Written questions and answers

Written questions allow Members of Parliament to ask government ministers for information on the work, policy and activities of government departments.

Historical written answers can be found in Hansard.

Find the latest written questions and answers for the 2017-19 session below. We welcome your feedback on this service.

Show
by:
Find by:
Close

UIN

Unique Identifying Number – Every written question in the House of Commons has a UIN per Parliament. In the House of Lords each written questions has a UIN per parliamentary session.
Showing 81-100 out of 3736
Results per page
Results per page 20 | 50 | 100
Expand all answers
Print selected
Q
Asked by Earl Attlee
Asked on: 06 June 2019
Department for Transport
Driving under Influence
Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government for what reason the drink drive limit in England and Wales was set at 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood; and what scientific studies, if any, were the basis for determining that limit.
A
Answered on: 13 June 2019

The Road Safety Act 1967 made it an offence to drive a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and obliged drivers to submit to a screening, breathalyser test at the roadside in certain circumstances.

In 1966 Professor Allsop published a paper “Alcohol and Road Accidents” which stated that earlier research by Professor Borkenstein in 1964 showed that with “blood alcohol levels above 80 mg/100 ml, the risk of being involved in an accident is higher”.

Professor Allsop’s report provided the basis for setting the drink drive limit in 1967.

Q
(Leeds East)
Asked on: 10 June 2019
Ministry of Justice
Prisoners' Release: Education
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the availability of courses for prisoners to demonstrate safety for release.
A
Answered by: Robert Buckland
Answered on: 13 June 2019

A wide range of accredited programmes are available for prisoners to attend where they are identified as suitable. Referrals for courses and volumes delivered are kept under review and suitability for any accredited programmes will be considered as part of a prisoner’s wider sentence plan. We always try to ensure that courses are available to prisoners at a suitable time in their sentence. In particular, we prioritise indeterminate sentence prisoners for courses to ensure that Parole Board recommendations can be implemented as soon as practicable. However, the completion of accredited programmes is not a mandatory requirement to secure release.

It is for the independent Parole Board to review the detention of parole eligible prisoners. The Board will direct the release of these prisoners only if it is satisfied that the levels of risk posed to the general public are reduced enough that the National Probation Service and its partner agencies can safely manage them in the community under supervision. Prisoners are managed using a sentence plan which contains interventions that have been identified to help them to address the risks that they pose. Management of the sentence plan is a matter for HMPPS and not the Parole Board. The Parole Board will consider how interventions identified by HMPPS, and undertaken by prisoners, have impacted on the levels of risk posed by individuals.

Information relating to Parole Board recommendations is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.

While HMPPS is focused on giving all prisoners opportunities to progress towards release, public protection must remain our priority.

Grouped Questions: 262421
Q
(Leeds East)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 10 June 2019
Ministry of Justice
Prisoners: Education
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data his Department holds on the (a) number and (b) type of parole board recommendations for courses to be undertaken by prisoners.
A
Answered by: Robert Buckland
Answered on: 13 June 2019

A wide range of accredited programmes are available for prisoners to attend where they are identified as suitable. Referrals for courses and volumes delivered are kept under review and suitability for any accredited programmes will be considered as part of a prisoner’s wider sentence plan. We always try to ensure that courses are available to prisoners at a suitable time in their sentence. In particular, we prioritise indeterminate sentence prisoners for courses to ensure that Parole Board recommendations can be implemented as soon as practicable. However, the completion of accredited programmes is not a mandatory requirement to secure release.

It is for the independent Parole Board to review the detention of parole eligible prisoners. The Board will direct the release of these prisoners only if it is satisfied that the levels of risk posed to the general public are reduced enough that the National Probation Service and its partner agencies can safely manage them in the community under supervision. Prisoners are managed using a sentence plan which contains interventions that have been identified to help them to address the risks that they pose. Management of the sentence plan is a matter for HMPPS and not the Parole Board. The Parole Board will consider how interventions identified by HMPPS, and undertaken by prisoners, have impacted on the levels of risk posed by individuals.

Information relating to Parole Board recommendations is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.

While HMPPS is focused on giving all prisoners opportunities to progress towards release, public protection must remain our priority.

Grouped Questions: 262419
Q
(Leeds East)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 10 June 2019
Ministry of Justice
Prisoners: Education
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what criteria his Department uses to assess the suitability for courses for prisoners.
A
Answered by: Robert Buckland
Answered on: 13 June 2019

Every prisoner is subject to rigorous assessment on reception which informs a Personal Learning Plan. This plan is linked to prisoners' sentence plans and helps ensure provision is suitable to address needs. Prison Governors will then be held to account for the progress of each prisoners' in their establishment against that Personal Learning Plan as they progress through their sentence including transition to support through the gate and on release.

