Asked by: David Lammy (Labour - Tottenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prison staff were dismissed for conducting inappropriate relationships with prisoners in each year since 2010.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
HM Prison and Probation Service has conduct and discipline policies in place which set out the minimum standards of conduct expected of all civil servants. Staff must exercise particular care to ensure that their dealings with prisoners, former prisoners and their friends and relations are not open to abuse, misrepresentation or exploitation. Staff relationships with prisoners must be professional at all times, and the HMPPS Counter Corruption Unit proactively follows up on intelligence to detect and investigate potentially inappropriate relationships.
The table below shows the number of prison staff dismissed after conduct and discipline action due to inappropriate relationships with a prisoner/ex-prisoner from the years 2009/10 to 2019/20. The figure for 2020/21 will be available in November following publication of the 2020/21 HMPPS Staff Equalities Report.
Table 1: Prison staff1 dismissed2 after conduct and discipline3 action for inappropriate relationship with a prisoner / ex-prisoner 44, for years 2009/10 to 2019/20
| 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | 2015/16 | 2016/17 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | 2019/20 |
Prison staff dismissed due to inappropriate relationship with a prisoner / ex-prisoner | 13 | 15 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 13 | 8 |
Notes to tables:
1. Prison Staff relates to anyone working in HM Prison Service or the Youth Custody Service (YCS). Therefore it excludes anyone working in HQ or National Probation Service.
2. Information on the outcomes of any appeal is not included.
3. Conduct and discipline cases are defined as where a penalty has been imposed on a member of HMPPS staff for a reason of conduct
4. Staff subject to at least one conduct and discipline that was concluded during the year. If an individual had multiple charges then they will be counted only once.
5. Figures for 2020/21 will be published on 25 November 2021 in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Annual Staff Equalities Report.
Asked by: David Lammy (Labour - Tottenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) knives, (b) guns, (c) other weapons and (d) illicit substances were seized from people visiting prisoners in (i) total and (ii) each prison in each year since 2010.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The HMPPS Annual Digest for the relevant years, where available, contains information in relation to weapons and illicit substances found within the estate. It does not contain data broken down into different classes of weapon. There is no available data in relation to the proportion of finds attributable to individuals visiting the prison estate.
The Government takes seriously the conveyance of weapons and other illicit items and substances into prisons.
In August 2019, the Government committed to invest £100 million in prison security in an ambitious new Security Investment Programme. One of the aims of the Programme was to reduce illicit items entering the prison estate.
Since then, we have installed 73 X-ray body scanners across the prison estate and to date have had over 9000 positive indications. The roll out of Enhanced Gate Security (EGS), replicating the tough measures used in airport screening, has resulted in hundreds of illicit items prevented from entering prisons.
Asked by: David Lammy (Labour - Tottenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) charges, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions there have been for the offence of prison mutiny in each year since 2010.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The offence of prison mutiny, contrary section 1 Prison Security Act 1992 is committed when two or more prisoners, on the premises of any prison, engage in conduct which is intended to further a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison. The offence is aimed at behaviour intended to make a prison, or part of prison, ungovernable.
The Crime in Prison referral Agreement was published in May 2019 and includes riots, serious disorder, including prison mutiny as offences that mandate a referral to the police.
Please see below for the information on (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions for the offence of prison mutiny in England and Wales in each year from December 2013 to December 2020. Data from 2010 – 2013 is not readily available and would require additional work outside of the timeframe for a response.
Values | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
Prosecuted | 0 | 14 | 0 | 21 | 38 | 21 | 3 | 9 |
Convicted | 3 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 16 | 13 |
Sentenced | 3 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 16 | 13 |
The Ministry of Justice is not able to provide data on (a) charges for the offence of prison mutiny; this information is not held centrally on the court proceedings database.
Asked by: David Lammy (Labour - Tottenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners have (a) escaped from prison vans and (b) remain on the run set out by offences convicted and length of custodial sentence in each year since 2010.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
A prisoner escapes when they are able to pass beyond the perimeter of a secure prison or the control of HMPPS escorting staff.
These offences are monitored closely to identify any trends and each incident is fully investigated to prevent future incidents and keep the public safe. Prisoners who escape or abscond can face extra time in prison.
Please see data below for (a) the number of prisoners who escaped from prison vans/vehicles and (b) remain on the run set out by offences convicted and length of custodial sentence in England and Wales from the 12 months ending 2011 to the 12 months ending March 2021. To note ‘vehicles’ includes all vehicles that an escape occurs from, not just prison escort vans.
Number of Escapes1 from Vehicles2, by main offence type at the time of escape, in England and Wales, 12 months ending March 2011 to 12 months ending March 2021
| 12 Months to March |
| |||||||||||
| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Total |
|
Offence Type |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Violence against the person |
| 2 |
| 1 |
|
| 1 |
| 1 |
|
| 5 |
|
Robbery |
| 1 |
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 |
| 1 |
|
| 5 |
|
Theft offences |
| 1 |
| 1 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
Miscellaneous crimes against society |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
Summary non-motoring |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
Offence not recorded3 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
|
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 11 |
|
Total | 0 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 26 |
|
Note:
1 There were 26 escapes from vehicles between April 2010 and March 2021. None of the escapees currently remain at large as a result of these incidents.
2 "Vehicles" includes all vehicles that an escape occurred from, not just prison escort vans.
