Blog

  • Valerie Vaz – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Valerie Vaz – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Valerie Vaz on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many telephone lines with the prefix (a) 0845, (b) 0844 and (c) 0843 his Department (i) operates and (ii) sponsors; how many calls each such number has received in the last 12 months; and whether alternative numbers charged at BT local rates are available in each such case.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    There has been a 79% fall in the Department’s use of higher-rate numbers since 2009.

    The Department has received no revenue from higher rate telephone numbers for the period under review.

    The information held centrally for the public use of (a) 0845, (b) 0844 and (c) 0843 telephone numbers operated (i) and (ii) sponsored by the Ministry of Justice are as follows:

    (a) 0845 numbers – 32

    (b) 0844 numbers – 2

    (c) 0843 numbers – 0

    The majority of these numbers are operated by the County Court Business Centre (CCBC).

    Information on volumes for calls to higher-rate telephone numbers for the last twelve months is not systematically collected by the service providers, and to obtain it would incur disproportionate costs.

    Nineteen higher rate numbers in the CCBC are in the process of being replaced by 0300 numbers. The four 0845 numbers receiving the highest volumes of calls in the CCBC are being discontinued on 1 August 2014, and when enquirers call these numbers they are being advised to contact an alternative 0300 number.

    As stated in previous answers to parliamentary questions, the Department’s approach is not to use higher rate numbers and instead, wherever possible, to assign 0300 numbers, for which the tariff is similar to calling an 01 or 02 (geographic) number, whether the caller is using a fixed line or a mobile phone.

  • Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Chris Ruane – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of staff employed (a) directly and (b) indirectly by his Department were employed on (i) short term and (ii) zero hours contracts in each of the last 10 years.

    Mr Shailesh Vara

    We are unable to provide the number of staff and proportion of those employed by a third party to work indirectly by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). This information is partially held centrally and to collate all of this information as a whole would incur disproportionate costs.

    However figures that are held on the MoJ central systems on staff directly employed by the MoJ and its agencies from 2008 to 2014 on (i) short term and (ii) zero hour contracts can be found in the tables below.

    MoJ Staff with Fixed Term Contracts (SFTC) of 12 months or less as per the Office on National Statistics definition can be found below.

    SFTC

    % of SFTC Workforce in MoJ

    31-Mar-08

    2,087

    3%

    31-Mar-09

    1,489

    2%

    31-Mar-10

    1,305

    2%

    31-Mar-11

    1,025

    1%

    31-Mar-12

    409

    1%

    31-Mar-13

    1,372

    2%

    31-Mar-14

    637

    1%

    MoJ Staff recorded as having no fixed hours of employment i.e. zero hour’s contracts.

    Staff on Zero Hours contract

    % of ‘Zero hour’ Workforce

    31-Mar-08

    158

    0.25%

    31-Mar-09

    208

    0.29%

    31-Mar-10

    188

    0.26%

    31-Mar-11

    204

    0.26%

    31-Mar-12

    158

    0.21%

    31-Mar-13

    133

    0.17%

    31-Mar-14

    123

    0.16%

    The percentage of MoJ staff on zero hour contracts has been decreasing since 2009.

  • Gavin Williamson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Gavin Williamson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Williamson on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what action he is taking to ensure that incidents of assault against prison staff are being effectively investigated.

    Jeremy Wright

    The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) takes assaults on prison staff very seriously. There are systems in place to deal with perpetrators quickly and robustly, with serious incidents referred to the police for prosecution.

    Prisoners engaging in violent behaviour will be subject to an immediate review of their Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) level. There is a strong presumption that such incidents will lead to an immediate downgrade to Basic level unless there are exceptional circumstances.

    Assaults on staff in prison are a particularly serious matter given the need for staff to be able to maintain control and order in what can be a volatile environment. NOMS is working closely with the police and CPS to develop a new joint protocol for the management, reporting and prosecution of crime in prisons. Part of this work will involve the development of more effective measures to enable successful prosecution of prisoners who assault NOMS staff.

    NOMS is committed to exploring options to continue to improve how violence is managed in prisons to keep both staff and prisoners safe. It is currently reviewing the policy and practice of the management of violence.

    Prison Service Instructions set-out the range of options available to Governors to investigate serious assaults. The Governor must ensure that an appropriate level of investigation is commissioned. They must also ensure that any lessons are learned from the incident and disseminated appropriately, those harmed are supported and perpetrators of harm are sanctioned.

  • Gavin Williamson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Gavin Williamson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Williamson on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that the perpetrators of assaults against prison staff are appropriately punished.

    Jeremy Wright

    The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) takes assaults on prison staff very seriously. There are systems in place to deal with perpetrators quickly and robustly, with serious incidents referred to the police for prosecution.

    Prisoners engaging in violent behaviour will be subject to an immediate review of their Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) level. There is a strong presumption that such incidents will lead to an immediate downgrade to Basic level unless there are exceptional circumstances.

    Assaults on staff in prison are a particularly serious matter given the need for staff to be able to maintain control and order in what can be a volatile environment. NOMS is working closely with the police and CPS to develop a new joint protocol for the management, reporting and prosecution of crime in prisons. Part of this work will involve the development of more effective measures to enable successful prosecution of prisoners who assault NOMS staff.

    NOMS is committed to exploring options to continue to improve how violence is managed in prisons to keep both staff and prisoners safe. It is currently reviewing the policy and practice of the management of violence.

    Prison Service Instructions set-out the range of options available to Governors to investigate serious assaults. The Governor must ensure that an appropriate level of investigation is commissioned. They must also ensure that any lessons are learned from the incident and disseminated appropriately, those harmed are supported and perpetrators of harm are sanctioned.

  • 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 much former employees of probation trusts have received in severance pay 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 much has been spent on non-disclosure or compromise agreements for former employees of probation trusts since 1 January 2014.

    Jeremy Wright

    There have been no non-disclosure or compromise agreements included as part of the departure packages of the Trust Chief Executives who have taken early retirement. The terms of departure for other former Trust staff were agreed through their own local arrangements.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.