Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons entitled Report on an announced inspection of HMP Lewes by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 5–16 February 2024, published on 14 May 2024, what discussions he has had on conditions in HMP Lewes in the last six months; when did these discussions take place; and what estimate he has made of the amount of investment required to tackle rising levels of (a) violence, (b) self-harm, (c) drug misuse, (d) ageing infrastructure and (e) staffing shortfalls at the prison.
Answered by Edward Argar
Ministers and senior officials continue to engage closely with leaders responsible for HMP Lewes in a variety of ways, not limited to in-person meetings and site visits.
The Prison Group Director for Kent, Surrey and Sussex frequently visits HMP Lewes, and his assessment of conditions at the prison informs consideration by Ministers and senior officials.
HMP Lewes is subject to estate-wide, nationally-led, security and safety improvement programmes. These include the installation of security features such as body scanners and other technology to stop illicit substances, weapons, and mobile telephones from entering prisons. Additionally, we have invested to incentivise drug-free living, and to continue work that is already under way in removing potential ligature points in cells.
A range of ongoing and planned projects to improve the infrastructure at HMP Lewes includes refurbishing showers, upgrading heating systems, replacing windows, and installing more decency features.
As these programmes and projects are funded from a variety of budgets, some of which are estate-wide, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of costs.
Our staffing position has greatly improved across the estate. At prisons where recruitment challenges remain, we will continue to offer an additional supplement to attract new Prison Officers.
More information is available in the Prisons White Paper, which can be accessed via the following link: Prisons Strategy White Paper - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners in HMP Lewes were (a) released as street homeless and (b) released and recalled (i) once and (ii) multiple times in each of the last six months.
Answered by Edward Argar
We are unable to provide data on street homelessness beyond 31 March 2023 as that data is a subset of data due for future publication and releasing it at this time would breach official statistics publication rules, as outlined in the Code of Practice for Statistics. Data for the latest six-month period, October 2022-March 2023, is available is provided in table 1 below.
Table 1: Number not housed on the first night of release from HMP Lewes, with an accommodation status at release recorded as Homeless - Rough Sleeping by month of release, October 2022 to March 2023.
Month of Release | Number |
October | 9 |
November | 10 |
December | 11 |
January | 4 |
February | 10 |
March | 9 |
Total | 53 |
Notes:
1. These figures are drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent.
2. Data is consistent with metric CU150 Housed on the first night of custodial release, contained within the latest Performance Ratings publication, 2022-2023: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-performance-ratings-2022-to-2023
3. In order to be counted in measure CU150, the release event must be found in both Prison-NOMIS and nDelius. Unmatched release events are excluded. (I.e., the figures provided might not include all cases).
4. Release events with a missing or obsolete status are treated as "negative" in this measure, as are release events with multiple statuses.
Data source: National Delius and Prison NOMIS
We are unable to provide data on releases and recall of offenders beyond 31 December 2023 as that data is a subset of data due for future publication and releasing it at this time would breach official statistics publication rules, as outlined in the Code of Practice for Statistics. Data for the latest six-month period, July 2023 - December 2023, is available is provided in table 2 below.
Table 2: The number of first-time releases from HMP Lewes from July- December 2023, and subsequent recalls by 31 December 2023
Month of release | Number of releases | Number of offenders recalled once | Number of offenders recalled more than once |
July | 47 | 17 | * |
August | 45 | 16 | 6 |
September | 42 | 11 | * |
October | 52 | 18 | 3 |
November | 49 | 10 | * |
December | 43 | 10 | 0 |
Notes:
1. Offenders are counted once in each month of release. There could be a handful of offenders counted twice across different months where they were released for the first time on different sentences.
2. Recalls are counted from date of release up to 31 December 2023. Where further recalls have occurred beyond 31 December 2023, these recalls are not included.
3. Given releases in later months have a shorter time for recalls to occur, direct comparisons across months are biased. The months have different lengths of time for recalls to occur.
