The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much his Department spent on external legal advice not from Queen’s Counsel since 7 May 2010.
Mr Shailesh Vara
It would incur disproportionate cost to obtain this information.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Smith on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps Community Rehabilitation Companies are taking to engage with local charities to prevent prisoners from reoffending.
Andrew Selous
Charities and the voluntary sector have long played an important role in rehabilitating offenders and continue to do so under the Government’s reforms to rehabilitation services. Under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, we opened up the market in order to get the best out of the public, private and third sectors. 19 out of the 21 CRCs are being run with assistance from staff mutual or VCSE, and all contracted probation providers have included VCSE organisations in their supply chains.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ben Howlett on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress his Department is making in arranging for the release of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for public protection.
Andrew Selous
The release of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) is a matter for the independent Parole Board. The Parole Board directs the release of IPP prisoners on licence who have completed their minimum period of imprisonment (tariff), where the Board is satisfied that those prisoners may be effectively managed in the community.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions he has had on recruitment processes for vacancies in the College of Arms.
Mike Penning
The Secretary of State for Justice has had no discussions on the recruitment processes for vacancies in the College of Arms and has no responsibility for such.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make representations to Staffordshire and West Midlands Rehabilitation Company on ensuring jobs are not lost by the planned transfer of responsibilities for probation service administration staff to Derby.
Andrew Selous
Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), including Staffordshire and West Midlands CRC, set out an agreed operating model within their bids during the Transforming Rehabilitation competition. These bids were rigorously scrutinised before contracts were awarded. A thorough evaluation process was undertaken to assess the operational viability of the bids in the wider context of public protection and reducing reoffending.
All CRCs are contractually required to maintain a professional and appropriately skilled workforce to deliver the services set out in their contracts. The MoJ closely monitors the performance of CRCs, in line with government standards, to make sure they fulfil their contractual commitments to maintain service delivery, reduce reoffending and deliver value for money to the taxpayer.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andy Slaughter on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will issue a new impact assessment examining the economic and value for money consequences of Just Solutions international.
Andrew Selous
I refer the hon member to the Secretary of State’s statement of 13 October 2015. As has been the practice with successive administrations, details of internal discussions are not normally disclosed. We have no plans to undertake an impact assessment.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he has taken to ensure that staff employed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service in the collection of court fines will have their employment transferred to the new provider of this service.
Mr Shailesh Vara
As I set out in my Written Ministerial Statement of 15 October 2015, following re-consideration of the department’s requirements, we have decided that outsourcing these services to a single supplier is not the best option for HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Therefore the department has withdrawn the procurement for an external provider.
Compliance and enforcement staff currently employed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service will not be transferred to an external provider.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to announce the outcome of the tendering process for the privatisation of the HM Courts and Tribunals Service fines collection service.
Mr Shailesh Vara
As I set out in my Written Ministerial Statement of 15 October 2015, following re-consideration of the department’s requirements, we have decided that outsourcing these services to a single supplier is not the best option for HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Therefore the department has withdrawn the procurement for an external provider.
Compliance and enforcement staff currently employed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service will not be transferred to an external provider.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ms Margaret Ritchie on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whether she has had discussions with Volkswagen and Renault car manufacturers regarding the recall of cars in Northern Ireland aged one to five years for refitting new computer and brake systems; and if she will make a statement.
Mr Ben Wallace
Northern Ireland Office Ministers have had no discussions with Volkswagen and Renault car manufacturers regarding the recall of cars in Northern Ireland.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2015-10-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information she holds on surveillance of hon. Members’ communications; and if she will make a statement.
Mr John Hayes
The Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine was set out by the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement made on 4 November 2015.
As the Prime Minister made clear, the Wilson Doctrine has never been an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary.
The Prime Minister announced that as matter of policy the PM will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian’s communications under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. This applies to Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and, electronic surveillance and equipment interference, when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Code of Practice issued under it which set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception.
It is long standing policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny any specific activity by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual interception warrant or an individual interception that takes place.