Responsibility for education provision in prisons is held by Governors. They control the budget, decide the curriculum, and have helped to choose the main providers. In addition, our prison education Dynamic Purchasing System allows governors to commission specific, short-term education provision to meet specialised learning needs. Governors will also need to be aware of the development needs of their population and commission suitable provision that is linked to local employment needs. This will help prisoners to take full advantage of employment opportunities on release.

Q
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 10 June 2019
Department for Transport
Driving: Licensing
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many anonymous fitness to drive complaints were received in 2018; and how many of those complains were investigated.
A
Answered by: Michael Ellis
Answered on: 13 June 2019

The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost. It would require the interrogation of all driving licence medical case records initiated in 2018 to determine whether a notification was made anonymously about a driver’s fitness to drive and how many of those complaints were investigated.

Q
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 10 June 2019
Department for Transport
Driving: Licensing
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many drivers were sent for assessment following anonymous fitness to drive complaints, and what the outcomes of those assessments were in 2018.
A
Answered by: Michael Ellis
Answered on: 13 June 2019

The information requested can only be provided at a disproportionate cost. It would require the interrogation of all driving licence medical case records initiated in 2018 to determine which drivers were sent for an assessment following an anonymous complaint, and what the outcome of those assessments were.

Q
Asked by John Spellar
(Warley)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 10 June 2019
Home Office
Immigration: Biometrics
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 4 June 2017 to Question 257442 on Biometrics: Applications, what the timeframe is for (a) reviewing SSL's performance against its key performance indicators and (b) reporting that performance.
A
Answered by: Caroline Nokes
Answered on: 13 June 2019

UKVI regularly monitor Sopra Steria Limited’s (SSL) performance against set Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).Sopra Steria are required, under the contract, to report on their performance on a monthly basis. These performance reports are reviewed by UKVI and form the basis of monthly performance conversations between the two parties. The information within the reports is used to drive improvements to service standards in line with contractual requirements.
.
SSL’s performance against these KPIs is commercially sensitive and therefore we are unable to disclose any detailed information.

Q
(Leeds East)
Asked on: 13 June 2019
Ministry of Justice
Prisons: Education
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 8 May 2019 to Question 248729, if he will place in the Library a copy of the joint action plan for improving progression of prisoners serving sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection.
Q
(Leeds East)
Asked on: 13 June 2019
Ministry of Justice
Prisoners: Education
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 8 May 2019 to Question 248729, what additional resources his Department has made available to improve progression of prisoners serving sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection.
Q
(Leeds East)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 08 May 2019
Ministry of Justice
Joseph McCann
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when the decision was taken to release Joseph McCann.
A
Corrected answer by: Robert Buckland
Corrected on: 12 June 2019
An error has been identified in the written answer given on 17 May 2019.
The correct answer should have been:

In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)

When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.

The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on 25 January 2018 15 February 2018. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.

A
Answered by: Robert Buckland
Answered on: 17 May 2019

In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)

When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.

The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on 25 January 2018 15 February 2018. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.

Q
(Leeds East)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 08 May 2019
Ministry of Justice
Joseph McCann
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, who took the decision not to refer the question of Joseph McCann's release to the Parole Board.
A
Corrected answer by: Robert Buckland
Corrected on: 12 June 2019
An error has been identified in the written answer given on 17 May 2019.
The correct answer should have been:

In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)

When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.

The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on 25 January 2018 15 February 2018. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.

A
Answered by: Robert Buckland
Answered on: 17 May 2019

In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)

When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.

The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on 25 January 2018 15 February 2018. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.

Q
(Leeds East)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 08 May 2019
Ministry of Justice
Joseph McCann
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the (a) scope, (b) timescale and (c) remit is of the urgent review into the reported mistaken release of Joseph McCann.
A
Corrected answer by: Robert Buckland
Corrected on: 12 June 2019
An error has been identified in the written answer given on 17 May 2019.
The correct answer should have been:

In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)

When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.

The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on 25 Jarnuary 2018 15 February 2018. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.

A
Answered by: Robert Buckland
Answered on: 17 May 2019

In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)

When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.

The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on 25 Jarnuary 2018 15 February 2018. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.

