Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the affordability of court transcription services.
Answered by Mike Freer
The MoJ is required, under the public procurement regulations 2015, to publicly compete all opportunities for contract. This process helps the MoJ drive value for money through competition for these contracts from a healthy and established transcription industry. Our internal governance process help ensure that value for money is a key factor in how we procure and select our suppliers. We are confident that the rates being currently charged are in line with wider market rates.
The services are currently being reprocured due to existing contracts coming to expiry.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of using automatic speech recognition technology for courtroom transcriptions.
Answered by Mike Freer
Transcription services for MoJ are currently being re-procured and as part of the re-procurement strategy, MoJ did consider whether full automation would be an option.
The MoJ recognises that there are potential merits to using automated technology for courtroom transcriptions, including a potential reduction in the time it takes to produce a transcription and comparative value for money.
However, the first consideration is that transcriptions must achieve very high levels of accuracy (99.5%) to ensure the justice system can operate fairly and effectively.
The assessment by MoJ has concluded that even software with learning capability, cannot yet reliably meet the accuracy requirements for the service without human intervention.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has plans to increase the retirement age for magistrates.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
On 8 March, we published the government response to the Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age Consultation, which sets out our intention to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to increase the mandatory retirement age of judicial office holders, including magistrates, to 75. The legislation will include a transitional provision to enable retired magistrates who are younger than the new MRA to apply to return to the bench subject to business need. The process by which such applications are to be made and considered will be set out in due course.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of increasing sentences for people convicted of pet theft.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
The government recognises the deep distress which the theft of a much-loved pet can cause. All reported crimes should be investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences.
The theft of a pet is a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment. The sentencing guidelines for theft, acknowledge that theft which causes emotional distress, or where the items stolen were of substantial value to the loser, regardless of monetary worth, will indicate a higher level of seriousness and the offender should be sentenced accordingly.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effect on the morale of magistrates of HM Courts and Tribunals Service's decision to no longer deliver certificates of service to magistrates.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
The issuing of long service certificates was paused temporarily in March due to Covid-19. Since July 2020, Judicial Office have been processing all outstanding long service certificates.
In addition to certificates for twenty years’ service, in October 2020, we introduced long service certificates to recognise both ten- and 30- years’ service within the magistracy. The implementation of these have been backdated until January 2020.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has been made of the potential merits of including Security Industry Authority licenced security staff in the provisions of the Assault on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018.
Answered by Alex Chalk
Everyone has the right to feel safe at work and an assault on any person whilst carrying out their job is completely unacceptable.
The Government has no current plans to extend the definition of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 to other workers. The Act was specifically created in response to an increasing rise in assaults on front-line emergency workers, those who are enforcing the law or saving lives.
However, a wide range of criminal offences currently exist that cover the type of abuse or violence that could be faced by any worker, including security staff, from common assault to attempted murder. Sentencing guidelines state that where an assault is committed against a person who works with the public this will be considered as an aggravating factor, meriting a higher sentence.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of including hon. Members in the Parole Board's decision-making process for parole for people convicted of very serious crimes.
Answered by Lucy Frazer
Parole Board decisions are inherently judicial in nature. It is well established in case law, and clearly set out in the ECHR compliant provisions relating to the Board’s processes, that the detention of prisoners beyond the minimum period set by the sentencing court must be decided independently by a court or court-like body.
The Government is committed to reviewing the Parole process to ensure that the system is transparent and effective.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of increasing the retirement age for magistrates to 75 years of age.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
In our response to the Justice Select Committee’s report on the Role of the Magistracy on 30 October 2019, we stated that we were positively considering the implications of raising the mandatory retirement age for judges and magistrates and would consult publicly on this in due course. Any change to the mandatory retirement age will require primary legislation.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the transparency of parole board hearings.
Answered by Lucy Frazer
In May 2018, the Government amended the Parole Board Rules to allow victims and other parties to request summaries of Parole Board decisions for the first time. To date, the Parole Board has produced over 1000 decision summaries. This has helped victims and the wider public have a greater understanding of parole decisions.
Decision summaries have been an important first step in bringing greater openness to the parole system. In September 2018, the Government’s Victims’ Strategy recognised that more must be done to increase the transparency of the parole process and the way we communicate with victims. Since then, in February 2019, the Secretary of State published a Review of the Parole Board Rules which further underlined the Government’s commitment to improve the transparency of the parole process.
In light of this review, the Parole Board have committed to:
These measures will improve public understanding of how the parole system operates, support greater consistency in decision making and provide accountability where standards may not have been met.
In February 2019, the Secretary of State also launched a Tailored Review of the Parole Board. This review will include further reflection on the transparency of the Parole Board, its governance, decision making and the information and data it shares with the public (building on the work of recent reviews). The Tailored Review will publish its findings in the summer of 2019.
Asked by: Alberto Costa (Conservative - South Leicestershire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether she has any plans to use the redeveloped Glen Parva Prison to accommodate prisoners from Leicester Prison when it is complete.
Answered by Sam Gyimah
We are investing £1.3bn to build up to 10,000 new prison places with better education facilities and other rehabilitative services. We will close down ageing and ineffective prisons, replacing them with buildings fit for today’s demands.
The new prison development at HM Prison and Young Offender Institution Glen Parva will be suitable for category C male prisoners. Prisoners transferring to the new prison on the Glen Parva site may come from any appropriate prison in the estate depending on their personal and resettlement needs.