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

1138975

registered interest
date	15/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Youth Custody
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 children in custody were held in (a) Secure Children's Homes, (b) Secure Training Centres and (c) Young Offenders Institutions in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Leeds East
tabling member printed	Richard Burgon
uin	277224
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/07/2019 answer text <p>The table below shows the average monthly youth custody population (under 18-year olds) by sector for the years ending 31 March 2010 to 31 March 2018, and the proportion of the total under 18 custodial population represented by each sector.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Population by sector</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2010</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2015</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2016</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2017</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2018</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Secure Children's Homes</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>167</p></td><td><p>165</p></td><td><p>166</p></td><td><p>142</p></td><td><p>129</p></td><td><p>101</p></td><td><p>108</p></td><td><p>107</p></td><td><p>106</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Secure Training Centres</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>253</p></td><td><p>264</p></td><td><p>280</p></td><td><p>253</p></td><td><p>262</p></td><td><p>223</p></td><td><p>196</p></td><td><p>131</p></td><td><p>166</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Young Offender Institutions</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>1,998</p></td><td><p>1,610</p></td><td><p>1,517</p></td><td><p>1,149</p></td><td><p>825</p></td><td><p>714</p></td><td><p>656</p></td><td><p>630</p></td><td><p>623</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2,418</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2,040</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>1,963</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>1,544</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>1,216</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>1,037</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>960</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>868</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>894</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Share of population by sector</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>2010</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2011</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2014</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2015</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2016</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2017</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2018</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Secure Children's Homes</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>7%</p></td><td><p>8%</p></td><td><p>8%</p></td><td><p>9%</p></td><td><p>11%</p></td><td><p>10%</p></td><td><p>11%</p></td><td><p>12%</p></td><td><p>12%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Secure Training Centres</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>10%</p></td><td><p>13%</p></td><td><p>14%</p></td><td><p>16%</p></td><td><p>22%</p></td><td><p>21%</p></td><td><p>20%</p></td><td><p>15%</p></td><td><p>19%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Young Offender Institutions</p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p>83%</p></td><td><p>79%</p></td><td><p>77%</p></td><td><p>74%</p></td><td><p>68%</p></td><td><p>69%</p></td><td><p>68%</p></td><td><p>73%</p></td><td><p>70%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>100%</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Charnwood answering member printed Edward Argar question first answered 18/07/2019 13:42:05 answering member 4362 label Biography information for Edward Argar
tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1138191

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Lincoln Prison: Prisoners' Release
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Board at HMP Lincoln for reporting Year 1 February 2018 to 31 January 2019, published on 8 July 2019, what plans his Department has to reduce the 30 per cent of prisoners that leave HMP Lincoln to homelessness or to no fixed abode.
tabling member constituency	Lincoln
tabling member printed	Karen Lee
uin	275821
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2019 answer text <p>I am currently considering the content and recommendations of the report from the IMB at HMP Lincoln which was published on 8 July 2019. I will respond to the report as soon as that process is completed, and I will ensure a copy of the response is sent to the Hon Member for Lincoln.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland grouped question UIN 275822 275823 275824 275825 275826 275827 question first answered 17/07/2019 10:25:35 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4664 label Biography information for Karen Lee

1138193

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Lincoln Prison: Self Harm
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Board at HMP Lincoln for reporting Year 1 February 2018 to 31 January 2019, what plans his Department has to tackle the 49 per cent increase in incidents of self-harm recorded at HMP Lincoln between 2017 and 2019.
tabling member constituency	Lincoln
tabling member printed	Karen Lee
uin	275822
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2019 answer text <p>I am currently considering the content and recommendations of the report from the IMB at HMP Lincoln which was published on 8 July 2019. I will respond to the report as soon as that process is completed, and I will ensure a copy of the response is sent to the Hon Member for Lincoln.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland grouped question UIN 275821 275823 275824 275825 275826 275827 question first answered 17/07/2019 10:25:35 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4664 label Biography information for Karen Lee