Q
(Leeds East)
Asked on: 08 May 2019
Ministry of Justice
Joseph McCann
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, on what date was his Department informed of the release from prison of Joseph McCann.
A
Corrected answer by: Robert Buckland
Corrected on: 12 June 2019
An error has been identified in the written answer given on 17 May 2019.
The correct answer should have been:

In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)

When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.

The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on 25 January 2018 15 February 2018. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.

A
Answered by: Robert Buckland
Answered on: 17 May 2019

In accordance with the sentence of the Court, Joseph McCann was released on 15 February 2019, after he had completed half (less time spent on remand) of a three-year determinate sentence for burglary imposed on 25 January 2018. On release, he was supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS)

When charged with that offence and remanded into custody on 21 August 2017, he was being supervised on licence by the NPS as part of the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) which he received on 26 September 2008. An offender on an IPP licence is not recalled automatically when he is charged with a further offence or offences. The probation officer will consider whether the alleged further offences, prior offending and the offender’s current behaviour show that his risk has escalated to the point where he needs to be recalled to protect the public. The decision on whether to recall an offender is to be based on a robust assessment of risk and to reflect the professional judgment of a trained probation officer.

The NPS has undertaken an urgent review to establish why Mr McCann was not recalled to custody, either when remanded into custody on 21 August 2017 or when he was sentenced on 25 January 2018 15 February 2018. Mr McCann has now been charged with a number of very serious offences committed on or after 21 April this year. This has triggered a mandatory serious further offence (SFO) review, under the Probation SFO Review Procedures. The SFO review will consider in greater depth than has thus far been possible, including by interviewing relevant members of staff, the question of whether Mr McCann should have been recalled to custody when charged with and subsequently convicted of the burglary offence. Typically, an SFO review is completed within three months of an offender being charged with an SFO.

Q
(Swansea East)
Asked on: 04 June 2019
Ministry of Justice
Custodial Treatment: Location
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people who started their custodial sentences in England and Wales in 2018 are in prisons which are over 30 miles from their previous address.
A
Answered by: Robert Buckland
Answered on: 12 June 2019

HMPPS is committed to ensuring, where practicable, that prisoners are accommodated as close as possible to their resettlement communities and families. Whilst this is a priority, it is not always possible due to a variety of factors including wider population pressures, or where individuals have specific sentence planning needs which can only be met at certain establishments. Closeness to home is particularly important for those on short sentences or nearing release, where they need to build family ties, secure housing and health services and look for work. These prisoners are prioritised for being held in prisons local to home. As at 31st March 2019, the number of sentenced prisoners who commenced their custodial sentence in 2018 and are located more than 30 miles from their origin location was 8,911. Around 97% of prisoners have an origin location, which is an address that is recorded in our central IT system. If no address is given, an offender’s committal court address, next-of-kin or discharge address is used as a proxy for the area in which they are resident. Those with no recorded origin are typically foreign nationals or those recently received into custody. No address has been recorded and no court information is available for around 3% of all offenders. These figures are excluded from the answer provided. For the purposes of this answer we have identified all prisoners that had commenced their custodial sentence in 2018. Prisoners held on remand, non-criminal prisoners and those that commenced their custodial sentence prior to 2018 (or since in 2019), have been excluded. Recalled prisoners that commenced their original sentence in 2018, and were released and subsequently recalled, and were held in custody on 31 March 2019 have been included. All data are based on the straight line travelling distance between each prisoners current location and their recorded origin location.

Q
(Swansea East)
Asked on: 04 June 2019
Ministry of Justice
Prisoners' Release: Homelessness
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many individuals serving custodial sentences were released homeless in 2018.
A
Answered by: Robert Buckland
Answered on: 12 June 2019

It is vital that everyone leaving prison has somewhere safe and secure to live. Having somewhere stable to live acts as a platform for ex-offenders to be able to access the services and support needed to turn their back on crime for good. In 2017/18, 2,690 prisoners were released to rough sleeping and 8,139 were released to other forms of homelessness, together accounting for 15.8% of the total number of releases (68,632).
Published statistics for 2017/18 showing the accommodation status for offenders released during this period can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-performance-quarterly-mi-update-to-march-2018

Statistics covering 2018/19 will be published on 25 July 2019. As part of the Government initiative to reduce and ultimately eliminate rough sleeping across England, we are investing up to £6.4 million over two years in a pilot scheme to help ex-offenders into accommodation from three prisons, namely Bristol, Pentonville and Leeds. The pilots will focus on male prisoners who have served shorter sentences, who have been identified as having a risk of homelessness. Contracts have now been awarded in the three areas and, following a mobilisation period, we expect services to commence in Summer of this year. This is a concrete step in our commitment to tackling rough sleeping.

