Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when his Department plans to respond to the query of 7 April 2022 from the hon. Member for West Lancashire, ref ZA59082, regarding the funeral industry.
Answered by Tom Pursglove
I would like to thank the Hon Member for West Lancashire for her continued engagement with my Department on issues regarding the funeral sector.
I would like to assure the Hon Member that I will respond to her query in full imminently.
Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many adult safeguarding concerns were recorded in HMP and HMP/YOI prison establishments in England and Wales, in each establishment, in (a) 2017 and (b) each subsequent year for which full data exists.
Answered by Victoria Atkins - Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
It is essential that safeguarding concerns regarding prisoners are recorded and acted upon. Action needs to be taken at local level, so the information requested is held within establishments. A variety of different systems and processes are used for this purpose. As records are held locally rather than centrally, to gather the information requested it would be necessary to make individual enquiries of every prison establishment, and this could not be done without incurring disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many adult safeguarding concerns were recorded in prisons in England in (a) 2019, (b) 2020 and (c) 2021.
Answered by Victoria Atkins - Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
It is essential that safeguarding concerns regarding prisoners are recorded and acted upon. Action needs to be taken at local level, so the information requested is held within establishments. A variety of different systems and processes are used for this purpose. As records are held locally rather than centrally, to gather the information requested it would be necessary to make individual enquiries of every prison establishment, and this could not be done without incurring disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will publish a breakdown of data held by his Department on the number of adult safeguarding concerns recorded in prisons.
Answered by Victoria Atkins - Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
It is essential that safeguarding concerns regarding prisoners are recorded and acted upon. Action needs to be taken at local level, so the information requested is held within establishments. A variety of different systems and processes are used for this purpose. As records are held locally rather than centrally, to gather the information requested it would be necessary to make individual enquiries of every prison establishment, and this could not be done without incurring disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, under what circumstances can a prisoner be held in solitary confinement; and what legal conditions need to be met to hold a mentally ill prisoner in solitary confinement.
Answered by Victoria Atkins - Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
HMPPS does not hold people in solitary confinement however, there are occasions where, for their own safety or that of others and in line with Prison Service Order (PSO) 1700 Segregation, prisoners are segregated from the main population of the prison.
Prisoners can be segregated under a range of authorities, which are set out in Prison Rules. These are:
Under PSO 1700, an initial healthcare screen should be completed by a doctor or registered nurse within two hours of a prisoner being placed in segregation to determine if continuing segregation can be authorised. Healthcare visits and assessments by a doctor and healthcare staff should take place regularly on segregation units to ensure that prisoners can be removed from segregation if there are any physical or mental health grounds to do so.
Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to the letter from the hon. Member for West Lancashire of 5 February 2021 on prisoners and vaccines, reference ZA55418.
Answered by Alex Chalk
The Hon. Member’s letter was not received by the department on 5 February 2021. A copy was requested and has now been received. A response will be sent as soon as possible.
Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure the safety of elderly and vulnerable members of the public who are summoned for jury service during the covid-19 outbreak.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has well entrenched safeguards to ensure safety of all people in its buildings. This includes vulnerable people selected for jury service who are at particular risk if leaving their homes. From 23 March 2020, when Covid-related restrictions were first commenced, the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB) has been dealing sympathetically with requests to be excused from serving or deferring service to another date. Each application is considered on its own merit and where possible, the JCSB will look to deferral in the first instance, to enable the individual to undertake their civic responsibilities at a different time.
In addition, HMCTS staff are contacting every juror in the week before they attend court to provide them with the opportunity to discuss their personal circumstances.
When jurors (and any others) do come to court, HMCTS has in place a range of safety measures and controls, to ensure that they remain safe whilst in our buildings. These measures have been developed in line with and are validated against, relevant public health standards to ensure court and tribunal buildings are Covid secure. The measures have all been reviewed in light of continually developing circumstances. This has enabled HMCTS to deliver its vital public services, including jury trials, throughout the period affected by pandemic-related restrictions.
The framework of measures developed and implemented generally to ensure Covid-related risks are appropriately managed and controlled is set out in the HMCTS Organisational Risk Assessment. Among the measures embedded across the court and tribunal estate are significantly enhanced cleaning regimes, the provision of washing facilities and sanitiser throughout buildings for users as well as staff and judiciary, social distancing measures implemented, and a requirement for face coverings in all public and communal areas. Juror-specific controls introduced have included the provision of screens in courtrooms and deliberation suites where local, site-specific risk assessments demonstrate the requirement to ensure and enhance their safety.
