Download Free Government Response To The Justice Committees Second Report Of Session 2012 13 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Government Response To The Justice Committees Second Report Of Session 2012 13 and write the review.

Dated October 2012. Response to HC 97-I (ISBN 9780215047557)
In this response to the Justice Committee following their inquiry into female offenders, the Ministry of Justice sets out plans to establish an open unit at HMP Styal and test this approach, set up community employment regimes across the estate to improve more women's access to jobs for their release, and create strategic hubs in order to improve closeness to home in certain regions. In addition to this, for the first time, all women will receive support through-the-gate and 12 months supervision on release as part of the Transforming rehabilitation reforms. NOMS' Stocktake of Community Services for Female Offenders shows that the spread and availability of community services specifically for women has been increasing. This sets the groundwork for the expansion of community support to women on release from short-sentences in 2014 and beyond. Efforts to divert women from custody where it is appropriate to do so also continue. The Ministry is also introducing legislation through the Offender Rehabilitation Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State enters into contracts with probation providers that identify and consider the particular needs of female offenders. To this end guidance is being issued so that probation providers fully understand the particular needs of female offenders and how to meet those needs.
Select Committees have undertaken pre-appointment hearings since 2007. These have a fourfold purpose: Scrutiny of the quality of ministerial decision making; Providing public reassurance that those appointed to key public offices are selected on merit; Enhancing the appointee's legitimacy in undertaking their function; Providing public evidence of the candidate's independence of mind. A report by the Liaison Committee a year ago (HC 1230, session 2010-12, ISBN 9780215561244) reviewed the process and, drawing on research by the UCL Constitution Unit and the Institute for Government, made several recommendations to strengthen the accountability of ministerial appointments. The Government has rejected this proposed approach, stating only that it "has considered [it]... with interest.." It also fails to take up the Committee's recommendation that political appointments such as the UK's EU Commissioner, or Ambassadors or High Commissioners appointed from outside the career diplomatic service should be subject to pre appointment scrutiny. The June 2012 Cabinet Office guidance has been issued without any further reference to the committee and its recommendations, and the Committee's own draft guidance is more or less ignored.
Following the deaths of six female inmates, the UK Home Office commissioned the 2007 Corston Report, a parliamentary investigation into the state of vulnerable women in the British criminal justice system. This insightful book explores developments since the report's publication, revealing that while some of its recommendations were accepted by government, actual policy has restricted the scale and scope of change. Investigating a broad range of services for women offenders, contributors consider the question of whether women should be treated differently in the criminal justice system and offer possible future policy directions drawn from the Coalition Government's 2013 Transforming Rehabilitation agenda. This timely analysis will be an important resource for policy makers, service providers, and practitioners alike.
Written evidence is contained in Volume 2, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/justicecttee
The processes and procedures that are specified within the EU proposals to update data protection laws do not allow for flexibility or discretion for businesses or other organisations which hold personal data, or for data protection authorities. The proposals should focus on those elements that are required to achieve the Commission's objectives, whilst compliance should be entrusted to Member States' data protection authorities. These instruments would give EU citizens new data protection rights as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Lisbon Treaty. Despite its criticisms, the Committee welcomes the potential benefits that an updated law could bring. For individuals, their rights would be strengthened, and in particular the new framework would guard against some of the more unwelcome and often criticised aspects of digital data processing. From a business perspective, the benefits would mainly accrue through the effective harmonisation of laws. Whilst the draft Regulation would cover general data protection, the draft Directive is specifically concerned with data protection for law enforcement purposes. The Committee been told that the draft Directive does not apply to domestic processing by law enforcement agencies within the UK. This needs to be placed beyond doubt. Additionally, it needs to be made clear that the Directive must not impact on the ability of the police to use common law powers to pass on information in the interests of crime prevention and public protection
The Government has struck a reasonable balance in the way it is planning to exercise its right to opt-out of pre-Lisbon Treaty EU policing and criminal justice measures, but the way it has engaged Parliament in the decision-making process has been badly handled and 'cavalier'. The Government left the Commons select committees far too little time to assess the reasons for their decisions on EU justice opt-ins, and did not provide the full impact assessment which was needed. The Committee agrees with the Government's plans to seek to opt back into seven of the sixteen measures, and not to opt into a number of others. The Committee also raises questions about the Government's intention not to opt back into two specific instruments, the Probation Measures Framework Decision and the Framework Decision on the settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction. The Committee also calls on the Government to provide an assessment of the effect of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union over the measures covered by the opt-out. The Committee also agrees with the Government's proposal to seek to rejoin decisions on data protection in policing and criminal justice, and on a data protection secretariat, but says that the arguments are more finely balanced in relation to the Framework Decision on settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction
Public authorities have a duty to ensure looked after children are not at greater risk of being drawn into the criminal justice system than other children. The relevant authorities must continue to support looked after children and care leavers when they are in, and when they leave, custody. The substantial decrease since 2006/07 in the number of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time is welcomed but looked after children have not benefited from this shift to the same extent as other children. The Youth Justice Board has done excellent work to halve the youth custodial population over the past decade but continues to spend £246 million a year detaining a small fraction of young offenders. Recommendations include: a statutory threshold to enshrine in legislation the principle that only the most serious and prolific young offenders should be placed in custody; devolving the custody budget to enable local authorities to invest in effective alternatives to custody; and more action to reduce the number of young people who breach the terms of their community sentences and the number of young black men in custody. The aim of improving the basic literacy of offenders, as outlined in the Transforming Youth Custody consultation paper is endorsed, but is it most useful to focus resources on the secure estate, given that the average length of stay is currently 79 days? The greater focus should be on improving transition between custody and the community, and on improving provision in the community and incentivising schools and colleges to take back difficult students.
Additional written evidence is contained in Volume 2, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/justicecttee