1-20 of 7,864 results for answeredby:"Jack Straw"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.884 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.014 seconds
- Search query
- answeredby:"Jack Straw"
- We searched for
- answeringMember_ses:303834 OR answeringDept_ses:303834 OR askedToReplyAuthor_ses:303834
Type
+
Members' contributions (2,497)
-
Oral answers to questions (1,980)
+
Oral questions (517)
-
Topical questions (123)
+
Parliamentary committees (2)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HC) (2)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (78)
+
Debates (63)
-
Adjournment debates (5)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HC) (2)
-
Emergency debates (1)
+
Legislative debates (24)
-
Debates on bills (19)
-
Debates on delegated legislation (5)
+
Monarch's speech debates (6)
-
Queen's speech debates (6)
-
Opposition days (27)
-
Private notice questions (6)
+
Statements (2)
+
Oral statements (2)
-
Ministerial statements (1)
-
Urgent questions (3)
+
Parliamentary questions (5,815)
+
Oral questions (517)
-
Topical questions (123)
-
Private notice questions (6)
-
Urgent questions (3)
-
Written questions (5,289)
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Second reading debate. Main question agreed on division (311 to 23). Programme motion agreed on division (304 to 27)
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Second reading debate. Main question agreed on division (311 to 23). Programme motion agreed on division (304 to 27)
Lead member
Nick Clegg
Answering member
Jack Straw
Department
Deputy Prime Minister
Type
Debates on bills
Legislative stage
Second reading
Legislation
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 2010-12
Subjects
Alternative vote; General elections; Fixed-term parliaments; Dissolution; National Assembly for Wales; Referendums; Parliament; Parliamentary privilege; Parliamentary session; Reform; Scottish Parliament; Royal prerogative; Censure motions
Date
13 September 2010
Reference
515 c621-710
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Second reading debate. Amendment negatived on division (254 to 347). Main question agreed on division (328 to 269). Programme motion agreed on division (324 to 272). Money resolution agreed on division (319 to 91).
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Second reading debate. Amendment negatived on division (254 to 347). Main question agreed on division (328 to 269). Programme motion agreed on division (324 to 272). Money resolution agreed on division (319 to 91).
Lead member
Nick Clegg
Answering member
Jack Straw
Department
Deputy Prime Minister
Type
Debates on bills
Legislative stage
Second reading
Procedure
Programme motions; Money resolutions; Reasoned amendments
Legislation
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-12
Subjects
Boundary commissions; Constituency size; Constituencies; Alternative vote; Costs; House of Commons; Electoral register; General elections; Judicial review; Fixed-term parliaments; Members; Referendums; Public inquiries; Voting methods; Reform
Date
6 September 2010
Reference
515 c34-146
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much has been paid in reimbursable expenses to special advisers in his Department since April 2008.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much has been paid in reimbursable expenses to special advisers in his Department since April 2008.
Asked by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
25 March 2010
For answer on
29 March 2010
Answered on
8 April 2010
Since 1 April 2008 a total of £1,102.65 has been claimed in reimbursable expenses by the Department's special advisers.
Subjects
Pay; Ministry of Justice
Date
8 April 2010
Reference
508 c1470W; 325101
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the five most expensive hospitality events hosted by his Department and its agencies were in the last three years; and what (a) the cost and (b) purpose was of each.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the five most expensive hospitality events hosted by his Department and its agencies were in the last three years; and what (a) the cost and (b) purpose was of each.
Asked by
Lord Hammond of Runnymede
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 March 2010
For answer on
25 March 2010
Answered on
6 April 2010
The provision and offering of hospitality is governed by the Department's internal hospitality policy, which is consistent with the principles of Managing Public Money and the HM Treasury handbook on Regularity, Propriety and Value for Money at:"http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_governance_valueformoney.htm"The guiding principle of the Department's internal policy is that gifts and hospitality must only be provided or accepted in exceptional circumstances where they:"are appropriate to the circumstances; and""are modest and appropriate"For example:"token items such as promotional pens; or""routine hospitality such as coffee and biscuits; or""a light working lunch where there are external attendees, meetings are lengthy or internal attendees have travelled long distances."Attendance at, and hosting of, hospitality events by Department and agency staff is recorded in local hospitality registers, in accordance with Ministry of Justice policy. These data are not collated centrally, and gathering information from local registers (including operational establishments) would be possible only at disproportionate cost.Therefore, a list of the five most expensive events during the last three years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.However, at the start of the legal year the Lord Chancellor hosts a breakfast after a service at Westminster Abbey. This event is attended by senior judiciary from the UK and overseas and this event is likely to be one of the higher value events hosted by the Ministry of Justice. The expenditure for the past three years is as follows:
In 2008-09 there was a switch from the House of Lords Refreshments Department to the House of Commons Catering and Retail Services. The usual function rooms and catering services were not available and consequently the costs of staging the event were higher. The choice of menu/catering has since been reviewed and economies made, enabling a reduction in costs for 2009-10.
