Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many children in public care are placed more than (1) 50, and (2) 100 miles beyond the boundary of the local authority with responsibility for their safety and wellbeing.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
The latest figures show that the number of children who were placed outside the boundary of the local authority responsible for their safety and wellbeing at the 31 March 2018 was 30,670, or 41% of all looked-after children. These figures were published in table A5 of the statistical release ‘Children looked after in England including adoption: 2017 to 2018’ at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/children-looked-after-in-england-including-adoption-2017-to-2018.
The department does not collect information on the distance in miles between the placement of a child and the boundary edge of the local authority. The department does collect, however, two separate pieces of information in relation to placement location; the distance the child is placed away from their home postcode and whether the placement is located inside or outside their responsible local authority. The number of looked-after children placed outside their local authority boundary and more than 50 miles from their home was 5,380 (or 7% of all looked-after children) at 31 March 2018. There were 2,080 children (or 3% of all looked-after children) placed more than 100 miles from their home and outside their local authority boundary. These figures exclude children where the distance of the placement is unknown.
We want to reduce out of area placements, but they will always be part of the care landscape. Sometimes local authorities have to identify a placement outside of the child’s local area to disrupt gang violence, trafficking or sexual exploitation or where specialist provision is needed.
In recent years government has also increasingly asked local authorities to consider boarding as an option for looked-after children if it may be suitable for them and in some instances this may mean children are placed outside of their local authority area.
Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many children in public care are placed outside the boundary of the local authority with responsibility for their safety and wellbeing.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
The latest figures show that the number of children who were placed outside the boundary of the local authority responsible for their safety and wellbeing at the 31 March 2018 was 30,670, or 41% of all looked-after children. These figures were published in table A5 of the statistical release ‘Children looked after in England including adoption: 2017 to 2018’ at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/children-looked-after-in-england-including-adoption-2017-to-2018.
The department does not collect information on the distance in miles between the placement of a child and the boundary edge of the local authority. The department does collect, however, two separate pieces of information in relation to placement location; the distance the child is placed away from their home postcode and whether the placement is located inside or outside their responsible local authority. The number of looked-after children placed outside their local authority boundary and more than 50 miles from their home was 5,380 (or 7% of all looked-after children) at 31 March 2018. There were 2,080 children (or 3% of all looked-after children) placed more than 100 miles from their home and outside their local authority boundary. These figures exclude children where the distance of the placement is unknown.
We want to reduce out of area placements, but they will always be part of the care landscape. Sometimes local authorities have to identify a placement outside of the child’s local area to disrupt gang violence, trafficking or sexual exploitation or where specialist provision is needed.
In recent years government has also increasingly asked local authorities to consider boarding as an option for looked-after children if it may be suitable for them and in some instances this may mean children are placed outside of their local authority area.
Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many police forces in England and Wales have disbanded their specialist child protection teams and allocated their work to Criminal Investigation Departments.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
The Government does not keep a record of how individual police forces are structured. Team structures and deployment of officers within police forces are rightly decisions for Chief Constables, working with their democratically accountable Police and Crime Commissioners.
We recognise the need for police forces to be properly equipped to deal with the changing nature of crime. We have provided significant extra investment through the Police Transformation Fund to support policing to respond to changing crimes and threats including against vulnerable children.
Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 2 May (HL7063), whether they have any responsibilities relating to the performance of Police and Crime Panels; and if not, to whom Police and Crime Panels are accountable.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
Police and Crime Panels (PCPs) have the appropriate powers, as set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, to scrutinise the actions and decisions of elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and enable the public to hold them to account.
The Home Office provides grant funding to support PCPs in discharging their statutory functions, as set out in the Act, ensuring effective scrutiny of PCCs.
However, as PCPs are local bodies, modelled on local authority scrutiny committees, the Government does not have direct responsibility for their performance. PCPs are accountable to the constituent local authorities within their PCC’s force area which nominate members to the Panel.
Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which the organisation of the General Practitioner service continues to be suited to being the foundation of a comprehensive primary care health service.
Answered by Lord O'Shaughnessy
The general practice partnership model has made a huge contribution over the lifetime of the National Health Service. This is why the Secretary of State has commissioned a review of the partnership model. The terms of the review are being developed with the British Medical Association and Royal College of General Practitioners.
Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which increased demand on accident and emergency services is influenced by the lack of a comprehensive primary care health service.
Answered by Lord O'Shaughnessy
No formal assessment has been made of the relationship between primary care services and accident and emergency attendances.
Extended access to more convenient appointments later in the evening and at weekends in general practice is now in place for 52% of the population (as at October 2017) and is expected to deliver an additional 9 million consultations following 100% population coverage from October 2018.
Additional comprehensive urgent and emergency care programmes continue to be delivered to help to ease pressures on accident and emergency services and improve the flow of patients through hospitals, such as Urgent Treatment Centres, front door clinical streaming, NHS 111 and the development of NHS 111 Online.
Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 17 April (HL Deb, col 1070) concerning Operation Conifer, whether they have any responsibilities relating to the performance of police and crime commissioners; if so, what those responsibilities are; and if not, to whom police and crime commissioners are accountable.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
Directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are accountable to the public via the ballot box for ensuring the policing needs of local communities are met effectively.
Police and Crime Panels have the appropriate powers, agreed by Parliament, to scrutinise the actions and decisions of PCCs and enable the public to hold them to account.
Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take following critical reports by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Probation; and in particular, whether they intend to review the management of the prison service.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The Government is committed to driving improvement throughout our prison and probation services and the role of HM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation is critical in ensuring that there is an objective and challenging assessment of our criminal justice systems.
The Government therefore takes HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Probation reports seriously and created a new unit within Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) in August 2017 that is responsible for responding to their recommendations. We have also committed to publishing the action plan responses to HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) reports as a step towards greater transparency.
In addition, in October 2017, we introduced quarterly meetings between senior officials in the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HMPPS and the Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) to explore how to make better use of HMIP recommendations.
We have further bolstered this commitment by the introduction of an ‘Urgent Notification’ (UN) process which allows HMCIP to directly notify the Secretary of State on matters of serious concern observed during inspections. The Secretary of State then has 28 days to issue a response.
New structures are being put in place from April 2018 to manage prisons which increases the number of Prison Groups meaning the Prison Group Directors have smaller commands in order to increase their oversight and create more operational grip.
Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take following critical reports by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Probation; and in particular, whether they intend to review the management of the probation service.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
We take the views of our independent inspectorates very seriously. We have established a team in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) to ensure that agreed recommendations are implemented swiftly and lessons are learned. Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the National Probation Service (NPS) develop action plans in response to the inspection reports and HMPPS closely monitors their implementation.
We recognise that CRC performance needs to improve. We have already changed contracts so that payments to CRCs more accurately reflect the costs of delivering services to offenders, and we are discussing with providers further improvements we might make to services.
Asked by: Lord Laming (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many community sentences were handed down in each year from 2008 to 2016; and what action they are taking in response to reported reductions in the number of such sentences handed down.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
The number of community sentences handed down in each year from 2008 to 2016 can be viewed in the attached table and also on the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/614418/cjs-outcomes-by-offence-tool-2016.xlsx Our data shows that between 2008 and 2016, the number of community orders issued fell by 46%. The fall in number of defendants appearing before court and changes in the mix of offences coming to court are key factors in overall decreased numbers of community sentences. The sentencing framework already gives courts the flexibility to select community order requirements which are a robust alternative to custody, and are tailored to address the specific issues that contribute to reoffending. We are committed to ensuring that community penalties are tough, effective and command the confidence of sentencers.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||