3 Escapees who were untried at the time of the escape have there offence not recorded as they were not convicted at the time of the incident.
Data Sources and Quality:
These figures have been drawn from the prison-NOMIS and HMPPS Incident Reporting System. Care is taken when processing and analysing returns but the detail is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Although shown to the last case, the figures may not be accurate to that level.
Number of Escapes1 from Vehicles2 by custody type3,4,5 in England and Wales, 12 months ending March 2011 to 12 months ending March 2021
| 12 months to March |
| ||||||||||
| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Total |
Total |
| 6 | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 1 | 26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remand |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Untried |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Convicted unsentenced |
|
|
| 1 | 1 |
|
|
| 1 |
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sentenced |
| 4 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 | 1 |
|
| 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Determinate sentence |
| 2 |
|
| 1 |
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 4 |
Less than 6 months |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
6 months |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Greater than 6 months to less than 12 months |
| 0 | ||||||||||
12 months to less than 4 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
| 1 |
4 years or more |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeterminate Sentences |
| 2 |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
| 3 |
IPP |
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
Life |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recalls |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
| 1 | 1 |
|
| 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not recorded/unknown |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
Notes
1 There were 26 escapes from vehicles between April 2010 and March 2021. None of the escapees currently remain at large as a result of these incidents.
2 Vehicles includes all vehicles that an escape occurred from, not just prison escort vans.
3 This table shows the custody type and judicially impose sentence length for the prisoner at the time of the incident.
4 As administrative data is used to extract this informaiton, it is not possible to calculate the amount of time the prisoner has or will serve in custody. Where an individual has been sentenced, the judiciall imposed sentence length covers the full sentence length (in days) given to the prisoner, including any time spent on probation after the custodial part of the sentence has been served.
5 Data pre-2015 was taken from a different data source, and as such is not directly comparable with data for 2015 onwards.
Data Sources and Quality:
These figures have been drawn from the prison-NOMIS and HMPPS Incident Reporting System. Care is taken when processing and analysing returns but the detail is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Although shown to the last case, the figures may not be accurate to that level.
Asked by: David Lammy (Labour - Tottenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the longest waiting time was between (a) an application for an employment tribunal and (b) the date of the first hearing in each of the last 10 years.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
Period | The maximum time (weeks) from receipt to first hearing | |
Single Claims 1 | Multiple Claims 2 | |
1st April 2020 - 31st March 2021 | 685 | 743 |
1st April 2019 - 31st March 2020 | 528 | 629 |
1st April 2018 - 31st March 2019 | 560 | 407 |
1st April 2017 - 31st March 2018 | 406 | 682 |
1st April 2016 - 31st March 2017 | 330 | 704 |
1st April 2015 - 31st March 2016 | 1063 | 530 |
1st April 2014- 31st March 2015 | 374 | 426 |
1st April 2013 - 31st March 2014 | 953 | 390 |
1st April 2012 - 31st March 2013 | 281 | 573 |
1st April 2011 - 31st March 2012 | 869 | 865 |
|
|
|
The figures in the table are high but could be attributed to a handful of cases which have been incorrectly recorded. We are unable to do a manual check as files are only retained for twelve months.
NOTES relating to the above data. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
1 Single claims are made by a sole employee/worker, relating to alleged breaches of employment rights. |
|
|
| ||||||||||
2 Multiple claims are where two or more people bring proceedings arising out of the same facts, usually against a common employer. In this instance the lead multiple claim would be listed for hearing. This table provides the maximum listing time for both single and lead multiple claim cases. |
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||
Data is taken from a live management information system and can change over time. Data provided is management information and therefore not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
The data provided is the most recent available and for that reason might differ from any previously published information. |
| ||||||||||||
Data has not been cross referenced with case files. | |||||||||||||
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. |
| ||||||||||||
Asked by: David Lammy (Labour - Tottenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which courts that have been closed since 2010 have yet to be sold; and what the cost to the Government has been of each of those court premises since they were closed.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The table below provides a list of former court buildings which are closed and unsold. Three of these buildings are currently being used as Nightingale courts as a temporary measure as we recover from the impacts of COVID-19.
Court | Notes | Holding Costs since closure |
Chichester Magistrates’ Court and Combined Court | Operating as a temporary Nightingale court since 6 April 2021. | £556,242 |
Chorley Magistrates Court |
| £275,984 |
Exeter Magistrates Court |
| £91,784 |
Fleetwood Magistrates Court | Operating as a temporary Nightingale court since 24 August 2020. | £123,041 |
Harlow Magistrates Court |
| £153,362 |
Hartlepool Magistrates Court | We expect these costs to reduce by c.£200,000 due to a service charge rebate. | £476,193 |
Maidenhead Magistrates Court |
| £391,241 |
Scunthorpe Magistrates and County Court |
| £432,597 |
Telford County Court | Operating as a temporary Nightingale court since 17 July 2020. | £252,115 |
Holding costs include utilities, rates, maintenance and security, and with the exception of the Nightingale courts, are from the closure of the court until 31st August 2021. For the Nightingale courts, holding costs are calculated until their date of temporary reopening.
We assessed all unsold former court buildings as potential Nightingale courts, but due to condition issues and operational limitations, only the three buildings noted were suitable.
The decision to close any court is not taken lightly. It only happens following full public consultation and only when effective access to justice can be maintained. Courts that have closed were either underused, dilapidated or too close to another court.