp;S) terms and conditions, who (as per the data published on 2 March) are a more diverse staffing group than their counterparts on closed-grades terms. The Government’s consideration of recommendation 3 took this into account, alongside other factors such as the exceptional costs associated with implementing this recommendation, the impact on the overall pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p> </p><p>The Department identified as part of the EIA that the adverse impact of rejecting recommendation 3 would be addressed by efforts to close the pay differential between staff on closed-grades terms and those on F&amp;S terms. This remains a key component of the Department’s longer-term pay strategy.</p><p> </p><p>The Government’s Public Sector pay restraint policy for the current (2021/22) financial year was announced by the Chancellor on the 25 November 2020. He detailed that pay rises in the public sector will be restrained and targeted, and that anyone earning less than £24,000 will be protected and will receive a minimum uplift of £250, or the National Living Wage (whichever is the higher) should they qualify. An equalities impact assessment was undertaken as part of the Chancellor’s decision and it did not find that the implementation of public sector pay restraint will result in any unjustified differential impact to individuals with protected characteristics. It can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2020-spending-review-public-sector-pay-policy-full-impact-assessment.</p><p> </p><p>The national equivalent basic pay of Band 3 prison staff on F&amp;S terms (our largest staffing group), as well as both F&amp;S and closed grade Band 2 operational support grades is below the protected earnings floor of £24,000. The Department’s proposals on how the uplift should apply to prison staff will be published and submitted to the PSPRB for their consideration shortly.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk grouped question UIN 164558 164559 164560 question first answered 11/03/2021 17:22:26 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
tabling member	4521 label Biography information for Liz Saville Roberts

1300332

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
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 2 March 2021 to Question 158908, Prison Officers: Pay, what legal issues the advice contained in the Equality Impact Assessment relates to.
tabling member constituency	Hornsey and Wood Green
tabling member printed	Catherine West
uin	164578
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/03/2021 answer text <p>The 20/21 Prison Service Pay Review Body report was received on 5 June 2020 and included a recommendation, recommendation 3, to uplift the pay of Band 3 prison staff on modernised terms and conditions by £3,000. This recommendation was not accepted by the Government. An Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted and considered in reaching the decision to reject recommendation 3.</p><p> </p><p>In line with the practice of successive administrations, the Government does not routinely publish Equality Impact Assessments (EIA). The scope of the legal issues in the EIA were regarding options that the Department was considering as part of its decision-making regarding prison officer pay and allowances. These options were ultimately not pursued as they were not cost viable.</p><p> </p><p>The EIA recognised that rejecting recommendation 3 from the PSPRB 20/21 report would adversely impact staff on Fair &amp; Sustainable (F&amp;S) terms and conditions, who (as per the data published on 2 March) are a more diverse staffing group than their counterparts on closed grade terms.</p><p> </p><p>The Government’s consideration of recommendation 3 took this into account, alongside other factors such as the exceptional costs associated with implementing this recommendation, the impact on the overall pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p> </p><p>The Department identified as part of the EIA that the adverse impact of rejecting recommendation 3 would be addressed by efforts to close the pay differential between staff on closed-grades terms and those on F&amp;S terms. While this cannot be progressed in the context of the current pay pause, this remains a key component of the Department’s longer-term pay strategy.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk grouped question UIN 164579 question first answered 16/03/2021 17:52:41 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
tabling member	4523 label Biography information for Catherine West

1300333

registered interest
date	08/03/2021
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Prison Officers: Pay
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 2 March 2021 to Question 158908, Prison Officers: Pay, what matters identified in that Equality Impact Assessment were relied upon when considering the impact of rejecting the recommendation on (a) unlawful discrimination and (b) advancing equality of opportunity.
tabling member constituency	Hornsey and Wood Green
tabling member printed	Catherine West
uin	164579
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/03/2021 answer text <p>The 20/21 Prison Service Pay Review Body report was received on 5 June 2020 and included a recommendation, recommendation 3, to uplift the pay of Band 3 prison staff on modernised terms and conditions by £3,000. This recommendation was not accepted by the Government. An Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted and considered in reaching the decision to reject recommendation 3.</p><p> </p><p>In line with the practice of successive administrations, the Government does not routinely publish Equality Impact Assessments (EIA). The scope of the legal issues in the EIA were regarding options that the Department was considering as part of its decision-making regarding prison officer pay and allowances. These options were ultimately not pursued as they were not cost viable.</p><p> </p><p>The EIA recognised that rejecting recommendation 3 from the PSPRB 20/21 report would adversely impact staff on Fair &amp; Sustainable (F&amp;S) terms and conditions, who (as per the data published on 2 March) are a more diverse staffing group than their counterparts on closed grade terms.</p><p> </p><p>The Government’s consideration of recommendation 3 took this into account, alongside other factors such as the exceptional costs associated with implementing this recommendation, the impact on the overall pay structure, and the changing labour market conditions due to the exceptional economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p> </p><p>The Department identified as part of the EIA that the adverse impact of rejecting recommendation 3 would be addressed by efforts to close the pay differential between staff on closed-grades terms and those on F&amp;S terms. While this cannot be progressed in the context of the current pay pause, this remains a key component of the Department’s longer-term pay strategy.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk grouped question UIN 164578 question first answered 16/03/2021 17:52:41 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
tabling member	4523 label Biography information for Catherine West