Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to expand the built prison estate to account for the estimated population increases to 2035 and beyond.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
We are delivering 20,000 additional, modern prison places, the largest prison build programme since the Victorian era, ensuring the right conditions are in place to rehabilitate prisoners, helping to cut crime and protect the public. These places are being delivered through the construction of six new prisons, as well as the expansion and refurbishment of the existing estate and temporary accommodation. To date, we have delivered c.5,900 of these places and are on track to have delivered c.10,000 by the end of 2025.
In October 2023, the Lord Chancellor announced funding of up to £30 million to start acquiring land that will be required for future prison capacity.
The Department has taken a number of steps to identify land for potential prison sites. We have commissioned a property agent to search the market for land in the North West and South East, our areas of greatest forecast demand for prison places; officials have started discussions with significant private and public sector landowners and continue to assess a shortlist of sites for planning risk and strategic and operational fit. In parallel, officials are engaged in strategic conversations with local and regional leaders to identify areas where communities would welcome the economic and employment benefits of a new prison.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have commissioned any research on a causal link between (1) an expansion of prison places and more custodial sentences, and (2) a reduction in violent and other serious crime episodes in a given period of time.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not commissioned research looking directly at any causal link of the kind mentioned in the question. However, the MoJ continues to carefully monitor the use of the prison estate and the sentencing framework to ensure that the most serious offenders are appropriately punished, and that the public are kept safe.
That is why we are embarking on the largest expansion of our prison estate since the Victorian era, investing £4 billion toward the delivery of 20,000 additional, modern places. By the end of 2025, we are on track to have delivered around 10,000 places in total.
Reducing crime and protecting the public, however, is not only about increased custody. Evidence shows that 55% of people given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months go on to be convicted of further proven offences in the following 12 months. For offenders punished with Suspended Sentence Orders with requirements that are served in the community, the reoffending rate is significantly lower at 24%. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend sentences of under 12 months. However, judges will still be able to exercise their discretion to impose custody in exceptional circumstances. We have also included exemptions to the presumption where there is a significant risk of harm to an individual or where the offender has breached an order of the court, as is the case for many repeat and prolific offenders.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the implications for freedom of speech of (1) transparency orders, and (2) privacy injunctions, used in family courts, which may restrict named individuals from discussing the case with third parties including family and media outlets.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Government recognises the importance of enabling the media to access family court proceedings to increase transparency in the Family Justice system while at the same time ensuring the privacy of vulnerable children and families going through court are protected.
Transparency Orders and privacy injunctions are made by the independent judiciary, taking all relevant factors, including freedom of speech, into consideration.
Transparency Orders are used by the court to set the parameters on what may or may not be reported in a particular case without amounting to contempt of court. The template Transparency Order, drafted by the judiciary, is cast in injunctive terms. If a Transparency Order is made in a case, then it is binding on members of the media to whom it applies. The Media Reporting Pilots in the family courts are being independently evaluated before any decisions are made on whether there should be changes to provision on media access to, and disclosure of information from family proceedings.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the Policy Exchange report The Wicked and the Redeemable: A Long-Term Plan to Fix a Criminal Justice System in Crisis, published on 4 November.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
We are considering this report with interest.
We remain committed to reducing the outstanding crown court caseload and have introduced a raft of measures to allow courts to work at full capacity, including removing the cap on sitting days for the third year running and recruiting up to 1,000 judges across all jurisdictions.
We have already delivered 5,600 new prison places as part of our commitment to deliver 20,000 additional, modern prison places to ensure the right conditions are in place to rehabilitate prisoners, cut crime, and protect the public. We are also investing in a range of interventions to tackle the causes of reoffending, including delivering our temporary accommodation service for prison-leavers, offering more offenders work opportunities in prison, and expanding the number of Incentivised Substance-Free Living wings.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to review the use of transparency orders in family courts to prevent proceedings being open to media scrutiny, including (1) those made under the auspices of the Family Courts Transparency Pilots, and (2) those made in other general family court proceedings.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Government recognises the importance of enabling the media to access family court proceedings to increase transparency in the Family Justice system while at the same time ensuring the privacy of vulnerable children and families going through court are protected.
