Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will detail the losses and special payments valued at under £300,000 for his departmental group as defined by section A4.10.7 in HM Treasury's Managing Public Money for (a) 2018-19, (b) 2019-20 and (c) 2020-21.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost, as the details of losses and special payments under £300,000 are not held in a single format centrally.
Losses and special payments are, however, published in summary form in the Parliamentary Accountability section of MoJ's Annual Report and Accounts, as well as in the Annual Report and Accounts of each executive agency and arm's length body. This includes losses and special payments valued above £300,000, which are recorded and reported according to category, such as cash losses, stores losses, compensation payments and ex gratia payments etc.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to ensure that his Department and its agencies remove all internal covid-19 related policies, restrictions and mask mandates.
Answered by James Cartlidge - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
The announcement of the ‘Living With Covid’ strategy means all Covid-related restrictions across the courts in England and Wales have been reviewed, and will be removed as quickly as possible.
Throughout the pandemic, all Civil Service employers have followed government guidance in setting out their internal COVID-19 related policies. This includes complying with the ‘Working Safely during Coronavirus (COVID-19): Guidance’ which sets out the key actions organisations should take to protect employees and customers, in order to reduce the risk of COVID-19 spreading in workplaces, along with carrying out health and safety risk assessments that include the ongoing risk from COVID-19.
On 21 February 2022, the Government published their COVID-19 Response: Living with COVID-19. This document sets out how and when the remaining restrictions will be lifted in England. Government guidance was subsequently amended, including the Working Safely guidance.
The Government’s Working Safely guidance, which was launched on 24 February, continues to require organisations to carry out a risk assessment which includes the risk from COVID-19. It also sets out additional actions organisations can take to protect employees and customers in the workplace, such as ensuring adequate ventilation, frequent cleaning, asking people to wash their hands frequently and asking people with COVID-19 to stay away. The guidance advises that people continue to wear face coverings in crowded and enclosed settings where they come into contact with people they do not normally meet, when rates of transmission are high. Civil Service employers will continue to follow this guidance and align their policies accordingly.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that people who were given requirements as part of a community order or suspended sentence order but were unable to undertake them as a result of covid-19 restrictions complete those requirements.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
Throughout the pandemic, the Probation Service has worked hard to minimise the disruption caused by COVID-19. It has been keeping the public safe by prioritising accredited programmes for offenders who pose the highest risk of harm and developing alternatives where formal in-person programmes have not been possible. Group work resumed in April.
The Government is also clear that people whose unpaid work requirements have been impacted by the pandemic should work their hours and the Probation Service is working closely with the judiciary and HM Courts and Tribunal Service to extend community orders, where necessary, so hours can be worked.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 23 July 2021 to Question 33876 on Prisoners, if he will provide numbers rather than percentages for the figures set out in that answer.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Information on the criminogenic[1] and responsivity[2] needs of offenders is captured through the Offender Assessment System (OASyS). The most recent figures were published on 18 July 2019 in the ‘Identified needs of offenders in custody and the community from OASyS,’[3] based on a snapshot as at 30 June 2018.
It is important to note that at the time of this analysis (2018), annual male prison population was more than 20 times greater that the female prison population (79,450 vs 3,847). Raw numbers may therefore provide a misleading picture of the difference in prevalence of criminogenic and responsivity needs among men and women in prison. Therefore, rates and percentages are preferred methods for adjusting for the difference in population size.
Identified adult needs by sex and need, from OASys Assessments taken from 30 June 2018
| Women | Men |
Relationship need in custody | 1,766 | 36,451 |
Accommodation need in custody | 1,404 | 29,562 |
Drugs need in custody | 1,102 | 23,744 |
Alcohol need in custody | 491 | 8,982 |
Employability need in custody | 1,449 | 32,743 |
[1] There are eight criminogenic needs measured in OASys: which are linked to offending behaviour (Accommodation, Employability, Relationships, Lifestyle, Drugs Misuse, Alcohol Misuse, Thinking & Behaviour and Attitudes).
[2] Learning Disability and Challenge, Mental Health Problem, and an Indicator of low maturity (The indicator for low level of maturity is for the aid of practitioners, and the clinical rule is that this is flagged for males aged 18-25 only).