1138198

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Lincoln Prison: Prisoners' Release
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Board at HMP Lincoln for reporting Year 1 February 2018 to 31 January 2019, published on 8 July 2019, what representations has he made to that Board on its statement that there was an apparent lack of co-ordination across government departments to tackle the high level of homelessness of discharged prisoners.
tabling member constituency	Lincoln
tabling member printed	Karen Lee
uin	275825
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2019 answer text <p>I am currently considering the content and recommendations of the report from the IMB at HMP Lincoln which was published on 8 July 2019. I will respond to the report as soon as that process is completed, and I will ensure a copy of the response is sent to the Hon Member for Lincoln.</p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Robert Buckland grouped question UIN 275821 275822 275823 275824 275826 275827 question first answered 17/07/2019 10:25:35 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
tabling member	4664 label Biography information for Karen Lee

1138296

registered interest
date	10/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Offenders: Death
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in conducting a national review of deaths under post-release probation supervision, as stated in their response to the 12th report of the Health and Social Care Select Committee Prison Health (HC Paper 963).
tabling member printed	Lord Ramsbotham
uin	HL17093
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 31/07/2019 answer text <p>In our response to the Health and Social Care Select Committee the Government committed to undertake a review of deaths under post release supervision during 2019-20. Scoping work has been undertaken, and the full review is on track to be completed within this time period. This is in addition to the existing requirement on all probation providers to conduct an internal review following each death, and to share learning from these reviews.</p><p> </p><p>The number of deaths of offenders under post-release supervision decreased from 401 in 2016/17 to 367 in 2017/18, a fall of 8%. The National Suicide Prevention Strategy identifies people in contact with the criminal justice system as a high-risk group, and we recognise that the time following release from prison can be a particularly high-risk period for suicide and for deaths from other causes. The primary role of probation is to protect the public and prevent re-offending, and people under supervision in the community are not in the care of HM Prison and Probation Service in the way that they are when in custody. While probation staff do everything they can to help offenders find access to vital services including healthcare, housing, and treatment for drug and alcohol problems, they do not have sole responsibility for caring for them. The national review aims to identify what further actions may be appropriate to prevent offenders’ deaths, while recognising that a range of other organisations share responsibility for their wellbeing.</p><p> </p><p>We are also investing an extra £22m in ‘through-the-gate’ assistance for offenders, to help them find the support they need on issues such as housing, healthcare and employment, and they have the same access to these services as any other person in the community.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 31/07/2019 12:01:29 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	3744 label Biography information for Lord Ramsbotham

1137373

registered interest
date	08/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Alternatives to Prosecution
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government why they introduced community resolution orders as informal punishments for low-level offences in 2014; who was responsible for their introduction; and whether their use was approved by the Home Secretary.
tabling member printed	Baroness Gould of Potternewton
uin	HL16980
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2019 answer text <p>Out of Court Disposals (OOCDs) allow police to deal quickly and proportionately with low-level offending without recourse to the courts. One type of OOCD is community resolution. This is a non-statutory disposal that can be administered by police forces when the offender accepts responsibility for the offence, and in most cases, where the victim has agreed that they do not want more formal action taken.</p><p> </p><p>‘Community resolution’ is a nationally recognised term for a disposal which has been in use by police for some years, and prior to 2014. In 2014, following consultation, the Ministry of Justice identified support for community resolution as part of a simplified framework for OOCDs in which all disposals had conditions attached.</p><p> </p><p>The College of Policing hold guidance on the use of community resolutions:</p><p>http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/Community-Resolutions-Incorporating-RJ-Final-Aug-2012-2.pdf (this was also summarised as part of a quick reference guide published by Ministry of Justice in 2013: https://www.yjlc.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MoJ-Quick-reference-guides-out-of-court-disposals-2013.pdf).</p><p> </p><p>Individual decisions around the appropriateness of issuing an OOCD are an operational matter for police.</p><p> </p><p>Typically, a Constable, Police Community Support Officer or Police Staff Investigator can decide to issue a community resolution, in accordance with Authorised Professional Practice, gravity matrices and local force policies which inform decision making.</p><p> </p><p>Police and partners have a range of measures in place to ensure appropriate use of Out of Court Disposals. Supervisors are expected to check decision-making of their staff regularly. Out of Court Disposal scrutiny panels are also in place with external representation - these review in detail a selection of cases to determine whether the method of disposal is considered appropriate, based on a review of the information/evidence available to the decision maker at the time.</p><p> </p><p>Government works closely with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) whose Charging and Out of Court Disposals strategy (2017-2021) sets out their position and support for forces around OOCDs. We publish data and pay attention to trends in the use of Out of Court Disposals on an ongoing basis.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL16981 HL16982 question first answered 22/07/2019 16:15:38 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	3573 label Biography information for Baroness Gould of Potternewton

