Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how a non-enrolled deed poll change is verified and by whom.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
All changes of name made by unenrolled deed must be executed following the stipulated requirements of a formal deed in order to be legally valid. This includes being signed in the presence of an independent witness who must then attest the signature to verify the person’s intent. In most cases, no further authentication of the deed is necessary for it to take legal effect.
There are, however, circumstances in which change of name deeds are subject to greater scrutiny. Persons with any existing or pending criminal proceedings against them, on licence or under probation, or on the Sex Offender’s Register, are obliged to notify relevant authorities of any name change within the timeframe prescribed by law for them to do so. Failure to comply with these measures can result in a criminal conviction and prison sentence.
Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which organisation has oversight of deed poll name changes; and whether records are stored of enrolled and non-enrolled deed poll name changes.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Ministry of Justice is the department which oversees the Regulations governing changes of name by enrolled deed and the law on non-enrolled deeds, commonly referred to as deed polls.
Applications for an enrolled deed confirming a person’s change of name are submitted to the Queen’s Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice. Upon being issued, the name change is published as a notice in the London Gazette and a record is stored at the Royal Courts of Justice, before being transferred to the National Archives after a period of 5 years.
Name changes made by an unenrolled deed are executed privately; no record of their occurrence is publicly available, or held by the Government, unless the person is required by law to notify the police of such a change.
Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
What the Government's timetable is for the review of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the definition of positions of trust over children.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
We are currently studying the findings of our review on the legislative provisions on positions of trust and considering next steps with both pace and care. I hope and expect to be in a position to update the House on this work shortly.
Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the (a) Lord Chief Justice and (b) Crown Prosecution Service on the sentencing of UK offenders involved in the livestreaming of child sex abuse.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
Child sexual abuse is a horrific crime and this government is determined to bring perpetrators to justice and support victims.
Ministers meet the Lord Chief Justice and other senior judges, as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions, regularly to discuss a range of issues related to the administration of justice.
Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to expand the definition of position of trust to include any adult regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising and being in sole charge of a child and not limited to professions outlined in Section 21 of the Act.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
The Government recognises that there are concerns about those who might abuse their position of power over a 16 or 17-year-old to pressure them into engaging in a sexual relationship. Such behaviour is likely to be caught by the robust laws we already have in place.
We remain committed to protecting children and young people from sexual abuse and we want to ensure that existing offences are being used effectively to tackle this behaviour, and that those working with young people understand their responsibilities and act appropriately.
To that effect, my department, working closely with colleagues across government, has taken forward a review of the existing law, to check that that it is working effectively and to ensure young people are protected.
This is an incredibly complex area and we are now considering the findings of the review.
It is important that in any consideration for reform in this area we achieve the sensitive balance between the protection of young people and ensuring we do not infringe upon the sexual rights and freedoms of those over the age of 16 granted to them by Parliament.
Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 30 November to Question 118531, what discussions he has had with (a) the Chancellor the Exchequer and (b) other Cabinet colleagues on ensuring that adequate funding is in place for the services providing support to women leaving prison.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The Secretary of State for Justice has regular discussions with the Chancellor and other Cabinet colleagues, including during the recent Spending Review, to ensure that adequate funding is available to deliver departmental priorities. These priorities include working with our partners across government to address the causes of reoffending whilst offenders are in custody and in the community.
This Government is committed to reducing reoffending by ensuring that all offenders have the support they need to turn their backs on crime. Prisons and probation must provide the opportunity together with appropriate support for prisoners to rehabilitate, which will ultimately reduce reoffending and protect the public.
Reducing reoffending is a complex issue and needs to be a combined effort across government and local partners in order to help ex-offenders secure employment, find a home, get treatment for a drug addiction and support for mental health issues.
And we remain committed to delivering the Female Offender Strategy’s objectives of fewer women coming into the criminal justice system and reoffending, fewer women in custody (especially on short-term sentences) and a greater proportion of women managed in the community successfully, and better conditions for those in custody.
The Government recognises the important role played by women’s community services in supporting women leaving prison. Following the publication of the Female Offender Strategy, the Government invested £5.1 million over two years in women’s community sector organisations, including women’s centres. Thirty different organisations across England and Wales received funding, which included the creation of six new women’s centres. On 5 May, the Government announced further funding of £2.5 million for the sector.
Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 30 November 2020 to Question 118531 on Prisons: Coronavirus, how many (a) pregnant women and (b) mothers of dependent children have entered prison since the end of March 2020.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Pregnancy data is collected locally by individual prisons, to ensure the appropriate support can be provided to women in our care. I can confirm that an ad hoc data collection exercise was undertaken last year, which found that at 15:00hrs on 28 October 2019, 47 women in prison self-declared as pregnant, including those on remand and who had been sentenced.
On 31 July we published a summary report of our review of operational policy on pregnancy and women separated from children under 2. This includes an undertaking to extend the range of data we publish in relation to pregnant women in prison, and can be found at the following link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/905559/summary-report-of-review-of-policy-on-mbu.pdf.
We have already taken steps to increase our internal national data collection processes to support the policy review, and to enable us to plan for future publication.
At the moment, information on a prisoner’s caring responsibilities and children living in the community is monitored locally by prison Governors/Directors to ensure the appropriate support can be provided to women and their families.
On reception into custody, all prisoners are asked if they have any children living at home and what their ages are. Currently, this information is not captured in a way that can be centrally monitored, and we know that there are challenges around parents being reluctant to disclose this information due to fear of involvement from social services. However, we are considering how to monitor and publish this information.
Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the announcement on 6 November 2020 on new restrictions on the adult prison estate and ending social visits, whether his Department plans to renew its previous commitment to the early release of pregnant women; and whether that scheme will be extended to eligible mothers of children under the age of two who are unable to benefit from virtual visits during the November 2020 covid-19 lockdown restrictions.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
In April we introduced the End of Custody Temporary Release (ECTR) scheme. It allowed for the early release of stringently assessed low-risk prisoners who were within two months of their release date. It freed up space across the estate so that all prisons could effectively control the spread of the virus by quarantining new arrivals, isolating those with symptoms and shielding vulnerable offenders. This was based on advice from Public Health England and was necessary to protect life and avoid thousands of prisoners becoming infected, overwhelming local NHS services.
The ECTR scheme was paused in August, as it was no longer a necessary part of our overall response. Throughout the pandemic our response has been based on public health advice, and this decision will be kept under constant review over the coming weeks and months.
Separately from the ECTR process, some prisoners may meet the criteria for potential compassionate temporary release including pregnant women, prisoners with their babies in custody (in Mother and Baby Units), and those defined by the NHS guidelines as ‘medically extremely vulnerable’ to Covid-19. These types of prisoner continue to be considered for Compassionate ROTL based on a case-by-case assessment of whether it would be safe to do so and we will not release any woman without ensuring she has access to appropriate, safe accommodation, necessary support services in the community and an agreed health care pathway in place.
Prison Governors are working with Family Services, Through the Gate teams, and those Third Sector organisations that currently work within their prisons, to provide the many practical items that women will need, including those who are pregnant or who are leaving custody with their baby.
Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what factors are considered when categorising an offender in prison as low risk.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
In producing an assessment of the likelihood that a prisoner will reoffend and of the harm which would result from any reoffending, offender managers in HM Prison and Probation Service will use approved and accredited assessment tools, notably the Offender Assessment System (OASys).
When assessing a prisoner’s risk of harm and risk of reoffending, offender managers have regard to the prisoner’s static and dynamic risk factors. A static risk factor is usually a feature of the prisoner’s past – such as his/her previous offending, the nature of his/her upbringing or how well s/he did at school. A dynamic risk factor may vary or be susceptible to change – such as alcohol abuse, drug taking or negative peer pressure. In order to assess a prisoner as low risk of harm and low risk of reoffending, offender managers would need to be satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the risk indicators do not point to medium or high risk. When assessing a prisoner’s suitability for open conditions, offender managers need also be satisfied that the prisoner presents a low risk of abscondment.
In the case of determinate sentence prisoners, the Prison Governor takes the decision as to whether to transfer a prisoner to open conditions, having regard to a comprehensive assessment of current risk, including the risk of abscond or other breach of the trust afforded by open conditions
In the case of indeterminate sentence offenders, other than where a prisoner has made demonstrably exceptional progress, the decision for a move to open conditions is taken by officials on behalf of the Secretary of State, following advice from the Parole Board. The Secretary of State does have discretion to reject a recommendation from the Parole Board, but because the Board undertakes a full and thorough risk assessment, the policy since 2008 has been to accept the Board’s recommendation other than in exceptional circumstances.
Consequently, officials will accept a Parole Board recommendation, except where the recommendation goes against the recommendations of the report writers without explaining why, or is based on inaccurate information. Officials will also reject a recommendation if they consider that the Secretary of State does not have a wholly persuasive case for transferring the prisoner to open conditions at the current time.
Asked by: Sarah Champion (Labour - Rotherham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which agency determines whether an offender in prison is categorised as low risk.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
In producing an assessment of the likelihood that a prisoner will reoffend and of the harm which would result from any reoffending, offender managers in HM Prison and Probation Service will use approved and accredited assessment tools, notably the Offender Assessment System (OASys).
When assessing a prisoner’s risk of harm and risk of reoffending, offender managers have regard to the prisoner’s static and dynamic risk factors. A static risk factor is usually a feature of the prisoner’s past – such as his/her previous offending, the nature of his/her upbringing or how well s/he did at school. A dynamic risk factor may vary or be susceptible to change – such as alcohol abuse, drug taking or negative peer pressure. In order to assess a prisoner as low risk of harm and low risk of reoffending, offender managers would need to be satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the risk indicators do not point to medium or high risk. When assessing a prisoner’s suitability for open conditions, offender managers need also be satisfied that the prisoner presents a low risk of abscondment.
In the case of determinate sentence prisoners, the Prison Governor takes the decision as to whether to transfer a prisoner to open conditions, having regard to a comprehensive assessment of current risk, including the risk of abscond or other breach of the trust afforded by open conditions
In the case of indeterminate sentence offenders, other than where a prisoner has made demonstrably exceptional progress, the decision for a move to open conditions is taken by officials on behalf of the Secretary of State, following advice from the Parole Board. The Secretary of State does have discretion to reject a recommendation from the Parole Board, but because the Board undertakes a full and thorough risk assessment, the policy since 2008 has been to accept the Board’s recommendation other than in exceptional circumstances.
Consequently, officials will accept a Parole Board recommendation, except where the recommendation goes against the recommendations of the report writers without explaining why, or is based on inaccurate information. Officials will also reject a recommendation if they consider that the Secretary of State does not have a wholly persuasive case for transferring the prisoner to open conditions at the current time.