| Accounting year | £ |
| 2009-10 | 29,953 |
| 2008-09 | 50,391 |
| 2007-08 | 29,952 |
Subjects
Ministry of Justice; Official hospitality
Date
6 April 2010
Reference
508 c1177W; 324659
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps are taken to ensure that appointments of magistrates avoid discrimination on grounds of age.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps are taken to ensure that appointments of magistrates avoid discrimination on grounds of age.
Asked by
Baroness Smith of Malvern
(Labour)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
29 March 2010
For answer on
6 April 2010
Answered on
6 April 2010
The Lord Chancellor appoints magistrates with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. They are recruited and selected by 101 local advisory committees. The following steps are designed to avoid all forms of discrimination in that process:"appointment is strictly on merit; eligible candidates are assessed solely against the key qualities required of all magistrates, irrespective of factors such as age""all advisory committee members undertake mandatory training on how to avoid bias or discrimination during the selection process""the selection process has been reviewed by my Department's legal advisers to ensure compliance with applicable anti-discrimination legislation."
Subjects
Age; Magistrates
Date
6 April 2010
Reference
508 c1179W; 325386
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Horsham of 26 February 2010, Official Report, column 795W, on political parties: finance, what response he made to Sir Hayden Phillips' request on release of the minutes and background papers.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Horsham of 26 February 2010, Official Report, column 795W, on political parties: finance, what response he made to Sir Hayden Phillips' request on release of the minutes and background papers.
Asked by
Nick Hurd
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
22 March 2010
For answer on
24 March 2010
Answered on
6 April 2010
My response to Sir Hayden Phillips consented to the release of the minutes and background papers from the inter-party talks on party funding.
Subjects
Finance; Political parties
Date
6 April 2010
Reference
508 c1179W; 324408
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2010, Official Report, columns 383-84W, on trade unions, if he will place in the Library a copy of the secondment agreement between his Department and the PCS trade union.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2010, Official Report, columns 383-84W, on trade unions, if he will place in the Library a copy of the secondment agreement between his Department and the PCS trade union.
Asked by
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 March 2010
For answer on
17 March 2010
Answered on
6 April 2010
Agreements are not generic documents, but are specific to the individual on secondment. We currently have two employees on secondment to PCS, and copies of their agreements will be placed in the Library.
Subjects
Trade unions; Ministry of Justice
Date
6 April 2010
Reference
508 c1183W; 322745
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the dates of publication of any regular statistics or reports by his Department have been affected by planning for the forthcoming general election.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the dates of publication of any regular statistics or reports by his Department have been affected by planning for the forthcoming general election.
Asked by
David Davis
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 March 2010
For answer on
22 March 2010
Answered on
29 March 2010
On the announcement of a general election, the Cabinet Secretary issues guidance to Departments on their activities during the pre-election period. This will be published on the Cabinet Office website.Regular statistical releases and reports will continue to be issued and published during the election period on dates which have been pre-announced.Once the general election is announced, the expectation is that reports which have not been pre-announced and are not yet ready for publication will be delayed until after the purdah period. This includes Ministry of Justice social research reports which are not routinely pre-announced.I also refer the right hon. Member to the statement released by the Ministry of Justice's chief statistician on 19 March 2010 regarding the release of youth justice statistics. A copy of the statement is available at:"www.justice.gov.uk/publications/youth-justice-statistics.htm"
Subjects
Publications; Ministry of Justice
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c652W; 323468
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what property has been recorded as (a) lost and (b) stolen from his Department in the last 12 months; and what estimate has been made of the cost of the replacement of that property.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what property has been recorded as (a) lost and (b) stolen from his Department in the last 12 months; and what estimate has been made of the cost of the replacement of that property.