Q
(Swansea East)
Asked on: 04 June 2019
Ministry of Justice
Courts: Location
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress his Department has made on finalising the location of the Problem Solving Courts across England and Wales.
A
Answered by: Edward Argar
Answered on: 12 June 2019

There are no plans to develop Problem Solving Courts in the criminal courts in England and Wales. Problem solving approaches are however being employed to address complex needs of offenders and resolve substance misuse/mental health problems in the community:

  • We are working with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, HM Prisons and Probation Service and Public Health England on a protocol to support the greater use of community sentences with treatment requirements in courts. The Community Sentence Treatment Requirement protocol is operating across five courts within England (as health is devolved in Wales). These sites are Milton Keynes, Northampton, Birmingham, Sefton and Plymouth.

  • The roll-out of NHS England’s Liaison and Diversion services also supports our efforts to intervene early for vulnerable offenders and divert them into services that address the underlying causes of offending. This service is currently operating across over 90% of England with full roll-out expected by 2020/21.

Problem-solving courts and initiatives are in use in family proceedings where families can get help to address their problems and reduce the likelihood of children being taken into care. Family, Drug and Alcohol Courts, which look to address substance misuse and related problems in the home, are operating in a number of local authority areas including London, Southampton, Coventry and Leeds. Family, Drug and Alcohol Courts and a number of other initiatives which are helping to keep families safely together have recently been given additional £15m funding from the Department for Education.

Q
(Hendon)
Asked on: 06 June 2019
Ministry of Justice
Knives: Crime
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many recorded knife crime offences were disposed of with a conviction in each of the last five years.
A
Answered by: Paul Maynard
Answered on: 12 June 2019

This information is not collated centrally.

We cannot determine from the data we hold on prosecutions whether offences, such as assault and murder, involved a weapon. However, data on offenders who are convicted or cautioned for the possession of a knife or threatening with a knife can be found online at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/knife-possession-sentencing-quarterly

Q
Asked by Patrick Grady
(Glasgow North)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 07 June 2019
Department for Transport
Driving: Medical Examinations
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many D4 medical examination reports have been completed during (a) each of the five years prior to December 2014 and (b) each year since December 2014.
A
Answered by: Michael Ellis
Answered on: 12 June 2019

As not all applications need to be supported by a D4 medical examination report, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency does not hold the information requested.

The table below shows the number of applications processed from applicants for entitlement to drive lorries and buses. However, examples of group 2 licence applications that do not include a D4 medical examination report, include but are not limited to, the renewal of a driving licence before the age of 45 and when adding an additional driving entitlement within 12 months of submitting a D4 (e.g. adding a bus provisional when holding HGV entitlement).

Year

Group 2 licence applications

2009

245,486

2010

230,129

2011

244,482

2012

259,966

2013

256,248

2014

263,535

2015

282,751

2016

288,654

2017

289,202

2018

389,741

2019 (until the end of May)

175,221

Q
Asked by Patrick Grady
(Glasgow North)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 07 June 2019
Department for Transport
Driving: Medical Examinations
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many D4 medical examination applications have been refused during (a) each of the five years prior to December 2014 and (b) each year since December 2014.
A
Answered by: Michael Ellis
Answered on: 12 June 2019

The table below shows the number of lorry or bus driving licence applications that have been refused or revoked for medical reasons over the last 10 years. However, not all these applications will have been supported by a D4 medical examination report.

Year

Group 2 licence applications

2009

Not held

2010

4,583

2011

5,539

2012

6,122

2013

7,464

2014

7,494

2015

8,095

2016

10,665

2017

11,213

2018

12,242

2019 (until the end of May)

4,639

Q
Asked by Patrick Grady
(Glasgow North)
[N]
Close

Named Day

'Named day' questions only occur in the House of Commons. The MP tabling the question specifies the date on which they should receive an answer. MPs may not table more than five named day questions on a single day.

Asked on: 07 June 2019
Department for Transport
Driving: Medical Examinations
Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many DVLA centres are licensed to complete D4 medical examination reports.
A
Answered by: Michael Ellis
Answered on: 12 June 2019

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) does not license centres or doctors to complete D4 medical examination reports. The D4 medical examination and report must be conducted by a qualified medical practitioner who is registered with the General Medical Council and licensed to practice in the UK, or registered within the EU (if the form is completed outside the UK). The examining practitioner must carry out the examination in accordance with requirements outlined in DVLA guidance.

Expand all answers
Print selected
Showing 81-100 out of 3736
Results per page
Results per page 20 | 50 | 100