To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.


Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Speech in Westminster Hall - Mon 07 Nov 2022
Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

"It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as always, Mr Hollobone. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) made some interesting points; the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care has done a lot of work on these issues, which chimes with some of the points she made.

…..."

Kerry McCarthy - View Speech

View all Kerry McCarthy (Lab - Bristol East) contributions to the debate on: Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

Speech in Westminster Hall - Mon 07 Nov 2022
Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

"I entirely agree. I think we have all seen cases where contact with the children will be supervised and the family will have to go to a centre due to the relationship between the ex-partners, because the mother is fearful of being alone in the same room as the father. …..."
Kerry McCarthy - View Speech

View all Kerry McCarthy (Lab - Bristol East) contributions to the debate on: Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

Speech in Westminster Hall - Mon 07 Nov 2022
Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

"I am happy to do that, and I can give the Minister details of meetings we have had with Children Heard and Seen, attended by the previous children’s Minister and the previous prisons Minister. I agree with what the Minister just said, but he touches on something that Children Heard …..."
Kerry McCarthy - View Speech

View all Kerry McCarthy (Lab - Bristol East) contributions to the debate on: Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

Written Question
Members: Correspondence
Friday 21st October 2022

Asked by: Kerry McCarthy (Labour - Bristol East)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to the letter of 16 August 2021 from the hon. Member for Bristol East relating to a constituent. .

Answered by Baroness Maclean of Redditch

The letter of 25 June 2021 was answered on 22 July 2021.

The letter dated 25 March 2021 was sent to the Ministry of Justice in error and was passed onto the Department for Work and Pensions.

We had no record of receiving the initial letter dated 16 August 2021, however, we subsequently received a copy of the correspondence on 17 October 2022 which will be responded to in due course.


Written Question
Members: Correspondence
Friday 21st October 2022

Asked by: Kerry McCarthy (Labour - Bristol East)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to the letter of 25 June 2021 from the hon. Member for Bristol East relating to several constituents.

Answered by Baroness Maclean of Redditch

The letter of 25 June 2021 was answered on 22 July 2021.

The letter dated 25 March 2021 was sent to the Ministry of Justice in error and was passed onto the Department for Work and Pensions.

We had no record of receiving the initial letter dated 16 August 2021, however, we subsequently received a copy of the correspondence on 17 October 2022 which will be responded to in due course.


Written Question
Members: Correspondence
Friday 21st October 2022

Asked by: Kerry McCarthy (Labour - Bristol East)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to the correspondence of 25 March 2021 from the hon. Member for Bristol East on a constituent.

Answered by Baroness Maclean of Redditch

The letter of 25 June 2021 was answered on 22 July 2021.

The letter dated 25 March 2021 was sent to the Ministry of Justice in error and was passed onto the Department for Work and Pensions.

We had no record of receiving the initial letter dated 16 August 2021, however, we subsequently received a copy of the correspondence on 17 October 2022 which will be responded to in due course.


Written Question
Leyhill Prison: Security
Thursday 21st July 2022

Asked by: Kerry McCarthy (Labour - Bristol East)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the strength of security protocols at HMP Leyhill in Gloucestershire.

Answered by Stuart Andrew - Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

We do not provide public assessments of a prison’s security as this may risk undermining the security of that prison. However, the overall score is published within the Prisons Performance Tool, and when the prison was last assessed in 2018 it received a substantial rating indicating that at the time of the audit the framework of governance, risk management and control at HMP Leyhill was adequate and effective. The next iteration of the performance ratings for 2021/22 is due to be released on 28 July 2022.


Written Question
Mental Health: Prisoners
Thursday 21st July 2022

Asked by: Kerry McCarthy (Labour - Bristol East)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of trends in average waiting times for mental health volunteers to gain security clearance to work with prisoners.

Answered by Stuart Andrew - Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Officials have investigated this question and have liaised with those in the Approvals and Compliance Team (ACT) who have reviewed all data held on those wishing to work with Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.

The current average timescales for security clearance for a non-directly employed worker is 8 working days from the point of all correct documentation being submitted by the worker.

Unfortunately, the vetting platform used for non-directly employed personnel such as mental health volunteer workers is unable to provide specific timescales on groups of professionals that are placed through the vetting process.


Written Question
Prison Sentences
Tuesday 26th April 2022

Asked by: Kerry McCarthy (Labour - Bristol East)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of calls to retroactively abolish imprisonment for public protection sentences on a case-by-case basis.

Answered by Kit Malthouse

The Government’s long held view is that retrospectively abolishing the IPP sentence would give rise to an unacceptable risk to public protection as it could result in the immediate release of many offenders who have been assessed as unsafe for release by the Parole Board.

Our primary responsibility is to protect the public, however, HMPPS remains committed to safely reducing the number of prisoners serving IPP sentences in custody. The IPP Action Plan, which is regularly reviewed and refreshed to ensure it targets activity in the right areas, remains the best means of achieving this. HMPPS continue to support all those still serving IPP sentences in custody by providing them with opportunities to show they can be safely released by the Parole Board and to help those serving the IPP sentence on licence in the community to work towards having their licence terminated.

The Action Plan is working. As of 31st December 2021, there were 1,602 IPP prisoners who have never been released (whether because the offender has not yet served the minimum term of imprisonment or because the independent Parole Board has determined that their risk remains too high for them to be safely managed in the community). This marks significant progress as there were over 6,000 people in custody serving an IPP sentence at the peak.


Written Question
Prisoners
Tuesday 26th April 2022

Asked by: Kerry McCarthy (Labour - Bristol East)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of support available to prisoners serving Imprisonment for public protection sentences.

Answered by Kit Malthouse

The Government’s long held view is that retrospectively abolishing the IPP sentence would give rise to an unacceptable risk to public protection as it could result in the immediate release of many offenders who have been assessed as unsafe for release by the Parole Board.

Our primary responsibility is to protect the public, however, HMPPS remains committed to safely reducing the number of prisoners serving IPP sentences in custody. The IPP Action Plan, which is regularly reviewed and refreshed to ensure it targets activity in the right areas, remains the best means of achieving this. HMPPS continue to support all those still serving IPP sentences in custody by providing them with opportunities to show they can be safely released by the Parole Board and to help those serving the IPP sentence on licence in the community to work towards having their licence terminated.

The Action Plan is working. As of 31st December 2021, there were 1,602 IPP prisoners who have never been released (whether because the offender has not yet served the minimum term of imprisonment or because the independent Parole Board has determined that their risk remains too high for them to be safely managed in the community). This marks significant progress as there were over 6,000 people in custody serving an IPP sentence at the peak.