4. Disclosure control: An asterisk (*) has been used to suppress values of one or two. This is to prevent the disclosure of individual information. Further suppression may be applied where needed.
5. Data quality: The figures in these tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Data source: P-NOMIS and Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD)
We know that having a safe place to stay helps cut crime which is why we are investing in our transitional accommodation service so prison leavers can have a guaranteed 12 weeks of basic, temporary accommodation to provide a stable base on release.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which policies under each arms length body reporting to their Department fall within the scope of the Environmental principles policy statement, published on 31 January 2023.
Answered by Mike Freer
The duty does not require the Ministry of Justice to maintain a comprehensive list of policies within scope of the duty.
The duty applies to all policies made from 1 November 2023, whether developed by a central department or an arm’s length body, which are:
The environmental principles policy statement provides further information on what is considered policy in scope of the duty. Examples include strategies and frameworks.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Government response to recommendation 5, of the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, published in May 2023, CP 844, what assessment he has made of the (a) comparative effectiveness and (b) traumatic impact of restraint techniques that (i) do and (ii) do not inflict pain; for what reasons restraint techniques that do not inflict pain are not considered sufficient for the purposes of behaviour management and restraint in the youth justice system; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Damian Hinds
All restraint techniques, including those that are pain inducing, have been assessed within the Risk of Injury/Harm Matrix that sits within the medical section of the current Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR) syllabus. Techniques are scored on the likelihood of an injury occurring and the consequence of any subsequent injury. This assessment is carried out by an independent medical advisor.
The emotional and psychological impact of restraint is assessed through de-briefs carried out with children following each incident of restraint. Revised guidance in this critical area of work has recently been published by the Youth Justice Service and allows the child to de-brief with a member of staff that they choose and to be supported by the advocacy service should they wish. It allows the child to talk through the lead up to the incident, the incident itself and what support they may need in the future to prevent re-occurrence. In addition to this the Independent Restraint Review Panel seeks the views of children on the issues of restraint during each visit that it makes to an establishment.
The effectiveness of restraint techniques (both those that do and do not inflict pain) are manually reviewed every 12 months. Additionally, effectiveness will be dependent on factors such as the comparative size, strength of both the young person and staff and the levels of aggression being displayed, all of which may inform how robust a technique is required.
Significant changes have been made to the MMPR training delivered to staff in the youth estate. The new syllabus focuses on positive behaviour management towards children and seeks to reinforce good behaviours and enhance the ability of staff to manage and de-escalate behaviour, wherever possible, in a child-centred manner to keep restraint to low levels. Physical restraint techniques that do not inflict pain are a sufficient response in most cases.
Restraints which involve the use of pain inducing techniques will only be applied in exceptional circumstances. As the Charlie Taylor Review into Pain Inducing Techniques acknowledged, it is essential that staff are trained for every aspect of their role, including where they may need to intervene to prevent serious physical harm to a child or adult. In recognition of this, staff will continue to be trained in the safe use of pain-inducing techniques as part of an intentionally separate package of emergency interventions which are reserved for scenarios where they may need to prevent serious physical harm.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what his Department’s policy is on terramation; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Mike Freer
Alternative methods of disposal that do not involve burial, or the burning of human remains are currently unregulated and fall outside the scope of the existing legislation on burials and cremation. Providers wishing to offer such services must ensure they comply with any other relevant legislation or regulation.
The Law Commission has now started its project looking at modernising and streamlining the law governing the disposal of human remains, with a view to putting forward a legal framework for the future. We expect it will include consideration of the creation of a regulatory framework for safe and dignified new processes, including terramation. Further details of this work can be found on the Law Commission website: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/a-modern-framework-for-disposing-of-the-dead/.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of care proceeding cases exceed the 26-week time limit.
Answered by Mike Freer
Information relating to care proceedings is routinely published by the Ministry of Justice on a quarterly basis and can be found via Family Court Statistics Quarterly.