Asked by
John Mason
(Scottish National Party)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
9 March 2010
For answer on
11 March 2010
Answered on
29 March 2010
With the exception of HM Prison Service, details of individual cases of lost and stolen property are held at a local level across the Department. Occurrences of theft or loss are reportable to the central security team and amounts to 354 incidents during the period 1 January to 31 December 2009.To determine whether these occurrences relate to theft or loss and to estimate a replacement cost would involve a review of individual local records which would incur disproportionate cost.Separate records are kept by Her Majesty's Prison Service (HMPS), which is part of the National Offender Management Service agency. For the 12 month period 1 January to 31 December 2009 the value of lost or stolen property was £310,078. This comprises:"lost or stolen items: 1,178 instances at a total value of £194,609 of which 1,177 instances were for losses of stores at a value of £194,549;""loss of personal property for which compensation was paid to prisoners, staff or third parties: 1,982 payments at a total value of £123,468."These figures are currently unaudited. A full stock count will be undertaken at the end of the financial year 31 March 2010.
Subjects
Lost property; Ministry of Justice
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c651W; 322080
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the written ministerial statement of 23 July 2007, Official Report, column 40WS, on emoluments, when he made the statement on emoluments.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the written ministerial statement of 23 July 2007, Official Report, column 40WS, on emoluments, when he made the statement on emoluments.
Asked by
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 March 2010
For answer on
22 March 2010
Answered on
29 March 2010
No statement on emoluments has yet been made.
Subjects
Pay
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c660W; 323687
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people are serving a sentence of less than (a) one year, (b) two years and (c) four years for (i) homicide, (ii) rape, (iii) attempted rape and (iv) a sexual offence involving children.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people are serving a sentence of less than (a) one year, (b) two years and (c) four years for (i) homicide, (ii) rape, (iii) attempted rape and (iv) a sexual offence involving children.
Asked by
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 March 2010
For answer on
18 March 2010
Answered on
29 March 2010
The following table gives figures as at 30 June 2009, the latest date of publication for which these figures are available, showing the determinate sentence length bands requested for the total number of prisoners in all prison establishments in England and Wales serving sentences for (i) murder, conspiracy to murder, manslaughter and (ii) rape. Separate figures are not available for attempted rape.
The table also shows number of prisoners serving determinate sentences for (iv) gross indecency with children. However, it is not possible to give a comprehensive total of sexual offence cases which involve offences against children, as other categories of offences do not define the age of the victim. To answer this part of the question comprehensively would involve a manual search of all the relevant prison records, at disproportionate cost.The courts must impose a mandatory life sentence on any individual convicted of murder. This is the only sentence available for such a conviction.These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
| Number of prisoners serving less than four years for specific offences | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentence length | Murder | Conspire, aid, and incite to murder | Manslaughter | Causing death by reckless driving | Rape | Gross indecency, indecent assault of a child |
| Less than one year | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 21 | 5 |
| 1 to less than 2 years | 0 | 0 | 7 | 26 | 13 | 34 |
| 2 to less than 4 years | 0 | 3 | 62 | 104 | 104 | 165 |
Subjects
Prison sentences
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c660-2W; 323061
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) adult and (b) juvenile offenders in the first quarter of 2008 cohort committed a re-offence in each (i) index disposal and (ii) re-offence category.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) adult and (b) juvenile offenders in the first quarter of 2008 cohort committed a re-offence in each (i) index disposal and (ii) re-offence category.
Asked by
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 March 2010
For answer on
22 March 2010
Answered on
29 March 2010
Table 1 shows the number of adults who reoffended within one year, and the frequency of reoffending (per 100 offenders), broken down by index disposal for adults who commenced a court order or were discharged from custody in the first quarter of 2008. Table 2 shows the number of reoffences committed within one year by the same cohort, broken down by offence type.
Table 3 shows the number of juveniles who reoffended within one year, and the frequency of reoffending (per 100 offenders), broken down by index disposal for juveniles released from custody or commencing a non-custodial court disposal or given an out-of-court disposal in the first quarter of 2008. Table 4 shows the number of reoffences committed within one year by the same cohort, broken down by offence type.
