Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the amount of ministerial time that would be required to review all parole release decisions in ‘top tier’ cases.
Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Victims and Prisoners Bill has not yet reached Report stage in the House of Commons, meaning it is not in the final form in which it will be introduced to the House of Lords. I look forward to debating this Bill with the Noble Lord and others shortly once it has reached the House of Lords in the form approved by the House of Commons.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government which of the provisions in the Bill of Rights Bill were recommended by the Independent Human Rights Act Review Panel.
Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Bill of Rights follows careful consideration of the work done by the Independent Human Rights Act Review panel. We are very grateful to the panel for its detailed work. In terms of specific provisions, the Bill of Rights takes forward the recommendation from the Review that remedial orders should not be used to amend the Act itself. The Bill also seeks to increase the prominence of the common law in relation to rights protection, which was a key theme of the panel's report.
More broadly, the Review’s analysis helped inform our approach in those areas of the Bill that were covered by its Terms of Reference, which was narrower than the scope of the Bill of Rights.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of the responses to its consultation on the Bill of Rights Bill supported (1) the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act altogether, (2) the proposal to restrict positive obligations, (3) the proposal to diverge from the European Court on Human Rights’ living instrument doctrine, and (4) the proposal to remove judicial power to interpret legislation in line with the European Convention of Human Rights.
Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government’s consultation response is available on gov.uk, where we gave a comprehensive breakdown of the responses to the consultation. The consultation sought views on proposals as well as key themes relating to revision and replacement of the Human Rights Act.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what representations they have received from (1) other states, and (2) the UN Universal Periodic Review which took place on 10 November, regarding the Bill of Rights Bill.
Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a state driven process which involves a review of the human rights records of all UN Member States. The UK is firmly committed to the success of the UPR as an important mechanism for constructive peer review.
During the UK’s UPR on 10 November a number of states made recommendations relating to Human Rights Act reform and the Bill of Rights. As is usual practice, a report compiling the recommendations made during the review will be published by the UN Human Rights Council in due course, and a full recording of the session is available on UN Web TV.
The Government regularly discusses matters of mutual interest with our international state partners, and we fully intend to maintain our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights. The Bill of Rights will allow us to remain a State Party to the ECHR and fully avail ourselves of the margin of appreciation in the sensible application of our human rights laws.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the report by the Prison Reform Trust Prison: the facts, which found that 70 per cent of sentences given to women in 2016 were for six months or fewer and 84 per cent of women entering prison had committed a non-violent crime, they have any plans to review the passing of short sentences on women and to promote the use of community sentences and restorative justice for women who commit crime.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
Protecting the public will always be our top priority. Under this government, the most serious offenders are more likely to go to prison, and for longer, helping protect the public and keep communities safe.
There is persuasive evidence that short custodial sentences do not work in terms of rehabilitation and that community sentences, in certain circumstances, are more effective in reducing reoffending, and therefore keeping the public safe. The MoJ study ‘The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on re-offending’ published in 2015 found that over a 1-year follow up period, a higher proportion of people re-offended having been sentenced to custody of under 12 months without supervision on release than other similar people given community orders (around 3 percentage points).
We will therefore be looking at what more we can do to emphasise that short custodial sentences should be viewed as a last resort. We also want to ensure that the public and judiciary have confidence in non-custodial sentences, such as effective community orders, which directly tackle the causes of reoffending, including alcohol or drug abuse.
On 27 June we published our strategy for female offenders, which sets out the Government’s commitment to a new programme of work for female offenders.
We have committed to a pilot for residential women’s centres in at least five sites across England and Wales. The aim of the pilot will be to develop a robust evidence base about what could be effective, sustainable and scalable models for improving outcomes for female offenders and reducing the numbers and frequency of women entering and re-entering custody on short custodial sentences.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to review the use of short prison sentences for offenders who commit non-violent offences, following the report by the Prison Reform Trust Prison: the facts, published in 2017, which found that the use of community sentences has nearly halved since 2006, and that people serving prison sentences of fewer than 12 months have a reoffending rate that is 7 per cent higher than similar offenders serving a community sentence.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
Protecting the public will always be our top priority. Under this government, the most serious offenders are more likely to go to prison, and for longer, helping protect the public and keep communities safe.