The Department for Education (DfE) has also invested just under £1.5 million across seven regions, to improve practice in pre-proceedings as a means to reduce court backlogs. We will continue to engage with DfE colleagues to monitor progress and impact on care proceedings.
We have significantly increased funding to improve waiting times in the civil and family courts and tribunals. This includes increasing funding to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) by £8.4 million this financial year - to an overall budget of over £141 million.
In March 2021, we launched a Family Mediation Voucher Scheme for those seeking to resolve private law matters relating to a child. A total of £8.7 million has been allocated to the scheme until the end of 2022,23, and as of 5 March 2023, over 15,300 vouchers have been requested.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many full-time equivalent District Judge posts are unfilled in the Kent, Surrey and Sussex region.
Answered by Mike Freer
Increasing judicial capacity is a priority for the government and we continue to work with the judiciary to ensure we have the capacity required. The Judicial Appointments Commission carry out a national programme of District Judge recruitment every 12 months. The last exercise seeking 100 District Judges closed in October with appointments due to be made this summer. We recruit nationally and the Senior Presiding Judge decides deployment. This means there is not a set number of vacancies in a particular region however local capacity and issues such as part time working and retirements inform the Senior Presiding Judge’s decisions on the deployment process.
In the last District Judge deployment round – which took place in autumn 2022 – 5 District Judges were appointed to the Kent, Surrey and Sussex region. Whilst deployment is a judicial decision, we expect there to be a need for additional District Judges in the region from the next recruitment round.
The department and HMCTS are working in close partnership with the judiciary to ensure adequate levels of District Judges across England and Wales, with a 17% increase in recruitment at the last exercise.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment the Government has made of the impact on vulnerable people of the batch approval of warrants for forcible installation of pre-payment meters.
Answered by Mike Freer
The relevant legislation sets out the matters of which the justice must be satisfied. As these criteria are limited, the information which must be provided to the court is identical in each case where the applicant intends to use the warrant to enforce their right to enter to install a pre-payment meter. It follows that the impact on vulnerable people would be unchanged if this information were to be provided individually, one case at a time.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 14 July 2022 to Question 32512 on Derwentside Immigration Removal Centre: Legal Profession, if he will make it his policy to (a) require legal aid providers contracted from 1 July 2022 to deliver Detained Duty Advice Scheme (DDAS) appointments at Derwentside immigration removal centre (IRC) to deliver those appointments in person and (b) remove the requirement for a prior request to be made in order to have an in-person legal visit; and whether any remote DDAS appointments took place with women at Derwentside IRC between 1 and 7 July 2022.
Answered by Sarah Dines
The provision of legal advice under the Detained Duty Advice Scheme is governed by the terms of the 2018 Standard Civil Contract: Immigration Specification. The Contract currently permits, but does not require, appointments to be in person, unless specifically requested by the resident. There are currently no plans to change this. This is the same requirement as for all other Detained Duty Advice Schemes.
Between 1 July 2022 and 7 July 2022, there were 10 requests for Detained Duty Advice Scheme legal appointments at Derwentside IRC, with 9 of these taking place remotely. One resident left the centre before their appointment could be fulfilled.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to commit the Bill of Rights Bill to a Select Committee following its Second Reading and before consideration in Committee; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Sarah Dines
The Bill of Rights delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ‘update the Human Rights Act... to ensure there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government’.
The Government’s consultation on the Bill ran from 14 December 2021 to 19 April 2022 and received more than 12,800 responses. The Bill received its first reading on 22 June 2022 and the Second Reading will follow when Parliamentary time allows. On 22 June, the Deputy Prime Minister also made an Oral Statement on the Bill to the House. The Bill will be scrutinised fully in Parliamentary debates and will be subject to the usual scrutiny during its passage through the House. We have responded to proposals on the Bill from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As such, we believe it is unnecessary for the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee.