Author: admin

  • Bob Ainsworth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Bob Ainsworth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bob Ainsworth on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how much funding her Department allocated to the Conflict Pool for South Asia in each of the last three years.

    Mr Alan Duncan

    The Conflict Pool is funded from an HM Treasury settlement which is separate from and additional to departmental budgets. Details of Conflict Pool allocations are provided to Parliament annually in a Written Ministerial Statement. The statements for Financial Years 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 are available on the parliament.uk website.

    A Statement giving details of Conflict Pool allocations for FY 2014/15 will be laid before the House shortly.

  • Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether community rehabilitation companies have access to National Probation Service case records.

    Jeremy Wright

    Staff in the National Probation Service (NPS) and the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) have, and will continue to have, necessary access to each other’s case records. NPS staff are able to read all CRC records and update any case they are working on. CRC staff will be able to see and update records that relate to offenders they are working with.

  • Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether (a) Serco and (b) G4S will be permitted to bid for community rehabilitation company contracts.

    Jeremy Wright

    G4S and Serco decided to withdraw from the competition to select lead providers of rehabilitation services.

  • Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how he plans to allocate National Probation Service staff to new community rehabilitation companies.

    Jeremy Wright

    On 1 June, as part of our ongoing Transforming Rehabilitation Programme of reform, the new National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) formally commenced operation. All probation staff were allocated to either the NPS or CRC and many have been working in their new teams since April.

    The probation workforce was allocated to the new organisations in line with future capacity needs. This was calculated on the basis of existing staffing needs for the different operational functions. The process was based on an objective consideration of the future functions and offender groups that each organisation will be responsible for.

    There are no plans to allocate NPS staff to CRCs. However to help ensure effective working relationships between the bodies, we are in favour of an arrangement that would facilitate interchange between the NPS and CRCs where it was in the interests of both employers.

  • Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the National Probation Service will have access to case records of community rehabilitation companies.

    Jeremy Wright

    Staff in the National Probation Service (NPS) and the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) have, and will continue to have, necessary access to each other’s case records. NPS staff are able to read all CRC records and update any case they are working on. CRC staff will be able to see and update records that relate to offenders they are working with.

  • Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether staff working for community rehabilitation companies will be able to (a) recall offenders and (b) write parole reports without consulting National Probation Service staff.

    Jeremy Wright

    The decision whether to recall an offender to custody continues to rest with the Secretary of State. Where a warning does not appear sufficient or appropriate, CRCs will be required to refer potential breaches to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) with a breach report and a recommendation on the action to be taken. NOMS will take the final decision on behalf of the Secretary of State. The enforcement process for CRCs and the National Probation Service was described in detail in our published Target Operating Model.

    Offenders serving indeterminate sentences for public protection will be managed by the National Probation Service: the arrangements for Parole Board hearings during their recall period will remain unchanged. If recalled to custody, offenders allocated to the CRCs who are serving determinate sentences will continue to be managed by the CRC, unless their risk of serious harm increases to “high”. CRCs will need to provide information, as appropriate, to support the recall process and consideration of re-release.

  • Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Ian Austin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Austin on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions he has had on tendering for contracts to run community rehabilitation companies.

    Jeremy Wright

    The tendering process is being run in accordance with standard Government procurement practice. Ministers are being kept updated on progress and throughout the programme have engaged in discussions with a wide range of stakeholders. Bids to run the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) are expected in June 2014 and the contract winners for each Community Rehabilitation Company will be announced by the end of 2014.

  • Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Jim Fitzpatrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Fitzpatrick on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) cautioned, (b) proceeded against and (c) convicted of an offence under the provisions of the (i) Game Act 1831, (ii) Deer Act 1991, (iii) Protection of Badgers Act 1992, (iv) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (v) Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, (vi) Animal Welfare Act 2006, (vii) Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, (viii) Hunting Act 2004, (ix) Night Poaching Act 1828, (x) Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, (xi) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, (xii) Pests Act 1954 and (xiii) Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in each year since 2009.

    Mike Penning

    The number of offenders cautioned and defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty at all courts for offences (all in England and Wales from 2009 to 2013) under the Game Act 1831 can be viewed in Table 1, under the Deer Act 1991 in Table 2, under the Protection of Badgers act 1992 in Table 3, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Table 4, under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in Table 5, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in Table 6, under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in Table 7, under the Night Poaching Act 1828 in Table 8, under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 in Table 9, under the Hunting Act 2004 in Table 10 and under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 in Table 11. The tables can be found in the Library. Data for the Pests Act 1954, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 is held as part of a miscellaneous group that cannot be separately analysed.We are very clear that serious offences will always go to court where tough punishments are available to the independent judiciary, who make their sentencing decisions based on the individual facts of the case.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many former employees of probation trusts received payouts of (a) up to £5,000, (b) up to £10,0000, (c) up to £15,000, (d) up to £20,000, (e) up to £30,000, (f) up to £40,000, (g) up to £50,000, (h) up to £75,000, (i) up to £100,000 or (j) £100,000 or more since 1 January 2014.

    Jeremy Wright

    Prior to 1 June, probation staff in England & Wales were employed by the 35 probation trusts. Employment data of the kind requested were held by the individual probations trusts. They were not collected centrally and it would not be possible to obtain the information without incurring disproportionate cost.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many probation trust employees who left their jobs received higher than contractual payments since 1 January 2014.

    Jeremy Wright

    Prior to 1 June, probation staff in England & Wales were employed by the 35 probation trusts. Employment data of the kind requested were held by the individual probations trusts. They were not collected centrally and it would not be possible to obtain the information without incurring disproportionate cost.