There is persuasive evidence that short custodial sentences do not work in terms of rehabilitation and that community sentences, in certain circumstances, are more effective in reducing reoffending, and therefore keeping the public safe. The MoJ study ‘The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on re-offending’ published in 2015 found that over a 1-year follow up period, a higher proportion of people re-offended having been sentenced to custody of under 12 months without supervision on release than other similar people given community orders (around 3 percentage points).
We will therefore be looking at what more we can do to emphasise that short custodial sentences should be viewed as a last resort. We also want to ensure that the public and judiciary have confidence in non-custodial sentences, such as effective community orders, which directly tackle the causes of reoffending, including alcohol or drug abuse.
On 27 June we published our strategy for female offenders, which sets out the Government’s commitment to a new programme of work for female offenders.
We have committed to a pilot for residential women’s centres in at least five sites across England and Wales. The aim of the pilot will be to develop a robust evidence base about what could be effective, sustainable and scalable models for improving outcomes for female offenders and reducing the numbers and frequency of women entering and re-entering custody on short custodial sentences.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to address the number of prisoners over the age of 70; and to ensure that prisons have necessary and adequate facilities for elderly inmates.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Government is aware of the changing demographic of the prisoner population, with the number of prisoners aged over 50 rising both in terms of numbers and as a proportion of the prison population. Within the older prisoner cohort, there were 1,665 prisoners aged 70 or over at 31 March 2018, approximately 2% of the total.
In response to these changes, the Government is reviewing the provision for older prisoners and how best to meet their needs.
The Government has developed Models for Operational Delivery (MODs) for each prison type and for specialist cohorts, including older prisoners to support the transformation of the adult male estate. MODs are based on data and evidence to support governors in delivering effective and efficient services according to the function and cohorts their prison will hold. This specialist MOD has been developed in recognition of the sizeable and growing proportion of older prisoners, who are more likely to suffer health problems, have higher rates of disability and can struggle to access activities and services. The MOD addresses how services and interventions may be tailored to enable all older prisoners to maintain their physical and mental wellbeing, and their independence.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to reduce the reoffending rate of prisoners in the UK, given the cost of recidivism to the wider economy.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Government has several plans underway to reduce the reoffending rate in the UK and the associated £15billion cost to society.
Prisons must be places of rehabilitation and we have announced an extra £30million of funding to enhance safety, security and decency across the estate.
On 24 May we launched the Education and Employment Strategy to create a system in which each prisoner is set on a path to employment.
On 27 June we published a strategy which sets out the Government’s commitment to a new programme of work for female offenders to enable their rehabilitation.
The new National Partnership Agreement (NPA) was published on 10 April 2018 confirms our commitment to work collaboratively to deliver safe, legal, decent and effective care that improves prisoners’ health and thus rehabilitation.
The Cabinet Office has established a new cross-government Reducing Reoffending Board to tackle some of the main causes of reoffending including employment, health and accommodation.
We are also working closely with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to support their Rough Sleeping Strategy which aims to eliminate rough sleeping by 2027.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to consider proposals for a methodological assessment of the impact of video hearings on justice outcomes, including appeals.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
We already use video links successfully across the justice system. Greater use of video technology can reduce travel time, cost and inconvenience for the public and professionals who use our courts and tribunals. Over the course of this year we will be launching pilots of online video technology to explore how video can be used more widely to make courts better to use and more effective to operate. The early pilots will be subject to independent academic evaluation to ensure our processes remain accessible and robust. In addition, we are considering the requirements for an evaluation to assess the overall impact of our Court Reform Programme.
Asked by: Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to ask the Judicial College to develop guidance for judges, magistrates and magistrates’ legal advisers about when video hearings should be used for vulnerable defendants; and what reasonable adjustments should be made if a video hearing is used, including the use of intermediaries.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Judicial College provides training for Courts judiciary in accordance with the Lord Chief Justice’s statutory responsibility. One of the key resources to support training in this area is its Equal Treatment Bench Book. This reference work has just been updated, will shortly be re-published, and will be publicly accessible online. Chapter 2 deals with vulnerable witnesses and defendants, video links and intermediaries.
Senior judiciary who are Heads of Division may consider whether guidance is required in any area and this usually takes the form of publicly available Practice Directions. At present on this topic there are relevant references in the Criminal Practice Directions which were last updated in July 2017 by the then Lord Chief Justice.