Blog

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-31.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effect of a smoking ban in prisons on the number of incidents of violence relating to cigarettes.

Jeremy Wright

The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) support the desirability of attaining a smoke free prison estate in the future and continue to work towards this objective. However, the timing of that implementation will take account of the operational realities of running safe, decent and secure prisons and in particular the impact any smoking ban may have on the general safety of staff and prisoners. Therefore the decision on timing to move to smoke free prisons will reflect an operational assessment of risk, which will include an assessment of potentially adverse impact on prisoner behaviour and how this risk can be minimised and effectively managed. This assessment is ongoing and the risks are being carefully considered to ensure effective plans and support are in place before introducing smoke free prisons.

The work by NOMS on moving to a smoke free prison estate will continue to be informed by the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies in Nottingham University; by further assessments of air quality in prisons; and by the work with Public Health England and expertise from the New Zealand prison service which has introduced smoke free prisons.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-31.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2014, Official Report, column 95W, on non-molestation orders, what the figure for previous convictions or cautions is for (a) male and (b) female offenders.

Jeremy Wright

Male offenders receiving their first immediate custodial sentence for the criminal offence of breaching a non-molestation order in the 12 months ending September 2013 had received, on average, less than 1 (0.5) previous convictions or cautions for the same offence.

In the 12 months ending September 2013, 9 females received their first immediate custodial sentence for breach of non-molestation order, of which 6 had no previous, 1 had 1 previous and 2 had 2 or more previous convictions or cautions for the same offence. Averages have not been provided for female offenders breaching a non-molestation order as the number of females is too small to provide a reliable estimate.

It is important to note that these figures are based only on those offences recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) by an English or Welsh police force, including the British Transport Police. This database holds details of all convictions or cautions for breaching a non-molestation order since their introduction as a criminal offence in July 2007.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-31.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences were committed by prisoners serving their sentences in open prisons.

Jeremy Wright

Open prisons have been used since 1936, because they are the most effective means of ensuring that prisoners are suitably risk-assessed before they are released into the community under appropriate licence conditions. These prisons also provide effective supervision for prisoners who do not require the security conditions of the closed estate, because they have been assessed as having a low risk of harm to the public and a low risk of absconding by the independent Parole Board and/or NOMS.

Indeterminate sentence prisoners located in open conditions have been rigorously risk assessed and categorised as being of a low enough risk to the public to warrant their placement in an open prison. They will have previously spent time in prisons with higher levels of security, before being transferred to open conditions if recommended by the Parole Board – or directed through NOMS.

The main purpose of open conditions is to test prisoners in conditions more similar to those that they will face in the community. Time spent in open prisons affords prisoners the opportunity to find work, re-establish family ties, reintegrate into the community and ensure housing needs are met. For many prisoners, in particular those, such as ISPs who have spent a considerable amount of time in custody; these are essential components for successful reintegration in the community and therefore an important factor in protecting the public. To release these prisoners directly from a closed prison without the resettlement benefits of the open estate would undoubtedly lead to higher levels of post-release re-offending. The reoffending rates for those released from open prisons are low when compared to all prisoners released from custody in England & Wales.

The requested information is provided in the table below.

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.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-31.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners who are in open prisons are serving (a) a life sentence and (b) an indeterminate sentence for public protection.

Jeremy Wright

Depending on the length of tariff and the risk they pose, indeterminate sentenced prisoners (ISPs – both those serving life and Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences) move through their sentence via a series of progressive transfers into lower security establishments in the closed estate and then usually into open conditions. The purpose of any placement in open conditions is for such prisoners’ risks to be tested in less stringent conditions in order to inform the Parole Board’s consideration as to whether it is safe to release them into the community. It is also is an important part of the offender’s rehabilitation. The decision to transfer ISPs to open conditions is a categorisation decision which is a matter for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may take this decision after seeking advice from the Parole Board or executively where the prisoners may demonstrate exceptional progress.

However, there is nothing automatic about progress from open conditions to eventual release. Rather, the period in open prison will serve as an important time to test the prisoner and will help inform the Parole Board’s decision whether the offenders risk is such that it may be safely managed in the community.

For many prisoners, in particular those such as ISPs who have spent a considerable amount of time in custody; these are essential components for successful reintegration in the community and therefore an important factor in protecting the public. To release these prisoners directly from a closed prison without the resettlement benefits of the open estate would undoubtedly lead to higher levels of post-release re-offending.

The main purpose of open conditions is to test prisoners in conditions more similar to those that they will face in the community. It also enables them to develop their plans for eventual release. Time spent in open prisons affords prisoners the opportunity to find work, re-establish family ties, reintegrate into the community and ensure housing needs are met. Open prisons are the most effective means of ensuring that prisoners are subject to testing, with appropriate risk assessment to ensure the protection of the public, before they are released into the community. Once tariff has expired, an ISP’s continued detention is justified only so long as it is necessary for the protection of the public.

Public protection is the priority and the Board will take into account a range of factors when assessing whether an offender’s risk is reduced sufficiently, in order that they can be managed in open conditions or on licence in the community. These might include the completion of offence related courses, a sustained period of good custodial behaviour, access to appropriate and stable accommodation, access to education, training and employment, and support from professionals as well as family and friends. The Parole Board would not recommend a prisoner’s transfer to open conditions unless they considered it safe to do so. Prisoners located in open prison conditions have been rigorously risk assessed and categorised as being of a low enough risk to the public to warrant their placement in an open prison.

The requested information is provided in the table attached.

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.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Davies on 2014-03-31.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisons have recycling units run by (a) prisoners and (b) outside contractors.

Jeremy Wright

There are currently 108 prisons that have recycling units. Of the 95 recycling units operated by public sector prisons, three of them are supervised by private contractors. 13 private sector prisons also have recycling units, many of these units employ prisoners.