1-15 of 15 results for subject:Reviews
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.194 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Reviews
- We searched for
- subject_t:Reviews OR subject_ses:12492
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
There has rightly been a lot of focus on the 250,000 people the Government’s own impact assessment says will be pushed into poverty by this cruel disability benefit cut, but the true impact on poverty will be even worse. New DWP figures, obtained from a freedom of information request, show that 700,000 families already in poverty will be hit even harder. It is wrong that that has had to come out through a freedom of information request, so will the Minister come clean today about the true scale of poverty that this disastrous policy will cause? Does it not fly in the face of what a Labour Government are meant to do—lift people out of poverty, not push them further into poverty?
There has rightly been a lot of focus on the 250,000 people the Government’s own impact assessment says will be pushed into poverty by this cruel disability benefit cut, but the true impact on poverty will be even worse. New DWP figures, obtained from a freedom of information request, show that 700,000 families already in poverty will be hit even harder. It is wrong that that has had to come out through a freedom of information request, so will the Minister come clean today about the true scale of poverty that this disastrous policy will cause? Does it not fly in the face of what a Labour Government are meant to do—lift people out of poverty, not push them further into poverty?
My hon. Friend will know, as we have been very clear with the House, that those figures do not take into consideration the number of disabled people who we believe will find work through our biggest ever investment in employment support, Pathways to Work. Neither do they take into consideration the huge strides we will make with our forthcoming child poverty strategy. We have been more open and transparent than any previous Government, publishing all the poverty impact and other detailed assessments, because we are very happy to have this debate in the House and to put forward our case. Our mission is to get as many people as we can into work and on in their careers, with more income and better choices and chances: that is what a Labour Government are for.
What progress her Department has made on its review of the Personal Independence Payment assessment system.
What progress her Department has made on its review of the Personal Independence Payment assessment system.
As I said in response to an earlier question, it is over a decade since PIP was introduced and there have been significant shifts in the nature of disability and long-term conditions in this country, as well as changes in wider society and the workplace. That is why our Green Paper announced our plans to review the PIP assessment, working with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and others. We are starting that work today, inviting key organisations representing disabled people in to discuss the terms of reference, which we will publish, and we will continue to keep the House updated as our work progresses.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will list all (a) ongoing and (b) planned reviews (i) conducted by and (ii) initiated by his Department; when those reviews will finish; and when they are scheduled to report.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will list all (a) ongoing and (b) planned reviews (i) conducted by and (ii) initiated by his Department; when those reviews will finish; and when they are scheduled to report.
The Ministry of Justice is currently undertaking a Tailored Review of the Parole Board which was launched on 4th February 2019. The report of the review is due to be published in the Autumn.
No other Tailored Reviews, which are reviews of Arms Length Bodies, are currently underway and there are no plans to conduct any other reviews as part of the current programme which concludes at the end of 2019/20.
The Ministry of Justice does not hold a central record of reviews commissioned by the department. Reviews that have been carried out by the department can be found on the GOV.UK website.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Serious Further Offence reviews have been reopened in each year since 2010.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Serious Further Offence reviews have been reopened in each year since 2010.
Under the Probation Serious Further Offence (SFO) Review Procedures, the National Probation Service (NPS) or Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) must undertake a review where an offender under statutory supervision in the community is charged with a qualifying offence – a “notification”. Not every notification results in a conviction for an SFO. The NPS or CRC has three months to complete a review and will complete each review unless charges are dropped beforehand.
SFOs are rare. Fewer than 0.5% of offenders under statutory supervision are convicted of a serious further offence.
No SFO reviews have been reopened since 2010.
Data regarding the number of SFO reviews that cited excessive workload as a contributory factor to that offence are not collated as part of the SFO review process and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Data regarding the number of SFO reviews that cited inadequate management supervision as a contributory factor to that offence are not collated as part of the SFO review process and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in how many cases Serious Further Offence reviews have cited excessive workload as a contributory factor to that offence.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in how many cases Serious Further Offence reviews have cited excessive workload as a contributory factor to that offence.
Under the Probation Serious Further Offence (SFO) Review Procedures, the National Probation Service (NPS) or Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) must undertake a review where an offender under statutory supervision in the community is charged with a qualifying offence – a “notification”. Not every notification results in a conviction for an SFO. The NPS or CRC has three months to complete a review and will complete each review unless charges are dropped beforehand.
SFOs are rare. Fewer than 0.5% of offenders under statutory supervision are convicted of a serious further offence.
No SFO reviews have been reopened since 2010.
Data regarding the number of SFO reviews that cited excessive workload as a contributory factor to that offence are not collated as part of the SFO review process and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Data regarding the number of SFO reviews that cited inadequate management supervision as a contributory factor to that offence are not collated as part of the SFO review process and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in how many cases Serious Further Offence reviews have cited inadequate management supervision as factor contributing to the further serious offence.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in how many cases Serious Further Offence reviews have cited inadequate management supervision as factor contributing to the further serious offence.