HMCTS has published, and regularly updates, a full suite of information on its Covid-secure practices. Weekly updates are now sent direct to a range of key stakeholders, social media tools are routinely used to try to reach ever-wider audiences, and in all court and tribunal venues, clear signage is displayed to promote and explain our safety measures.
We have invested considerable effort to assure ourselves as to compliance on the ground. We also have responsive complaints and escalation procedures in case they are necessary. We ask all users of the courts and tribunals – including but not limited to jurors – to take personal responsibility, for adhering to the simple and well-understood hands/face/space protocols prevalent across society generally. Tailored information and guidance on Covid safety is provided to jurors in this regard.
Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for livestreaming sexual exploitation of children in each of the last five years.
Answered by Alex Chalk
Live-streaming of sexual exploitation of children may be prosecuted under a number of offences. These include (but are not limited to) causing the sexual exploitation of a child (s48 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003)), controlling a child in relation to sexual exploitation (s49, SOA 2003), arranging or facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child (s50, SOA 2003).
The Ministry of Justice publishes information on prosecutions and convictions by detailed offence and figures relating to the offences outlined above can be found in the Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code data tool available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888344/HO-code-tool-principal-offence-2019.xlsx
The data tool can be filtered by ‘Offence code’, for offences relating to the above, filter to the following:
07108 Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13 to 17
07109 Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child aged 13 to 17
07110 Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child aged 13 to 17
07111 Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography - child under 13
07112 Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography - child under 13
07113 Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography - child under 13
Please note that these offences cover a broader range of behaviour than live-streaming, such as recording or otherwise transmitting indecent images of children.
Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the psychiatric reports presented before the jury in the trail of Brian Healless were used in the decision to transfer him to a mental hospital from prison.
Answered by Lucy Frazer
I wrote to the Honourable Member on 1 June in which I set out, in detail, why Mr Healless was transferred from a prison to hospital and the operation of that transfer process, prior to receiving this question.
I can confirm that the psychiatric reports submitted to the Preston Crown Court during the course of Brian Healless’s trial for murder were not submitted as part of the required medical recommendations for his subsequent transfer from a prison to a hospital under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act).
The Secretary of State would not ordinarily accept the use of psychiatric reports submitted to a court during the course of a criminal trial for the purposes of determining whether the statutory criteria for the transfer of a prisoner to hospital are met. Such reports do address similar criteria regarding the presence of a mental disorder and a potential need for an offender to be treated in a hospital. However, the primary aim of such a report is to assist a court in determining the appropriate sentence for a mentally-disordered offender, not the necessity for transferring a serving prisoner to hospital under the 1983 Act.
Asked by: Rosie Cooper (Labour - West Lancashire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reasons Brian Healless was sent to a mental health institution rather than a prison following his sentencing on 24 March 2020.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
I understand that officials have written to the Honourable Member, providing a full explanation of the decisions taken in the case of Mr Healless.
The Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) provides powers for the Court to divert people during trial or at the point of sentencing away from the criminal justice system to hospital for assessment and/or treatment for their condition. Alternatively, if a convicted (or remanded) prisoner becomes unwell or experiences a relapse in an existing condition while in prison custody, the 1983 Act also provides for the Secretary of State for Justice to direct that the prisoner be transferred to a secure hospital for treatment. The 1983 Act stipulates the criteria which must be met before the Secretary of State may authorise detention in a secure hospital - namely that on the recommendation of two psychiatrists, the prisoner is suffering of a mental disorder of a nature or degree that warrants hospital detention. Any such transfer does not alter the sentence of the Court, including where the sentence is mandatory life imprisonment for murder.
At the point a prisoner who has been transferred to hospital responds positively to treatment and no longer meets the criteria for detention under the 1983 Act, he will return to prison to serve the remainder of their custodial sentence. In the case of a prisoner serving a life sentence, he will be eligible for release only where he has completed the minimum term set by the Court. He will only then be released if an independent Parole Board has assessed that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for the offender to remain confined.
Where prisoners are transferred to hospital for treatment under the 1983 Act, they are most likely to be subject to a restriction order. This means that certain decisions about the management of that patient, for instance decisions over leave and transfer, are subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. This function exists to ensure public protection is upheld.