Transparency Orders and privacy injunctions are made by the independent judiciary, taking all relevant factors, including freedom of speech, into consideration.
Transparency Orders are used by the court to set the parameters on what may or may not be reported in a particular case without amounting to contempt of court. The template Transparency Order, drafted by the judiciary, is cast in injunctive terms. If a Transparency Order is made in a case, then it is binding on members of the media to whom it applies. The Media Reporting Pilots in the family courts are being independently evaluated before any decisions are made on whether there should be changes to provision on media access to, and disclosure of information from family proceedings.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they plan to review the evidence arising from the Family Courts transparency pilots at (1) Leeds, (2) Cardiff, and (3) Carlisle.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Government supports the President of the Family Division’s ambition to increase transparency in the family courts. The Media Reporting Pilots, led by the President, are running from January 2023 to January 2024 and will be independently evaluated. The Government will carefully consider the findings of the evaluation once complete, and publish an assessment as appropriate.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to present to Parliament their response to the Family Courts transparency pilots.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Government supports the President of the Family Division’s ambition to increase transparency in the family courts. The Media Reporting Pilots, led by the President, are running from January 2023 to January 2024 and will be independently evaluated. The Government will carefully consider the findings of the evaluation once complete, and publish an assessment as appropriate.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to review the workings of the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 with regard to efficacious processing of requests for parole hearings to be held in public.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The decision on whether to hold a public hearing sits with the Chair of the Board. The Parole Board has published extensive guidance on its approach to public hearings on its website: Applying for a Parole review to be public - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
The Parole Board is an independent non-departmental public-body. As such, any decision the Chair might take on whether a parole hearing should be held in public is made independently of the Secretary of State for Justice. The Ministry of Justice is only made aware of an application for a public hearing when the Parole Board seeks representations from the Secretary of State in his role as a party to the proceedings. Although appointed by the Secretary of State as a public appointee, the decisions of Chair, and those taken by the Parole Board, can only be challenged by way of onwards rights of appeal or judicial review.
The Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 contains the provisions that enable public parole hearings. Specifically, Rule 15 provides that public hearing applications can be made by anyone no later than 12 weeks before a hearing and the decision whether to grant an application rests with the Chair of the Parole Board. There are no plans to review these provisions.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, with regard to the Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022, to whom is the Chair of the Parole Board accountable in the effective discharge of his or her duties with regard to agreeing public hearings of the Parole Board.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The decision on whether to hold a public hearing sits with the Chair of the Board. The Parole Board has published extensive guidance on its approach to public hearings on its website: Applying for a Parole review to be public - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
The Parole Board is an independent non-departmental public-body. As such, any decision the Chair might take on whether a parole hearing should be held in public is made independently of the Secretary of State for Justice. The Ministry of Justice is only made aware of an application for a public hearing when the Parole Board seeks representations from the Secretary of State in his role as a party to the proceedings. Although appointed by the Secretary of State as a public appointee, the decisions of Chair, and those taken by the Parole Board, can only be challenged by way of onwards rights of appeal or judicial review.
The Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 contains the provisions that enable public parole hearings. Specifically, Rule 15 provides that public hearing applications can be made by anyone no later than 12 weeks before a hearing and the decision whether to grant an application rests with the Chair of the Parole Board. There are no plans to review these provisions.
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bellamy on 14 April (HL7073), why they do not intend to review the composition or functions of the Sentencing Council.
Answered by Lord Bellamy
The Sentencing Council was reviewed as part of the Tailored Review Programme in 2018. The review found that the current delivery model is still the most appropriate, that the Council’s functions are still required, and that it is effective and efficient in the delivery of its responsibilities.
The Ministry of Justice’s current programme for 2022-2025 is prioritised in line with the published guidance. In the context of the Department’s Public Bodies landscape, we do not assess that the Sentencing Council poses the biggest risk to delivery, nor does it pose major opportunities to deliver significant financial efficiencies. It has also not been recommended for review by the Cabinet Office. Once agreed, public bodies confirmed for review are published on GOV.UK.