Under the Probation Serious Further Offence (SFO) Review Procedures, the National Probation Service (NPS) or Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) must undertake a review where an offender under statutory supervision in the community is charged with a qualifying offence – a “notification”. Not every notification results in a conviction for an SFO. The NPS or CRC has three months to complete a review and will complete each review unless charges are dropped beforehand.
SFOs are rare. Fewer than 0.5% of offenders under statutory supervision are convicted of a serious further offence.
No SFO reviews have been reopened since 2010.
Data regarding the number of SFO reviews that cited excessive workload as a contributory factor to that offence are not collated as part of the SFO review process and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Data regarding the number of SFO reviews that cited inadequate management supervision as a contributory factor to that offence are not collated as part of the SFO review process and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to review the rules governing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to review the rules governing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; and if he will make a statement.
We committed to look at concerns about rules of the statutory Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme as part of the Department’s work to develop a strategy for victims. The strategy will be published this summer.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 12 February 2018, to Question 126333, on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, whether her Department plans to publish the list of organisations and experts it plans to invite to submit evidence to the...
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 12 February 2018, to Question 126333, on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, whether her Department plans to publish the list of organisations and experts it plans to invite to submit evidence to the...
The Lord Chancellor has confirmed that we shall conduct an evidence-based review of Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), assessing the changes against their objectives.
It is right that we take time to gather evidence, and we shall be engaging with experts and interested parties. I am currently considering the best way to proceed and will announce more details in due course.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 1 February 2018 to Question 125361 on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, if his Department will publish the list of organisations and experts it plans to invite to submit evidence to the post-implementation...
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 1 February 2018 to Question 125361 on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, if his Department will publish the list of organisations and experts it plans to invite to submit evidence to the post-implementation...
As part of the Post-Implementation Review (PIR) we will be inviting experts and interested parties to contribute analytical evidence on the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
By its nature, the PIR is an evidence-based review and we will therefore be looking to gather a broad range of evidence. This will include engaging with relevant stakeholders. I am currently considering the most effective way to proceed and will provide more detail of our approach shortly.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when his Department plans to invite organisations to submit evidence as part of the post-implementation review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when his Department plans to invite organisations to submit evidence as part of the post-implementation review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
As part of the Post-Implementation Review we will be inviting experts and interested parties to contribute analytical evidence on the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
I am keen that we listen to views and I am currently considering the most effective way to do so.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 19 December 2017 to Question 118802, what other institutions referred to in that answer will provide data for the Post-Implementation Review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; and what data will be...
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 19 December 2017 to Question 118802, what other institutions referred to in that answer will provide data for the Post-Implementation Review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; and what data will be...
On 30 October, the Government announced the commencement of its Post-Implementation Review of the legal aid changes made by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and subsequently. We will engage with a range of experts in the field and are in the process of reaching out to experts who will inform the process.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 29 November 2017 to Question 115581, if he will publish the recent internal review into the probation system with commercially sensitive sections redacted.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 29 November 2017 to Question 115581, if he will publish the recent internal review into the probation system with commercially sensitive sections redacted.
Given the significant commercial nature of the review of the probation system, it would be impractical to publish redacted versions of the documentation, which were never intended for publication.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, Pursuant to the Answer of 7 November to Question 110305, if he will the place a copy in the Library of the recent internal review into the probation system.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, Pursuant to the Answer of 7 November to Question 110305, if he will the place a copy in the Library of the recent internal review into the probation system.
Our review examined the operation of the probation system, with a particular focus on the performance and services of CRCs and the operation of contractual arrangements. As such, much of the work is commercially sensitive and not intended or suitable for publication.
As a result of this work we made changes to CRC contracts in the summer, and at this time I took the opportunity to update Parliament in a written ministerial statement.
We closely monitor the performance of probation services and will take further steps if needed to improve delivery.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Government plans to commission an independent review of the implementation and effectiveness of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Government plans to commission an independent review of the implementation and effectiveness of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; and if he will make a statement.
The reforms to the scope of civil legal aid were designed to refocus funding on those who need it most and on the most serious cases in which legal advice and representation are justified.
There are no current plans to commission an independent review of the implementation and effectiveness of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when his Department plans to carry out a review of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme; and if he will consult staff representatives during that review.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when his Department plans to carry out a review of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme; and if he will consult staff representatives during that review.
We have carried out a comprehensive review of the probation system to improve outcomes for offenders and communities while making sure public protection remains our top priority. As part of this work we have engaged with probation providers and staff, both in Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service. On 19 July 2017 I laid a written statement which provided an update on our work to improve the delivery of probation services.