1137374

registered interest
date	08/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Alternatives to Prosecution
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what guidance they provide to police forces in England and Wales on the criteria for determining whether a person should be subject to a community resolution order rather than an alternative punishment; and who determines whether or not to use a community resolution order.
tabling member printed	Baroness Gould of Potternewton
uin	HL16981
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2019 answer text <p>Out of Court Disposals (OOCDs) allow police to deal quickly and proportionately with low-level offending without recourse to the courts. One type of OOCD is community resolution. This is a non-statutory disposal that can be administered by police forces when the offender accepts responsibility for the offence, and in most cases, where the victim has agreed that they do not want more formal action taken.</p><p> </p><p>‘Community resolution’ is a nationally recognised term for a disposal which has been in use by police for some years, and prior to 2014. In 2014, following consultation, the Ministry of Justice identified support for community resolution as part of a simplified framework for OOCDs in which all disposals had conditions attached.</p><p> </p><p>The College of Policing hold guidance on the use of community resolutions:</p><p>http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/Community-Resolutions-Incorporating-RJ-Final-Aug-2012-2.pdf (this was also summarised as part of a quick reference guide published by Ministry of Justice in 2013: https://www.yjlc.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MoJ-Quick-reference-guides-out-of-court-disposals-2013.pdf).</p><p> </p><p>Individual decisions around the appropriateness of issuing an OOCD are an operational matter for police.</p><p> </p><p>Typically, a Constable, Police Community Support Officer or Police Staff Investigator can decide to issue a community resolution, in accordance with Authorised Professional Practice, gravity matrices and local force policies which inform decision making.</p><p> </p><p>Police and partners have a range of measures in place to ensure appropriate use of Out of Court Disposals. Supervisors are expected to check decision-making of their staff regularly. Out of Court Disposal scrutiny panels are also in place with external representation - these review in detail a selection of cases to determine whether the method of disposal is considered appropriate, based on a review of the information/evidence available to the decision maker at the time.</p><p> </p><p>Government works closely with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) whose Charging and Out of Court Disposals strategy (2017-2021) sets out their position and support for forces around OOCDs. We publish data and pay attention to trends in the use of Out of Court Disposals on an ongoing basis.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL16980 HL16982 question first answered 22/07/2019 16:15:38 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	3573 label Biography information for Baroness Gould of Potternewton

1137375

registered interest
date	08/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Alternatives to Prosecution
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of reports that community resolution orders are being used for more serious offences than originally intended; and what plans they have to prevent such orders being used for anything other than low-level crimes.
tabling member printed	Baroness Gould of Potternewton
uin	HL16982
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/07/2019 answer text <p>Out of Court Disposals (OOCDs) allow police to deal quickly and proportionately with low-level offending without recourse to the courts. One type of OOCD is community resolution. This is a non-statutory disposal that can be administered by police forces when the offender accepts responsibility for the offence, and in most cases, where the victim has agreed that they do not want more formal action taken.</p><p> </p><p>‘Community resolution’ is a nationally recognised term for a disposal which has been in use by police for some years, and prior to 2014. In 2014, following consultation, the Ministry of Justice identified support for community resolution as part of a simplified framework for OOCDs in which all disposals had conditions attached.</p><p> </p><p>The College of Policing hold guidance on the use of community resolutions:</p><p>http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/Community-Resolutions-Incorporating-RJ-Final-Aug-2012-2.pdf (this was also summarised as part of a quick reference guide published by Ministry of Justice in 2013: https://www.yjlc.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MoJ-Quick-reference-guides-out-of-court-disposals-2013.pdf).</p><p> </p><p>Individual decisions around the appropriateness of issuing an OOCD are an operational matter for police.</p><p> </p><p>Typically, a Constable, Police Community Support Officer or Police Staff Investigator can decide to issue a community resolution, in accordance with Authorised Professional Practice, gravity matrices and local force policies which inform decision making.</p><p> </p><p>Police and partners have a range of measures in place to ensure appropriate use of Out of Court Disposals. Supervisors are expected to check decision-making of their staff regularly. Out of Court Disposal scrutiny panels are also in place with external representation - these review in detail a selection of cases to determine whether the method of disposal is considered appropriate, based on a review of the information/evidence available to the decision maker at the time.</p><p> </p><p>Government works closely with the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) whose Charging and Out of Court Disposals strategy (2017-2021) sets out their position and support for forces around OOCDs. We publish data and pay attention to trends in the use of Out of Court Disposals on an ongoing basis.</p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie grouped question UIN HL16980 HL16981 question first answered 22/07/2019 16:15:38 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
tabling member	3573 label Biography information for Baroness Gould of Potternewton