The definition of a reoffence differs between adults and juveniles. For adults, any offence within a year of release from custody or commencement of a court order, which is proven by court conviction within 18 months of release, is counted as a reoffence. For juveniles released from custody or commencing a non-custodial court disposal or given an out-of-court, an offence proven by court conviction or a caution within the same time period is counted as a reoffence. For this reasons the adult and juvenile reoffending rates are not directly comparable.Adult and juvenile reoffending data for the 2008 cohort were published on 18 March 2010, copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library.Alternatively, further information on adult reoffending is available at:"http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/reoffendingof adults.htm"Further information on juvenile reoffending is available at:"http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/reoffending juveniles.htm"
| Table 1: Adults: Actual reoffending rates and frequency of reoffending per 100 offenders, by index disposal, 2008 cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of offenders in the cohort | Number of offenders that reoffended | Proportion of offenders that reoffended | Number of offences committed per 100 offenders | |
| Court Orders | 37,619 | 13,589 | 36.1 | 123.2 |
| Community Orders | 27,504 | 10,127 | 36.8 | 128.5 |
| Suspended Sentence Orders | 9,875 | 3,392 | 34.3 | 108.5 |
| Custody | 16,099 | 7,952 | 49.4 | 40.1 |
| Overall total | 53,718 | 21,541 | 230.9 | 155.5 |
| Table 2: Adults: Number of reoffences by offence type, 2008 cohort | |
|---|---|
| Reoffence type | Number of reoffences |
| Number of offences | 83,516 |
| Violence (serious) | 366 |
| Violence (non serious) | 9,561 |
| Robbery | 665 |
| Public order or riot | 7,733 |
| Sexual | 365 |
| Sexual (child) | 63 |
| Soliciting or prostitution | 127 |
| Domestic burglary | 1,574 |
| Other burglary | 2,339 |
| Theft | 25,490 |
| Handling | 1,017 |
| Fraud and forgery | 1,716 |
| Absconding or bail offences | 6,986 |
| Taking and driving away and related offences | 1,235 |
| Theft from vehicles | 1,229 |
| Other motoring offences | 8,198 |
| Drink driving | 1,194 |
| Criminal or malicious damage | 4,214 |
| Drugs import/export/production/supply | 646 |
| Drugs possession/small scale supply | 4,719 |
| Other | 4,079 |
| Table 3: Juveniles: Actual reoffending rates and frequency of reoffending per 100 offenders, by index disposal, 2008 cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of offenders in the cohort | Number of offenders that reoffended | Proportion of offenders that reoffended | Number of offences committed per 100 offenders | |
| Out-of-court disposal | 26,962 | 6,787 | 25.2 | 55.5 |
| First-tier penalty | 9,951 | 4,534 | 45.6 | 141.8 |
| Discharge | 2,008 | 1,052 | 52.4 | 183.6 |
| Fine | 1,089 | 616 | 56.6 | 190.5 |
| Referral Order | 5,915 | 2,249 | 38.0 | 102.0 |
| Reparation Order | 939 | 617 | 65.7 | 246.5 |
| Community penalty | 6,359 | 4,296 | 67.6 | 265.9 |
| Attendance Centre Order | 634 | 399 | 62.9 | 208.7 |
| Supervision Order | 2,721 | 1,931 | 71.0 | 294.5 |
| Action Plan Order | 1,031 | 658 | 63.8 | 224.2 |
| Community Rehabilitation Order | 688 | 470 | 68.3 | 267.2 |
| Community Punishment Order | 346 | 220 | 63.6 | 238.2 |
| Curfew Order | 610 | 421 | 69.0 | 297.0 |
| Unknown | 329 | 197 | 59.9 | 239.5 |
| Custody | 816 | 606 | 74.3 | 342.5 |
| Other disposal | 749 | 490 | 65.4 | 308.9 |
| Total | 44,837 | 16,713 | 37.3 | 113.9 |
| Table 4: Juveniles: Number of reoffences by offence type, 2008 cohort | |
|---|---|
| Reoffence type | Number of reoffences |
| Number of reoffences | 51,084 |
| Violence (serious) | 281 |
| Violence (non serious) | 10,117 |
| Robbery | 1,267 |
| Public order or riot | 5,609 |
| Sexual | 80 |
| Sexual (child) | 52 |
| Soliciting or prostitution | 0 |
| Domestic burglary | 1,745 |
| Other burglary | 1,370 |
| Theft | 7,558 |
| Handling | 748 |
| Fraud and forgery | 627 |
| Absconding or bail offences | 1,786 |
| Taking and driving away and related offences | 1,571 |
| Theft from vehicles | 645 |
| Other motoring offences | 4,210 |
| Drink driving | 281 |
| Criminal or malicious damage | 6,775 |
| Drugs import/export/production/supply | 250 |
| Drugs possession/small scale supply | 3,063 |
| Other | 3,049 |
Subjects
Reoffenders
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c665-70W; 323698
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether employees of the National Offender Management Service are remunerated through his Department's Pay and Pensions Service.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether employees of the National Offender Management Service are remunerated through his Department's Pay and Pensions Service.
