Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence they have used to conclude that there is increased public concern about the operation of the parole system in their Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, published on 30 March; and what wording they intend should replace the current release test, following their proposal in that review.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
Public concern surrounding the operation of the Parole system has been evidenced by reactions to a number of decisions by the Parole Board in recent years – including the decision in 2021 to release Colin Pitchfork and his subsequent recall to prison shortly afterwards – and these decisions have damaged confidence in the Parole system. The government considers that, where very serious and high-risk offenders are being assessed for release, it is necessary to introduce further scrutiny and safeguards in the decision-making process to make sure that such prisoners are not released if they continue to present a threat to the public.
With regard to the statutory release test, our intention is not to replace the current test, but instead to clarify what is meant by “necessary for the protection of the public”, with a greater emphasis on being satisfied that the public would not be put at risk. In addition, a list of criteria the Board is required to take into account will be included in the release test; that proposed list was set out in the Root and Branch Review.
The Root and Branch Review is attached.
Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will provide (1) the (a) identity, and (b) qualifications, of officials who will determine which parole cases the Secretary of State decides personally, and (2) the criteria they will use, following their proposal in the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, published on 30 March.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
The Root and Branch Review of the parole system announced that the government proposes to introduce an additional layer of Ministerial oversight, based on a precautionary approach to public protection, when the top-tier of parole eligible offenders are being considered for release.
There are two circumstances where this Ministerial power to review cases could apply. First, where the Parole Board cannot confidently conclude that the release test has been met and decide to refer the case to the Secretary of State, all such cases will be referred to Ministers to review and make a decision about release.
Secondly, where the Parole Board directs the release of a top-tier offender, there would be a power for Ministers to review the case and refuse release if they consider the release test had not been satisfied. In these circumstances, HMPPS officials with relevant knowledge and skills, will on behalf of the Secretary of State, examine each decision in scope of the power to assess whether the particular characteristics require the case to be referred to Ministers.
Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on how many occasions has a further serious offence been committed by a “top tier” offender, as described in their Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, published on 30 March, following a release decision in each of the past five years.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
Table 1: Shows the number of ‘top tier’ offenders released by the Parole Board between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2020 and supervised by probation providers in England and Wales, who were subsequently convicted of an SFO.
| Year of Release by the Parole Board |
| ||||
Index Offence Group | 2015/16 | 2016/17 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | 2019/20 | Total |
1. Murder | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
2. Rape | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 9 |
3. Terrorism | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
4. Allowing or causing the death of a child | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 17 |
Table notes:
1. These conviction figures are provisional and subject to change as outstanding cases are completed.
2. Figures only include convictions for serious further offences that have been notified to the national SFO Team, HMPPS.
3. Figures include cases where the offender committed suicide or died prior to any trial, where the judicial process concluded that they were responsible.
4. Data Sources and Quality. The data have come from administrative IT systems which, as with some large-scale recording systems, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be amended as part of data cleansing or updates.
5. Figures are based on conviction data that was produced in September 2021.
6. Data is presented by year of release by the Parole Board and not by year of SFO conviction.
Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they conducted (1) an equality impact assessment, and (2) a safety impact assessment, for the proposed measures contained in the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, published on 30 March.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
The Government did not produce a formal Equalities Statement or an Impact Assessment prior to publishing the Root and Branch Review but a detailed assessment of the equalities and other potential impacts of the proposals will be carried out as we develop the legislation that will be needed to implement the measures. An Equalities Statement and a full Impact Assessment will be prepared for publication when the legislation is introduced.
We consider that the proposed measures in the Root and Branch Review will not have significant equalities or safety impacts. The majority of prisoners going through the parole process will not be affected by the main proposals which are targeted at the top tier of the most serious cases. We consider those measures to be proportionate and justified by the need to enhance public protection when it comes to those who have committed the most serious offences and present the highest risk.
Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prisoners submitted evidence to inform "Chapter Five - prisoners' experience of the parole system" in their Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, published on 30 March.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
No individual prisoners submitted evidence to the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System. The Review was concerned with the operation of the parole system as a whole and sought evidence and views from representatives who have broad first-hand knowledge and expertise in prisoners’ experience of the parole process. This included HMPPS practitioners, prominent charities and legal representatives who work directly with prisoners going through the process. That evidence was used to identify the main issues for prisoners and how the system could be improved.
Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how membership of the Parole Oversight Group will be determined; and what plans they have to publish papers and minutes of the group’s activities and decision making.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
The Parole Oversight Group will bring together senior representatives of all parts of the parole system to ensure that it functions effectively and to identify any potential further improvements. Terms of Reference for the group, including how it will be constituted, will be drafted and agreed as part of wider plans to implement the findings of the Root and Branch Review. When doing so, we will consider the appropriateness of the Group’s activities and decision-making being made publicly available.
Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prisoners were refused (1) release, and (2) transfer to open conditions, due to being unable to complete programmes or other work identified by (a) Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, or (b) the Parole Board, as necessary to assess or reduce risk, in each of the past five years.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
The independent Parole Board take a holistic approach when assessing a prisoner’s risk for the purposes of considering whether to direct the prisoner’s release or recommend the prisoner’s transfer to open conditions. Where a prisoner has not completed a programme or other work specified in their sentence plan by the time of their next parole review, that does not constitute an insurmountable barrier to release or progression.
Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) what qualifications will be required, and (2) what the recruitment process will be, for independent panel members sitting alongside the Secretary of State in “top tier” parole cases, following their proposal in the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, published on 30 March.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
The concept of top-tier parole cases being determined by independent panel members sitting alongside the Secretary of State is one of two options described in the Root and Branch Review for the future management of such cases. The alternative option is that following a Parole Board decision to release a top-tier case, the Secretary of State would have the power to review and refuse the decision on the basis that he does not agree with the Parole Board that the statutory release test is met – and that would be subject to an appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
We are not yet in a position to announce which of the two options the government will seek to include in the legislation that will be required to implement the parole reforms proposed in the Review. Further detail on how the preferred option will operate will be developed ahead of the introduction of the legislation and announced in due course.
Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the proposals in the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, published on 30 March, are compatible with (1) the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, and (2) the UK's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights; whether they have produced an assessment of the compatibility of that review with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998; and if so, what plans they have to publish a copy of that assessment.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
The government considers that the proposals set out in the Root and Branch Review are compatible with the Human Rights Act and the UK’s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. The Government does not consider that it is required to produce an assessment of compatibility of its proposals in the review, as the Government's position is not to disclose the legal advice it receives. When the provisions of any Bill are brought forward to implement the proposals, the Government will comply with its obligations under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Asked by: Lord Garnier (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made to ensure that contracted sites are compliant with national strategies for management and progression of prisoners subject to Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences, further to the Joint IPP Action Plan, published by Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service and the Parole Board in June 2019.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
The IPP Action Plan is regularly reviewed to ensure that it is responsive to the needs of those serving IPP sentences, whether in prison or in the community. During the COVID-19 pandemic, and in accordance with measures mandated in the interests of public health, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) implemented exceptional delivery models which inevitably had some impact on all operational work. A large number of IPP prisoners have been released each year since the IPP Action Plan first introduced in 2016, and the Plan will be refreshed, reviewed and republished after careful consideration of the forthcoming Justice Select Committee’s Report and recommendations.
A progression unit for prisoners serving IPP sentences with a conviction for a sexual offence has been open at HMP Littlehey for the last three years. The unit provides an environment where prisoners feel safe and receive support to focus on their progression. As with the other workstreams within the IPP action plan, HMPPS will review the progress of the unit this year, which will also take account of any relevant aspects of the report and recommendations of the Justice Select Committee.
HMPPS continue to engage with senior managers in prisons run under contract, to ensure that the IPP Action Plan initiatives are reflected in their delivery plans. For example, each contracted site has an IPP single point of contact for Psychology Services.