1137549

registered interest
date	08/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Social Security Benefits: Appeals
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the target waiting time is for benefit tribunals; and what the timeframe is for that target to be met.
tabling member constituency	North Tyneside
tabling member printed	Mary Glindon
uin	274534
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2019 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice has not set a target waiting time for benefit appeals to be heard in the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) jurisdiction. This is because waiting times fluctuate geographically owing to a number of factors including venue capacity, the volumes of benefit decisions made locally, the complexity of the case and the availability of panel members. Furthermore, the listing of appeals, including consideration of whether a hearing should be expedited, is a function of the Tribunal’s judiciary. There are also no targets for staffing levels for medical members, disability qualified members or judges in the SSCS jurisdiction. Levels are set based on forecast receipts to the SSCS jurisdiction, outstanding workload, and venue capacity.</p><p> </p><p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HCMTS) is taking positive steps to reduce the waiting time for appeals to be heard in the SSCS jurisdiction. In 2018, 232 medical members and 118 disability-qualified members were additionally appointed to the SSCS jurisdiction and an extra 129 fee-paid judges have recently been appointed. The SSCS jurisdiction will also benefit from 100 salaried judges and 170 fee-paid judges being recruited across tribunals more widely. In addition, HMCTS is developing a new digital system with a view to enabling speedier processing of appeals and a better service for all parties to the proceedings. Case-management “triage” sessions are also being conducted, with the aim of reducing the number of cases that need to progress to an oral hearing.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard grouped question UIN 274535 question first answered 17/07/2019 17:10:49 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
tabling member	4126 label Biography information for Mary Glindon

1137550

registered interest
date	08/07/2019
answering body	Ministry of Justice
answering dept id	54
answering dept short name	Justice
answering dept sort name	Justice
hansard heading	Social Security Benefits: Appeals
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 19 February to Question 221635, what the target staffing levels are for (a) medical members, (b) disability qualified members and (c) judges in the social security and child support jurisdiction.
tabling member constituency	North Tyneside
tabling member printed	Mary Glindon
uin	274535
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/07/2019 answer text <p>The Ministry of Justice has not set a target waiting time for benefit appeals to be heard in the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) jurisdiction. This is because waiting times fluctuate geographically owing to a number of factors including venue capacity, the volumes of benefit decisions made locally, the complexity of the case and the availability of panel members. Furthermore, the listing of appeals, including consideration of whether a hearing should be expedited, is a function of the Tribunal’s judiciary. There are also no targets for staffing levels for medical members, disability qualified members or judges in the SSCS jurisdiction. Levels are set based on forecast receipts to the SSCS jurisdiction, outstanding workload, and venue capacity.</p><p> </p><p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HCMTS) is taking positive steps to reduce the waiting time for appeals to be heard in the SSCS jurisdiction. In 2018, 232 medical members and 118 disability-qualified members were additionally appointed to the SSCS jurisdiction and an extra 129 fee-paid judges have recently been appointed. The SSCS jurisdiction will also benefit from 100 salaried judges and 170 fee-paid judges being recruited across tribunals more widely. In addition, HMCTS is developing a new digital system with a view to enabling speedier processing of appeals and a better service for all parties to the proceedings. Case-management “triage” sessions are also being conducted, with the aim of reducing the number of cases that need to progress to an oral hearing.</p> answering member constituency Blackpool North and Cleveleys answering member printed Paul Maynard grouped question UIN 274534 question first answered 17/07/2019 17:10:49 answering member 3926 label Biography information for Paul Maynard
tabling member	4126 label Biography information for Mary Glindon