Show Search Form

Search Results

answering body
house id
type
answer	answer text
tabling member	label

Search

1122871

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>Privately-managed prisons have pioneered the use of modern technology to improve the running of establishments and help promote rehabilitation. This includes the development of in-cell telephony to help prisoners maintain ties with their families; interactive story-time activities between prisoners and their children; and the introduction of electronic kiosks, which allow prisoners to have greater control of managing their day-to-day lives. The use of body-worn video cameras was introduced by private prisons. Private prisons also have excellent facilities as standard, such as showers in cells, which it is not possible to provide in our older prisons.</p><p> </p><p> </p>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1125102

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>Over the last 10 years, the following formal contractual notices have been issued at the following private prisons.</p><p> </p><p><strong>HMP Birmingham (operated by G4S)</strong></p><p>HMP Birmingham – Incident Reporting (Improvement Notice Issued August 2016, Closed January 2017 due to sufficient improvements in performance being made)</p><p>HMP Birmingham – Release in Error (Improvement Notice Issued August 2016, Closed January 2017 due to sufficient improvements in performance being made)</p><p>HMP Birmingham - Levels of Violence, reduced purposeful activity, cleanliness (Improvement Notice issued March 2018)</p><p>HMP Birmingham – ACCT (Assessment, Care in Custody, Teamwork) (Improvement Notice issued March 2018)</p><p>HMP Birmingham – Levels of Violence, reduced purposeful activity, cleanliness, (Outstanding Issues Notice issued June 2018, not closed, superseded by Step In)</p><p>HMP Birmingham – ACCT (Assessment, Care in Custody, Teamwork) ( Outstanding Issues Notice issued August 2018, not closed, superseded by Step In)</p><p> </p><p><strong>HMP &amp; YOI Doncaster (operated by Serco) </strong></p><p>HMP &amp; YOI Doncaster – Insufficient Progress against HMIP Recommendations, Increase in Levels of Violence and Staffing Levels (Improvement Notice Issued – March 2015)</p><p>HMP &amp; YOI Doncaster – Insufficient Progress against HMIP Recommendations, Increase in Levels of Violence and Staffing Levels (Outstanding Issues Notice Issued – July 2015)</p><p>HMP &amp; YOI Doncaster – Insufficient Progress against HMIP Recommendations, Increase in Levels of Violence and Staffing Levels (Rectification Notice Issued 12<sup>th</sup> – August 2015)</p><p>Rectification Closed due to sufficient improvements in performance being made in July 2017.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>HMP Northumberland (operated by Sodexo)</strong></p><p>HMP Northumberland – Insufficient performance against the Performance Threshold for Prisoner Working Hours (Improvement Notice Issued - June 2015)</p><p>Improvement Notice Closed due to sufficient improvements in performance being made in December 2016.</p><p> </p><p><strong>HMP Oakwood (operated by G4S)</strong></p><p>HMP Oakwood – Areas of Reduced performance - Cleanliness, MDT, Purposeful Activity, Searching, Staffing Numbers - (Improvement Notice Issued - February 2012)</p><p>Improvement Notice closed due to sufficient improvements in performance being made in July 2013.</p><p> </p><p><strong>HMP Peterborough (operated by Sodexo)</strong></p><p>HMP Peterborough – Healthcare Provision (Rectification Notice issued – 17<sup>th</sup> August 2018)</p><p>Rectification closed due to sufficient improvements in performance being made in January 2019</p><p> </p><p><strong>HMP Rye Hill (Operated by G4S) </strong></p><p>HMP Rye Hill – (i) Shortfall in staffing levels and (ii) inadequate paperwork plus non-compliance to PSO1700 (Management of Disruptive Prisoners) in operation of the Care and Separation Unit (Rectification Notice issued in March 2010).</p><p>HMP Rye Hill – Rectification Notice for above formally closed due to sufficient improvements in performance being made in December 2010.</p><p>HMP Rye Hill – Continued water ingress into Education Block (Corrective Action Notice Issued - September 2016)</p><p>HMP Rye Hill – Corrective Action Notice formally closed due to sufficient improvements in performance being made in January 2017).</p><p> </p><p>Every privately contracted prison is robustly scrutinised by an on-site Prison Service Controller who monitors their performance, including staffing levels. Some privately run prisons are among the best across the estate, and we are able to take rapid action if standards do not meet contractual levels, and in such circumstances remedies are applied.</p><p> </p><p>For publicly run prisons we have a Performance and Assurance Framework, which ensures that where a prisons performance falls below a certain level improvement measures can be put in place.</p>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1125240

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)</p><p> </p><p>When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.</p><p> </p><p>The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on <ins class="ministerial">25 January 2018</ins> <del class="ministerial">15 February 2018</del>. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.</p><p> </p>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1125241

