Asked by: Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat - Cheltenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many referrals have been made to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Approved Hostels and Interventions, including Programmes in each month of the last two years.
Answered by Andrew Selous - Second Church Estates Commissioner
The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements are a mechanism through which criminal justice agencies can better discharge their statutory responsibilities and protect the public in a co-ordinated manner. MAPPA is designed to protect the public, including previous victims of crime, from serious harm by sexual and violent offenders. MAPPA is not an agency or body in its own right but rather requires local agencies dealing with offenders to work together in partnership in order to manage risk. MAPPA does not commission or operate interventions or programmes and none is unique to offenders managed under MAPPA.
Approved Premises (formerly known as probation or bail hostels) are used to provide enhanced supervision for higher-risk offenders who have been released from prison after completing the custodial part of their sentence. They also house a small number of defendants on bail. Requiring higher-risk offenders to reside in an Approved Premises enables us to monitor and supervise them as effectively as possible. Whilst in an Approved Premises, they are subject to a curfew and other controls, whilst Approved Premises staff working closely with local police officers to respond quickly to any signs of escalating risk. It would be much more difficult to monitor them if they were dispersed into less suitable accommodation throughout the community.
Whether an offender is admitted to an Approved Premises depends on specific monitoring and risk management need. Not all offenders under MAPPA are admitted and not all offenders in Approved Premises are managed under MAPPA. The table below shows the number of offenders managed under MAPPA who were admitted to an Approved Premises in each month between September 2012 and August 2014 (the most recent for which we have full data). Data about offenders who were referred to APs but not admitted is not collected in a way that would allow us to distinguish those under MAPPA management.
No data is collected about the numbers of offenders who are required to undertake particular programmes or other interventions as part of the terms of their release licences. All offenders, whether or not managed under MAPPA, will undertake some interventions intended to address their offending behaviour and reduce re-offending. The choice of intervention will be tailored to the individual offender’s needs.
Admissions to Approved Premises September 2012 – August 2014
Month | MAPPA offenders admitted to Approved Premises |
Sep 2012 | 776 |
Oct 2012 | 883 |
Nov 2012 | 950 |
Dec 2012 | 741 |
Jan 2013 | 799 |
Feb 2013 | 747 |
Mar 2103 | 828 |
Apr 2013 | 857 |
May 2013 | 931 |
Jun 2013 | 847 |
Jul 2013 | 963 |
Aug 2013 | 901 |
Sep 2013 | 911 |
Oct 2013 | 837 |
Nov 2013 | 842 |
Dec 2013 | 798 |
Jan 2014 | 853 |
Feb 2014 | 801 |
Mar 2014 | 782 |
Apr 2014 | 839 |
May 2014 | 831 |
Jun 2014 | 803 |
Jul 2014 | 852 |
Aug 2014 | 842 |
Asked by: Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat - Cheltenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the level of staff shortage was in the probation service (a) at the latest date for which data is available and (b) in October 2013.
Answered by Andrew Selous - Second Church Estates Commissioner
The National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) were resourced to deliver their core duties at the point of commencing the new structures on 1 June 2014, for a period of shadow running prior to the transition in the public sector.
CRCs are responsible for managing their own vacancies, and we are providing support and advice where required during the transition.
We are implementing a new reporting tool for the National Probation Service from November 2014 which will enable us to capture NPS vacancies centrally to support our workforce planning.
Prior to June 2014 probation services were delivered by 35 Probation Trusts. The Trusts were responsible for managing their own vacancies and no central records were maintained of staffing levels against requirements.
Asked by: Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat - Cheltenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many mutuals have indicated to him that they will bid for work under the Transforming Rehabilitation programme; and how many such organisations have withdrawn from the process.
Answered by Andrew Selous - Second Church Estates Commissioner
At the end of June we received bids in the competition for the contracts to run the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies. We have a strong competition in all regions with over 80 bids having been received and an average of four bidders for each area. Over half of the bidders include a voluntary, mutual or social enterprise organisation and mutuals continue to feature strongly, with eight potential staff mutuals competing for a share of the contracts. As well as the Tier 1 provider bids, almost 1000 organisations have registered to play a part in the wider supply chain, including more than 700 listed as VCSE (voluntary, community or social enterprise) organisations.
In addition to this, charities experienced in tackling a range of issues affecting offenders, small and large businesses and experienced multinationals have partnered together to bid for the work that will help turn offenders’ lives around. All Tier 1 bidders have experience of working with offenders or across the wider Criminal Justice System.
The process to award Community Rehabilitation Company contracts is ongoing and the details of which bidders remain in the competition are commercially sensitive information, which it would not be right to make public at this stage. We are committed to rolling out these important reforms by 2015.
Asked by: Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat - Cheltenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when the contracts for work under the Transforming Rehabilitation programme will (a) be signed and (b) become operational.
Answered by Andrew Selous - Second Church Estates Commissioner
At the end of June we received bids in the competition for the contracts to run the 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies. We have a strong competition in all regions with over 80 bids having been received and an average of four bidders for each area. Over half of the bidders include a voluntary, mutual or social enterprise organisation and mutuals continue to feature strongly, with eight potential staff mutuals competing for a share of the contracts. As well as the Tier 1 provider bids, almost 1000 organisations have registered to play a part in the wider supply chain, including more than 700 listed as VCSE (voluntary, community or social enterprise) organisations.
In addition to this, charities experienced in tackling a range of issues affecting offenders, small and large businesses and experienced multinationals have partnered together to bid for the work that will help turn offenders’ lives around. All Tier 1 bidders have experience of working with offenders or across the wider Criminal Justice System.
The process to award Community Rehabilitation Company contracts is ongoing and the details of which bidders remain in the competition are commercially sensitive information, which it would not be right to make public at this stage. We are committed to rolling out these important reforms by 2015.
Asked by: Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat - Cheltenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what his policy is on increasing the number of people tagged as a condition of a court order and supervised by community rehabilitation companies or successor bodies.
Answered by Andrew Selous - Second Church Estates Commissioner
There are a number of court orders which may result in the electronic tagging of individuals. Whilst the law allows the electronic monitoring of compliance with these orders, at present it is primarily imposed to monitor compliance with curfew requirements.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts, taking into account the circumstances of each case and imposing a sentence which is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.