Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consultations they have had with the judiciary over the impact of the selective disapplication of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 from certain pieces of legislation and not others.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Victims and Prisoners Bill has not yet reached Report stage in the House of Commons, meaning it is not in the final form in which it will be introduced to the House of Lords. I look forward to debating this Bill with the Noble Lord and others shortly once it has reached the House of Lords in the form approved by the House of Commons.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what factors they envisage would cause a Minister to use the power contained in the Victims and Prisoners Bill to dismiss the Chair of the Parole Board on grounds of "public confidence".
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Victims and Prisoners Bill has not yet reached Report stage in the House of Commons, meaning it is not in the final form in which it will be introduced to the House of Lords. I look forward to debating this Bill with the Noble Lord and others shortly once it has reached the House of Lords in the form approved by the House of Commons.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what are the problems in the system for the release, licence and recall of prisoners that would be solved by the disapplication of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Victims and Prisoners Bill has not yet reached Report stage in the House of Commons, meaning it is not in the final form in which it will be introduced to the House of Lords. I look forward to debating this Bill with the Noble Lord and others shortly once it has reached the House of Lords in the form approved by the House of Commons.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether decisions to veto a parole board decision to release in ‘top tier’ cases would be based solely on the Minister’s personal view of whether the test was met or not; and if so, why a Minister is better placed than a Parole Board to make such an assessment.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Victims and Prisoners Bill has not yet reached Report stage in the House of Commons, meaning it is not in the final form in which it will be introduced to the House of Lords. I look forward to debating this Bill with the Noble Lord and others shortly once it has reached the House of Lords in the form approved by the House of Commons.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consultations they have had with (1) victims of crime, and (2) statutory bodies that support victims of crime, over the proposal to extend the parole process by creating a Ministerial veto power subject to a full merits appeal in ‘top tier’ cases.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Victims and Prisoners Bill has not yet reached Report stage in the House of Commons, meaning it is not in the final form in which it will be introduced to the House of Lords. I look forward to debating this Bill with the Noble Lord and others shortly once it has reached the House of Lords in the form approved by the House of Commons.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the amount of ministerial time that would be required to review all parole release decisions in ‘top tier’ cases.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Victims and Prisoners Bill has not yet reached Report stage in the House of Commons, meaning it is not in the final form in which it will be introduced to the House of Lords. I look forward to debating this Bill with the Noble Lord and others shortly once it has reached the House of Lords in the form approved by the House of Commons.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government which of the provisions in the Bill of Rights Bill were recommended by the Independent Human Rights Act Review Panel.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Bill of Rights follows careful consideration of the work done by the Independent Human Rights Act Review panel. We are very grateful to the panel for its detailed work. In terms of specific provisions, the Bill of Rights takes forward the recommendation from the Review that remedial orders should not be used to amend the Act itself. The Bill also seeks to increase the prominence of the common law in relation to rights protection, which was a key theme of the panel's report.
More broadly, the Review’s analysis helped inform our approach in those areas of the Bill that were covered by its Terms of Reference, which was narrower than the scope of the Bill of Rights.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of the responses to its consultation on the Bill of Rights Bill supported (1) the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act altogether, (2) the proposal to restrict positive obligations, (3) the proposal to diverge from the European Court on Human Rights’ living instrument doctrine, and (4) the proposal to remove judicial power to interpret legislation in line with the European Convention of Human Rights.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Government’s consultation response is available on gov.uk, where we gave a comprehensive breakdown of the responses to the consultation. The consultation sought views on proposals as well as key themes relating to revision and replacement of the Human Rights Act.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what representations they have received from (1) other states, and (2) the UN Universal Periodic Review which took place on 10 November, regarding the Bill of Rights Bill.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a state driven process which involves a review of the human rights records of all UN Member States. The UK is firmly committed to the success of the UPR as an important mechanism for constructive peer review.
During the UK’s UPR on 10 November a number of states made recommendations relating to Human Rights Act reform and the Bill of Rights. As is usual practice, a report compiling the recommendations made during the review will be published by the UN Human Rights Council in due course, and a full recording of the session is available on UN Web TV.
The Government regularly discusses matters of mutual interest with our international state partners, and we fully intend to maintain our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights. The Bill of Rights will allow us to remain a State Party to the ECHR and fully avail ourselves of the margin of appreciation in the sensible application of our human rights laws.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the report by the Prison Reform Trust Prison: the facts, which found that 70 per cent of sentences given to women in 2016 were for six months or fewer and 84 per cent of women entering prison had committed a non-violent crime, they have any plans to review the passing of short sentences on women and to promote the use of community sentences and restorative justice for women who commit crime.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
Protecting the public will always be our top priority. Under this government, the most serious offenders are more likely to go to prison, and for longer, helping protect the public and keep communities safe.
There is persuasive evidence that short custodial sentences do not work in terms of rehabilitation and that community sentences, in certain circumstances, are more effective in reducing reoffending, and therefore keeping the public safe. The MoJ study ‘The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on re-offending’ published in 2015 found that over a 1-year follow up period, a higher proportion of people re-offended having been sentenced to custody of under 12 months without supervision on release than other similar people given community orders (around 3 percentage points).
We will therefore be looking at what more we can do to emphasise that short custodial sentences should be viewed as a last resort. We also want to ensure that the public and judiciary have confidence in non-custodial sentences, such as effective community orders, which directly tackle the causes of reoffending, including alcohol or drug abuse.
On 27 June we published our strategy for female offenders, which sets out the Government’s commitment to a new programme of work for female offenders.
We have committed to a pilot for residential women’s centres in at least five sites across England and Wales. The aim of the pilot will be to develop a robust evidence base about what could be effective, sustainable and scalable models for improving outcomes for female offenders and reducing the numbers and frequency of women entering and re-entering custody on short custodial sentences.