[3] The total number of needs refer to the number of flags for both the criminogenic needs and responsivity needs under that sentence type/length. A person can have multiple needs identified.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the consequences are for a (a) witness, (b) defendant, (c) complainant, (d) juror, (e) judicial office holder, (f) court employee and (g) visiting member of the public who does not wear a face mask in accordance with the mandatory covid-19 face covering policy in place from 19 July 2021.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions across respective parts of Great Britain this summer has allowed courts and tribunals to operate more flexibly, and so increasingly efficiently. But notwithstanding the success of the Government’s vaccine rollout, some safety measures must continue to remain in place.
There has never been a legal requirement to wear face coverings in a court or tribunal building. Regulations on the wearing of face coverings in place before 19 July in England, imposing criminal sanctions backed by appropriate enforcement powers, applied only in prescribed sectors like retail and transport. However, Public Health guidance has for some time made clear the benefits associated with face coverings, which other sectors have been encouraged to follow. Face coverings can help to minimise exposure to the virus, and therefore reduce the risk of transmission. Accordingly, and alongside a range of other measures embedded to manage Covid risks, in July 2020 HM Courts and Tribunals Service introduced a policy asking that face coverings be worn (unless exempt) across its estate, for the reasons set out in its Organisational Risk Assessment.
Given the lack of any prescribed legal requirement to wear face coverings in court and tribunal buildings, the compliance and enforcement options open to HMCTS before the 19th July are essentially the same as those after 19th July. In determining its policy, HMCTS has considered a range of factors, including the clear balance to be struck between ensuring reasonable compliance of the policy on face coverings, and not damaging the efficacy of proceedings before the court (for example, allowing those who are legally compelled to attend court to avoid that appearance by refusing to wear a covering).
Insofar as members of staff are concerned, HMCTS employees will continue to be required to wear face coverings in court and tribunal buildings, unless exemptions apply. All HMCTS employees have an obligation to follow HR policies. The consequences of non-compliance would be dealt with, as appropriate, under usual personnel management procedures. Members of the judiciary are similarly asked to wear face coverings in certain areas of court and tribunal buildings (not including, for example, whilst presiding in hearing rooms). Any compliance issues would be a matter for the leadership judiciary, not HMCTS.
For court and tribunal users including parties, witnesses, jurors, and members of the public, Court and Tribunal Security Officers (CTSOs) will ask that face coverings are worn upon entry into the buildings and will provide free face coverings if needed. Signage around the buildings make clear where face coverings are to be worn. Ultimately, under the Courts Act 2003 section 53, CTSOs have the power to exclude or remove any person from a building for the purposes of securing the safety of those in the building – which includes for these purposes considering non-compliance with reasonable requests in respect of face coverings introduced and maintained in line with prevailing Public Health guidance. In assessing the need for (and proportionality of) deploying those exclusion/removal powers, CTSOs (acting in consultation with HMCTS managers and the judiciary as necessary) will have regard to the balance between furthering public safety, and ensuring the ongoing efficacy of proceedings, as described above.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what his current policy is on the wearing of face coverings in his (a) Department, (b) departmental agencies and (c) related bodies during the covid-19 outbreak.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
Throughout the pandemic, the Civil Service / Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has followed, and continues to follow, the latest government guidance in relation to managing the risk of COVID-19 in the workplace, including any variations between the four nations of the UK.
In England, the BEIS ‘Working Safely during coronavirus (COVID-19)’ guidance provides sensible precautions employers can take to manage risk and support their staff. The guidance is available via this link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-covid-19/offices-factories-and-labs#offices-7-2.
It is for individual employers to determine which mitigations are appropriate to adopt as they review their workplace risk assessments in light of the updated guidance. Face coverings, which are no longer required by law, are one possible mitigation employers could adopt if the situation / context warranted it.
The MoJ fully supports individuals who choose to wear a face covering in the workplace.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance is in place for family courts to ensure meaningful contact for children and parents.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 sets out that the welfare of the child is the court’s paramount consideration. This fundamental principle applies when the court is making a decision with respect to contact arrangements for children.
Section 1 also provides that in such cases, the court is to presume that involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare, unless there is evidence to suggest that involvement of a parent would put the child at risk of suffering harm. Involvement can be direct or indirect. The Government is currently undertaking a review of the courts’ application of this presumption and its exception, and its impact on children.
Judges are also guided in their decision-making by the ‘Welfare Checklist’ set out in the Children Act 1989. This guidance is not exhaustive but requires the court to consider factors such as the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child (considered in light of the age and understanding of the child), the range of powers available to the court, risk of harm, and the likely effect on the child of any change in their circumstances.