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)</p><p> </p><p>When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.</p><p> </p><p>The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on <ins class="ministerial">25 January 2018</ins> <del class="ministerial">15 February 2018</del>. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.</p><p> </p>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1125243

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)</p><p> </p><p>When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.</p><p> </p><p>The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on <ins class="ministerial">25 Jarnuary 2018</ins> <del class="ministerial">15 February 2018</del>. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.</p><p> </p>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1125244

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)</p><p> </p><p>When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.</p><p> </p><p>The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on <ins class="ministerial">25 January 2018</ins> <del class="ministerial">15 February 2018</del>. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.</p><p> </p>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1125245

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>Information on releases in error are published as part of the HM Prison and Probation Service Annual Digest. The latest publication can be found here: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-hm-prison-and-probation-service-digest-2017-to-2018" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-hm-prison-and-probation-service-digest-2017-to-2018</a></p><p> </p><p>Releases in error are rare and in the vast majority of cases offenders are returned to custody very quickly. We work closely with the police to recapture those at large and investigate each incident thoroughly to see what lessons can be learned.</p>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1125767

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>Table A attached sets out the total funding the Youth Justice Board (YJB) has given to local authorities in each year from 2009/10 to 2017/18 as published in the 2017/18 annual youth justice statistics (published totals for 2018/19 are not yet available). Table B breaks this down by local authority. The majority of this funding helps support the day-to-day business of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), but it also includes some discrete additional grants for specific projects or initiatives, for example funding for restorative justice. The annual recorded value of the additional grants is set out in Table C.</p><p> </p><p>Due to a change in reporting processes the additional grants given in 2014/15 and 2015/16 were not included in the published totals in the 2017/18 youth justice statistics. The totals for these years therefore differ between Table A (where the additional grants are not included) and Table B (where they are included).</p>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1125773

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>Latest figures on the number working days lost due to sickness and sickness absence rates since 2010 can be found in table 15 in the HMPPS Workforce Statistics Bulletin at the following link:</p><p><a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/780169/hr-publication-tables-december-2018.xlsx" target="_blank">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/780169/hr-publication-tables-december-2018.xlsx</a>.</p><p>HMPPS is committed to ensuring the health, safety and wellbeing of its staff in England and Wales, with all staff having access to a comprehensive occupational health service and employee assistance programme.</p>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon

1125774

	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	house id	1
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	answer	answer answer text <p>HM Prison &amp; Probation Service (HMPPS) is committed to ensuring the health, safety and wellbeing of its staff, with all staff having access to a comprehensive occupational health service and employee assistance programme.</p><p> </p><p>HMPPS continuously monitors and re-assesses the support and interventions in place for staff. To this end HMPPS changed its delivery model for employee assistance services (EAP) and the new EAP model has significantly enhanced and changed access to the help and support previously available to HMPPS staff and includes specialist Trauma Support and a manager’s helpline amongst other services. The model also enables staff to self-refer for counselling by calling the 24 hour helpline in complete confidentiality.</p><p> </p><p>The number of working days that band 3-5 officers lost due to mental and behavioural disorders is provided in table 1 below.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Table 1: Band 3-5 officer<sup>1</sup> working days lost due to mental &amp; behavioural disorders<sup>2</sup>, 2009/10 to 2017/18</strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Financial year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Working days lost due to mental &amp; behavioural disorders</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Percent of known sickness reasons<sup>4</sup></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009/10</p></td><td><p>60,697</p></td><td><p>21.0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010/11</p></td><td><p>57,794</p></td><td><p>22.4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011/12</p></td><td><p>60,782</p></td><td><p>24.2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012/13</p></td><td><p>57,895</p></td><td><p>23.9</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013/14</p></td><td><p>63,209</p></td><td><p>27.0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014/15</p></td><td><p>59,858</p></td><td><p>27.5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015/16</p></td><td><p>57,807</p></td><td><p>29.4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016/17<sup>3</sup></p></td><td><p>60,887</p></td><td><p>32.6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017/18<sup>3</sup></p></td><td><p>47,769</p></td><td><p>29.9</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><sup>1 </sup>Includes Band 3-4 / Prison Officer (incl specialists), Band 4 / Supervising Officer and Band 5 / Custodial Managers.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><sup>2</sup> Absences are categorised according to the International Classification of Diseases, which is an approach used across the civil service.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><sup>3</sup> Between January and March 2017, during migration of data to the Single Operating Platform, an under-recording of sickness absence records occurred. Therefore, there is likely to be an undercount of working days lost for the 12 months to 31 March 2017. Furthermore, investigations are ongoing regarding more recent sickness absence data so figures for the 12 months to 31 March 2018 should be treated with caution.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><sup>4</sup> Working days lost due to mental &amp; behavioural disorders as a proportion of total working days lost, excluding where the reason for sickness is unknown.</p></td></tr></tbody></table>
	tabling member	4493 label Biography information for Richard Burgon