Asked by
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 March 2010
For answer on
23 March 2010
Answered on
24 March 2010
Employees of the National Offender Management Services (NOMS) are remunerated through the Home Office Pay and Pensions Service. This arrangement came about because the Prison Service, which is a part of NOMS, was previously part of the Home Office. There are no plans to alter these arrangements.
Subjects
Pay; National Offender Management Service
Date
24 March 2010
Reference
508 c333W; 323807
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Bolton West of 17 March 2010, Official Report, column 853W, on children in care: Child Trust Fund, from which provider child trust funds managed by the Official Solicitor or Accountant of Court...
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Bolton West of 17 March 2010, Official Report, column 853W, on children in care: Child Trust Fund, from which provider child trust funds managed by the Official Solicitor or Accountant of Court...
Asked by
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 March 2010
For answer on
23 March 2010
Answered on
24 March 2010
The poorest performers were the Scottish Friendly Managed Growth UK and Engage Investment Growth Fund. In addition funds held in Druids Sheffield Fund were also recommended for switching as limited information regarding performance was available.
Subjects
Children in care; Child trust fund
Date
24 March 2010
Reference
508 c332W; 323710
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effects on the size of the prison population of ending the end of custody licence scheme; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effects on the size of the prison population of ending the end of custody licence scheme; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Michael Fabricant
(Conservative)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 March 2010
For answer on
23 March 2010
Answered on
23 March 2010
The end of custody licence scheme was withdrawn on 12 March. This is expected to increase the prison population by an additional 1,000 to 1,200 prisoners by the end of April, as those who would have been released serve an additional 18 days in custody. Sufficient headroom exists to accommodate these prisoners within existing capacity.
Subjects
Prisoners' release
Date
23 March 2010
Reference
508 c182-3W; 323400
House
House of Commons
This may well be the hon. Gentleman's last outing, too, so I pay tribute to him for the work that he has undertaken. However, he needs to get some better briefing, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the Labour party conference on 29 September that we were committed—
... It was hardly a private meeting; it was in the middle of the leader's speech. In that speech on 29 September, the Prime Minister announced his commitment, and that of the Government and my party, to a recall mechanism for this House.
This may well be the hon. Gentleman's last outing, too, so I pay tribute to him for the work that he has undertaken. However, he needs to get some better briefing, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the Labour party conference on 29 September that we were committed—
... It was hardly a private meeting; it was in the middle of the leader's speech. In that speech on 29 September, the Prime Minister announced his commitment, and that of the Government and my party, to a recall mechanism for this House.
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Asked by
David Howarth
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Oral answers to questions
Can we be specific about this issue? I know from their proposals that the Government support a recall mechanism for the other place, but is the Secretary of State now saying that he also supports a recall mechanism for the Commons? If so, that would be a very great advance, and we would very much welcome it. Indeed, if he has moved on that issue, will he now move on proportional representation, too?
Subjects
Conduct; Members
Date
23 March 2010
Reference
508 c119
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Those offenders are not "cluttering up" prisons; they are there because they have been assessed as dangerous by the courts following legislation that we introduced in 2003. There is no entitlement for a prisoner who is on an IPP sentence to be released when his tariff expires. The prisoner has to show that it is safe to release him or her—they are mainly males. The responsibility for proving that it is safe to release the prisoner is on the prisoner. We make available a range of courses, but it is not about ticking boxes; it is about prisoners taking responsibility for themselves. There is no doubt about the effectiveness of the sentence. In my judgment, it is one of the measures that we introduced that has considerably contributed to making this country much safer and to getting crime down.
I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Those offenders are not "cluttering up" prisons; they are there because they have been assessed as dangerous by the courts following legislation that we introduced in 2003. There is no entitlement for a prisoner who is on an IPP sentence to be released when his tariff expires. The prisoner has to show that it is safe to release him or her—they are mainly males. The responsibility for proving that it is safe to release the prisoner is on the prisoner. We make available a range of courses, but it is not about ticking boxes; it is about prisoners taking responsibility for themselves. There is no doubt about the effectiveness of the sentence. In my judgment, it is one of the measures that we introduced that has considerably contributed to making this country much safer and to getting crime down.