‘Contact’ can mean direct or indirect contact between a child and a parent. The court will determine appropriate contact arrangements in the light of all of these provisions and in all the circumstances of the individual case.
Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and Practice Directions (PDs) also provide supplementary rules and direction to courts in their determination of contact questions between children and parents.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to paragraph 2 on page 5 of the Female Offender Strategy, published in June 2018, what estimate he has made of the number of (a) male and b) female prisoners who have experienced chaotic lifestyles.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
It is important to understand the personal circumstances and needs of offenders who receive custody and community disposals, if we are to effectively support their rehabilitation.
Information on the criminogenic and responsivity needs of offenders is captured through the Offender Assessment System (OASyS). The most recent figures were published on 18 July 2019 in the ‘Identified needs of offenders in custody and the community from OASyS,’ based on a snapshot as at 30 June 2018.
These figures show that females assessed in custody had a higher average number of needs per person (5.05) than males in custody (4.88), and higher than both females (3.81) and males (3.72) in the community.
Females in custody had a higher prevalence of relationship needs (80%) than males in custody (69%), as well as accommodation (64% compared to 56%), drugs (50% compared to 45%), alcohol (22% compared to 17%) and employability needs (66% compared to 62%).
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of offenders of the Offender Personality Disorder pathway programme are (a) male and (b) female.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
The Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) pathway is a clinically led joint initiative with the NHS. It is not a single intervention rather a series of different interventions tailored for individuals based on clinical need.
The number and proportions of men and women in custody and in the community who had been screened into the OPD pathway as of 30 June 2021 is displayed in the table below. The figures relate to all those within the Probation Service caseload who are identified as being eligible for OPD services. Being screened into the programme does not mean an individual will automatically receive intervention. This is an administrative process to identify those who may fit the programme criteria. Intervention pathways are determined through further assessment and sentence planning.
Gender | People managed by the Probation Service screened into the OPD pathway (as of 30/06/21) | Proportion of all people managed by the Probation Service who had been screened into the OPD pathway (as of 30/06/21) |
Male | 33,757 | 94.0% |
Female | 2,164 | 6.0% |
Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available. The data may differ slightly to that of the published statistics where data was run on a different date.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will commit to developing a rehabilitation strategy for male prisoners that is in line with the Female Offender Strategy.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Evidence shows that a gender-specific approach for women is the most effective way to address the often multiple and complex issues that underly women’s offending behaviour. That is why we launched the Female Offender Strategy in 2018 to improve outcomes for women at all points of the justice system by taking a gender and trauma informed approach.
A wide range of work is underway to help rehabilitate both male and female offenders. We know that having somewhere to live, a job, a healthy lifestyle and helping the individual address their underlying and often complex needs are essential to reducing their likelihood of reoffending. This enables them to make a positive contribution to society.
That is why we are strengthening rehabilitation in prisons by creating a Prisoner Education Service focussed on work-based training and skills to improve employment outcomes for offenders on release. The HMPPS New Futures Network also continues to broker partnerships between prisons and employers, which can result in work opportunities for serving prisoners, through prison industries workshops and workplace Release on Temporary Licence. We are also improving employment outcomes by increasing the number of DWP Prison Work Coaches across the estate, which means that prior to release, prisoners can access advice and support on employment and benefits.
In January, this Government announced a £70 million package on tackling some of the key drivers of reoffending, and £80 million on expanding drug treatment services in England to address offenders’ substance misuse issues, divert them on to effective community sentences and reduce drug-related crime and deaths. The £70 million package includes launching transitional accommodation for those leaving prison who would otherwise be homeless in five probation regions and working collaboratively with 16 prisons to test new innovative approaches to ensure offenders resettle back into the community and turn their backs on crime.
On the 26 June we successfully implemented our reforms to create a unified Probation Service. We have retained a key role for the private and voluntary sectors by awarding contracts worth nearly £200m over the next 3 years to a range of organisations to deliver vital rehabilitative services such as accommodation support, education, training and employment, and support to address other issues such as access to mental health services and additional support to meet the specific needs of female offenders.
We are committed to providing all offenders with an opportunity to turn their backs on crime. However, this is not something the Ministry of Justice can do in isolation, it needs to be a combined effort across government and local partners in order to make a significant and lasting change. That is why we are leading work across Government to address the complex issues that increase the likelihood of reoffending when a prisoner is released. There are no plans to develop a distinct rehabilitation strategy for male prisoners.