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Stunell
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Oral answers to questions
The Secretary of State will know that there are 2,400 post-tariff prisoners cluttering up our prisons. They cannot apply to the Parole Board, because they cannot get on the offender behaviour courses that they have been required to undertake. Does he accept the view of the inspectorates that he has just mentioned, which is that that is completely unsustainable? In fact, does he not agree that it is literally a criminal waste of money?
Subjects
Prison sentences
Date
23 March 2010
Reference
508 c125-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The emerging evidence from the evaluations in the six areas where intensive alternatives to custody are being piloted suggests that they are significantly reducing reoffending. I have seen one of them in operation in Derby. There is no doubt that if they are properly planned and executed they can effectively force offenders to face up to the reasons why they are offending, and can establish strong discipline on them in the community. If that works, it is all to the good.
The emerging evidence from the evaluations in the six areas where intensive alternatives to custody are being piloted suggests that they are significantly reducing reoffending. I have seen one of them in operation in Derby. There is no doubt that if they are properly planned and executed they can effectively force offenders to face up to the reasons why they are offending, and can establish strong discipline on them in the community. If that works, it is all to the good.
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Asked by
Dari Taylor
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Oral answers to questions
My right hon. Friend mentioned that the Government are pursuing intensive alternatives to custody. Will he tell the House what effect that approach is having in reducing reoffending?
Subjects
Sentencing; Reoffenders
Date
23 March 2010
Reference
508 c112
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The hon. and learned Gentleman highlights the fact that the group consisting of short-sentence prisoners is the most intractable to deal with. That is accepted in the round, and a great deal of work is going on to get them away from crime. Some of the "through the gates" work being done in London with the St. Giles Trust and the Metropolitan police has been excellent. Key challenges include ensuring that people are not offending—not when they are in prison, where, on the whole they cannot, but from the moment they leave prison—and dealing with their incredibly chaotic lives. He is really talking about the same thing. The prescription of methadone has to be a medical matter. Simply taking people off any kind of drug on which they are dependent when they are not ready for that will not resolve anything. However, we do have drug abstinence programmes in place.
The hon. and learned Gentleman highlights the fact that the group consisting of short-sentence prisoners is the most intractable to deal with. That is accepted in the round, and a great deal of work is going on to get them away from crime. Some of the "through the gates" work being done in London with the St. Giles Trust and the Metropolitan police has been excellent. Key challenges include ensuring that people are not offending—not when they are in prison, where, on the whole they cannot, but from the moment they leave prison—and dealing with their incredibly chaotic lives. He is really talking about the same thing. The prescription of methadone has to be a medical matter. Simply taking people off any kind of drug on which they are dependent when they are not ready for that will not resolve anything. However, we do have drug abstinence programmes in place.
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Asked by
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Oral answers to questions
The Justice Secretary failed to point out that the goal to which I aspire on prison numbers is matched by the goal of reducing crime.
Statistics published last week show that the reoffending rate among those subject to drug rehabilitation requirements is even higher than that among those who serve short prison sentences—although those two groups are often the same people. Does the Secretary of State accept that maintaining offenders on methadone is a counsel of failure, and will he give courts the power to impose abstinence-based drug rehabilitation orders to help offenders—with short sentences and long—to give up drugs once and for all?
Subjects
Sentencing; Reoffenders
Date
23 March 2010
Reference
508 c112-3
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The Prisons Minister—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)—tells me that 69 per cent. of those prisoners have the opportunity to attend such courses. Following changes that I made in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 that led to a minimum tariff of two years—so that people were not on imprisonment for public protection tariffs for such a short time that they could not do courses—we are now ensuring that there is a greater opportunity for people to do these courses. But I come back to the point that the responsibility for showing that prisoners are no longer dangerous and that it is safe to release them rests fairly and squarely with those prisoners, and not with the Prison Service.
The Prisons Minister—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)—tells me that 69 per cent. of those prisoners have the opportunity to attend such courses. Following changes that I made in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 that led to a minimum tariff of two years—so that people were not on imprisonment for public protection tariffs for such a short time that they could not do courses—we are now ensuring that there is a greater opportunity for people to do these courses. But I come back to the point that the responsibility for showing that prisoners are no longer dangerous and that it is safe to release them rests fairly and squarely with those prisoners, and not with the Prison Service.
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Asked by
Crispin Blunt
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Oral answers to questions
Will the Secretary of State answer the substantive point raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell)? Surely it cannot possibly be right that 2,400 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences who want to attend courses to address their reoffending behaviour are unable to do so. That can be neither right nor economic.
Subjects
Defamation
Date
23 March 2010
Reference
508 c129
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons