Monday 20th March 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberPrisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 Read Hansard Text
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Prisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill makes the most significant changes to the Prison Act 1952 since it was passed 65 years ago. For the first time, it will be clear that the Government are not just responsible for housing prisoners; it will also be clear that a key purpose of prisons is to reform prisoners and prepare them for their return to the community. That means getting prisoners off drugs, into work and improving their education while they are in prison. Together with greater powers for governors, performance tables and sharper inspections, more people will leave prison reformed, and this will cut the £15 billion cost to society of reoffending that we all face every year.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I understand that people quite often want to be angry at prisoners and say that it is all their own fault, but a large proportion of people in prison have suffered major brain traumas through fights or various other means. The support available in the wider community through the health service can fully rehabilitate them and bring them back into society, but the support in prison is still very weak. Will the Government be doing more to tackle that?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that many people in prison suffer from serious issues such as the ones he mentioned. Therefore, we are going to give prison governors co-commissioning powers over health services in their prisons so that they can design them around the needs of those offenders, helping them to get the treatment that they need to live a lawful life once they leave prison.
The Bill will usher in a new era for our courts, modernising a process that remains fundamentally unchanged from the Victoria era. Our reforms, in this Bill and wider, create a system that is fit for the 21st century, providing better protection for vulnerable victims and witnesses, improving access to justice for ordinary working people, who will be able to access the courts in a much simpler and more efficient way, and promoting our reputation for global legal excellence and as the best place to do business.
Elizabeth Truss
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before I talk through the detail of the Bill.
Ian Paisley
I welcome the access to justice proposals in the Bill. I urge the Secretary of State to discuss with the devolved Administrations, particularly Northern Ireland—when we hopefully get a Government up and running again there—rolling out the process there so that Northern Ireland can share in the expertise and expense of the system that she has put in place?
Elizabeth Truss
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has had a demonstration of our system, and I look forward to discussing with him further how we can share best practice.
Prisons rightly punish those who break the law, but they should be a place of safety and reform where prisoners can turn their lives around to then lead a lawful life outside prison. Sadly, that is not the case at the moment. The levels of violence in our prisons are too high, as last week’s shocking attack on the young officer at Oakhill shows. I am sure that the thoughts of all those in this House are with him and his family at this very difficult time.
We have worrying levels of self-harm and deaths in custody. The “Prison Safety and Reform” White Paper, which I launched in November, set out a clear plan, combining immediate action to increase staffing levels and track drugs, drones and phones with radical reforms to get offenders off drugs, into work and away from crime for good.
Several hon. Members rose—
Elizabeth Truss
I will take some interventions in a minute, once I have made a bit of progress.
While there is much we can do and are doing operationally, part 1 of the Bill addresses areas that require primary legislation. First, the Bill enshrines in law the purpose of prison. It sets out that prisons must aim to do four things. First, they must protect the public. Holding prisoners securely is a core job of prisons —protecting the public from the risk that offenders pose. Prisons must do all they can to prevent security failures.
Secondly, prisons must reform and rehabilitate offenders. They must give them the opportunities to allow them to turn their back on crime. That means tackling drug and alcohol addiction; tackling mental health issues; and giving offenders opportunities to work and get training and apprenticeships while they are in prison, to improve their English and maths, and to maintain their family ties.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I say how much I welcome this Bill, which seems to me to be going in exactly the right direction in terms of reforming prisons? However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that, ultimately, the ability to deliver these programmes will be intimately dependent on reducing prison overcrowding, because without that, as we have seen on many occasions, the programmes, however good, founder as the prisons come under strain. Will she keep that in mind, and is there anything she can tell the House in the course of Second Reading about the strategy she might have in mind to try to address that issue?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. We have held the prison population stable for the last six years, and there are some areas, such as sex offences, where we have seen sentences rise, and I think that that is right, because those are serious crimes and they were not receiving the level of punishment that we would expect. However, as I have said before—I made this point in a speech a few weeks ago—there is more we can do to prevent people from committing crimes that lead to custody, by tackling issues earlier on, whether that is drug addiction, alcohol misuse or not being in education or training. I look forward to saying more about that in due course.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Nobody will disagree with the statements the Lord Chancellor has made in relation to clause 1, because they are sensible and sound, but she must recognise that the indicators on self-harm, assaults and everything else are rising, and that there are 6,500 fewer officers than there were seven years ago. Can she tell us how many officers she has recruited to date, how many she expects to recruit and how she can keep a prison population that is at the level it was in 2010 with fewer officers?
Elizabeth Truss
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have a programme to recruit 2,500 additional officers across the estate. I can confirm that we started in 10 of the most challenging prisons. We have now successfully secured the complement of officers in those first 10 prisons, which we said we would do by the end of March. We now have a record number of officers—over 700—in training. I do not deny it is a challenging task to recruit those officers, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience as prisons Minister, it is vital that we do that, because it is only by having qualified and skilled officers that we will help to turn people’s lives around.
I am not just interested in numbers; I am also interested in the career prospects and additional training that we give officers. That is why we are putting in an additional 2,000 senior officer posts across the country. Those will pay upward of £30,000, and they will reward officers who have additional training in areas such as mental health. As the right hon. Gentleman realises, it takes time to recruit and train those officers, but I am absolutely determined to do that, because, alongside these reforms, it is trained officers who will make the difference in our prisons.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I think I can help my right hon. Friend with an idea. About 15% of the prison population are foreign prisoners, and prisoners from places such as Albania, Jamaica, Somalia and Nigeria make up about 20% of them. Surely we can have arrangements whereby those prisoners are sent back to their own, friendly countries—including Commonwealth countries. The Department for International Development might help with the arrangements in those countries.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am pleased to say that a record number of foreign offenders were sent back last year, but we are doing even more on this and making progress. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), is working very hard on it.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I too welcome the Bill, particularly the emphasis that is placed on the purpose of prison. My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the most successful young offender programmes is that run by National Grid. It has been going for many years, and National Grid now has 80 partner companies working with it. It has got the reoffending rate down from the average of way over 50% to 7%. In particular, some of its partner companies have been working really hard with Brixton prison in relation to release on temporary licence. Brixton has recently been removed from the ROTL regime, and that is causing some difficulty because there are no other prisons in London that satisfy the criteria. Will she look into that? Will she think about putting this into the Bill, because the ROTL scheme is really working for young offenders?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady was keen to prove that her intervention was not only erudite but comprehensive, and in that mission I think she has been successful.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my right hon. Friend for her point. She is absolutely right. Getting employers who want to employ people on the outside to train offenders on the inside will help to create the path into work that reduces reoffending. I have been to Brixton and seen the fantastic work that it is doing with offenders. The question she posed is already being addressed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because we want people to be able to get the experience in work that means that they can leave prison, get into a job, and lead a lawful life. We are also launching a strategy on employment to try to get more employers like National Grid, Timpson and Halfords, which already do fantastic work, to sign up to employing these ex-offenders, because that benefits all of us.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor has mentioned how important staffing is. The roll-out of a 1:6 ratio in public sector prisons is welcome, but I do not understand why it would not apply to private prisons, because they have to deal with the same sorts of challenges as those in our public sector.
Elizabeth Truss
I should clarify that it is a caseload of 1:6, which means that each officer will have responsibility for six offenders whereby they are in charge of making sure that those offenders are safe and encouraging them to reform while they are in prison. The head of the Prison Service, Michael Spurr, is in discussions with the private sector prisons to make sure that they have access to the same level of staffing. We want that to apply in both the private and the public sectors.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). The Lord Chancellor has set out this aspiration before, so could she now set out a timescale as to when the imbalance in ratios between the public and the private sectors will be corrected?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is on the same timescale as the public sector programme, so we will deliver it over the next year and a half.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for much of what she is doing in this Bill. Given that she takes great pains to stress the importance of mental health and its link with reoffending and the need to reduce self-harm and other issues in prisons, I am curious as to why one of the fundamental duties in clause 1 is not to promote and protect the mental health and wellbeing of prisoners.
Elizabeth Truss
I know my hon. Friend takes a very strong interest in this area. I assure him that the commissioning arrangements for governors will give them the power to specify mental health treatment in their own prisons. Governors have complained to me that, at the moment, mental health services are available only five days a week. That is an issue if somebody arrives in a prison at a weekend with serious mental health issues.
Governors will be able to co-commission those services. Under the categories of reforming and rehabilitating offenders, we have announced specific performance metrics, some of which will cover health issues. I issued a written ministerial statement recently containing the detail of that, and we will say more about it in due course. That is among the reform measures that we are putting in place, and it will be covered in the performance agreements that individual prisons have with me, as Secretary of State.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Askham Grange women’s prison in York has the lowest reoffending rate in the country, at 6%, but for two years the Government have been saying that they are going to close it. Will the Lord Chancellor look at that again and confirm that she will not close such an excellent prison?
Elizabeth Truss
I am certainly very happy to look at that issue. We will shortly launch a new strategy for women offenders, which will be about dealing better with underlying issues—whether that is substance abuse, or issues of abuse and domestic violence—to find a better solution and prevent women from committing the crimes that lead them into custody. We will launch that shortly, and I am sure we will cover the prison that the hon. Lady mentions.
The third priority and purpose of prisons that we lay out in the Bill is preparing prisoners for life outside prison. As has been mentioned, making sure that the offender has sustainable employment and a home to go to is vital in reducing reoffending.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
In my constituency, I have Kirkham prison, which has been a pioneer in leading a programme on jobs, friends and family; the former prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has met those involved. May I ask the Secretary of State, during proceedings on the Bill, to have a look at the programmes being run by Kirkham prison and see whether similar programmes can be incorporated elsewhere, because they really make a difference to people’s lives?
Elizabeth Truss
I would certainly be happy to see the details of that scheme. Family ties will be included in our performance measures and our empowerment of governors. Governors will be given control of their budget for helping prisoners with their family ties. We have had a report from Lord Farmer, and I am meeting him this week to discuss the matter further. In addition to having work and a home to go to, a supportive family can be a very important part of rehabilitation.
Governors need to look at all those things. I am setting out clear expectations of what prisons should be doing, but not how they should do it. I believe that it is up to the individual governor to look at what works for their area and what works for the people in their prisons, so it is important that they should be given the flexibility to deliver things in an innovative way. I will be very clear about the standards that we expect, but how governors deliver those standards will be increasingly down to them.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that if we are able to tackle the problems surrounding links with families—one of the key recommendations of Lord Farmer—that will, in itself, greatly reduce reoffending? Lord Farmer will show that 63% of the children of offenders grow up to offend. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we intervene early to ensure that that does not happen?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct on that point. Those children often feel as though they have done something wrong, and it is absolutely wrong for them to feel as though they are being punished for a crime that their parent has committed. I am determined that we will do what we can to protect innovative schemes such as Storybook Dads, which help to keep the link between children and their fathers and mothers while those individuals are in prison.
Finally, we need to maintain a safe and secure prison environment. Prisons need to feel safe for staff and prisoners. That means that as well as tackling violent incidents and creating the right kind of culture and atmosphere, we need to provide support to vulnerable prisoners. We also need to make sure that we have sufficient levels of staffing to provide that safety and security.
The Bill makes it clear how I, as the Secretary of State, will account to Parliament for progress in reforming offenders. This is the first time that legislation will make it clear that the Secretary of State is responsible for reforming offenders, and the Secretary of State—that is, me—will have to report to Parliament about what they do. That is a very important change in the culture of our prisons: for the first time, there will be accountability at Cabinet level not just for prisons being safe, which is of course important, and for providing enough prison places, but for turning around and reforming the lives of individuals under the care of the state, and ensuring that they leave prison with better prospects and more likely to lead a law-abiding life.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I have listened closely to this debate, which has largely been extremely consensual. The Lord Chancellor knows about HM Prison Berwyn in the Wrexham constituency—we have already discussed it—and that a great deal of common hope is invested in that institution. In Wrexham, we are hugely impressed by its staff, under the leadership of Russ Trent. To pick up on the point she is making, will she report back regularly on the progress at that prison? Many of the aspects of the philosophy we are talking about are being carried out there in practice, and it will be extremely important to measure that as time passes.
Elizabeth Truss
I am certainly very happy to report back on the progress at HMP Berwyn. We are looking at that progress, and we are learning the lessons across our prison estate.
Mrs Gillan
The Lord Chancellor is very generous in giving way to me twice. She will be aware that people with autism are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. Young Offender Institution Feltham was the first prison to have accreditation as autism-friendly, which it has found has reduced violence and helped people with mental health problems. I understand that 20 other prisons are currently going through the accreditation process. Will she give consideration to making sure that all establishments go through the accreditation process, because I believe it will deliver a safer environment in prisons for our officers and for those incarcerated?
Elizabeth Truss
I will certainly look at that. I know my right hon. Friend has a long record of standing up for people with autism and making sure they have proper support.
Elizabeth Truss
I want to finish this point, because I must move on to the courts section of the Bill, but I will give way.
Sir Edward Garnier
My right hon. Friend is very kind. The Bill says:
“The report must set out the extent to which prisons are meeting the purpose mentioned in section A1.”
What happens if a prison, or prisons generally, do not meet such a purpose? What will the Secretary of State do about it, what can she do about it, and what will happen if she does not do anything about it because prisoners are let out?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. and learned Friend, who served as the shadow prisons Minister, makes a very important point.
As well as creating a framework for the Minister, the Bill will set up a new Executive agency, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, from 1 April, to focus on the operational management of prisons and probation. We will have new standards, and performance measures will appear in performance tables so that the public can see, transparently and accountably, what is going on in prisons. At the moment, we do not know the employment rate for those coming out of a prison, how good a prison is at improving the English and maths of the people inside it, or how effective it is at getting them off drugs. Those measures will all be published, which will lead to much greater scrutiny and accountability for the public.
In addition, I am strengthening the powers of the prisons inspectorate. The inspectorate—the chief inspector, in particular—will be able to trigger an urgent response from the Secretary of State in the most serious cases. That means that if a prison is failing to meet the standards, the Secretary of State will have to respond within a specific timetable with an action plan to improve the prison. At the moment, that is not the case.
Elizabeth Truss
It will be enforceable through the inspectorate, which will be given specific powers to ensure that that happens.
The Bill will place the prisons and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing, giving him greater authority and statutory powers to investigate deaths in custody. The Bill supports our efforts to stop drug use and crime enabled by illegal mobile phones. It enables phone network operators to disrupt unlawful use of mobile phones in custody.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I just want to ask the Lord Chancellor, if she could answer very simply, who is accountable in the event of a prisoner’s escape?
Elizabeth Truss
The governor is accountable for what happens in their prison, but there is a line management structure through to the head of the Prison Service and, ultimately, the Secretary of State.
The Bill supports swifter responses to the devastating effect of psychoactive substances. There have been very serious cases on our prison estate. They fuel debt and violence and can have a serious impact on prisoners’ health. We rolled out new tests for psychoactive substances in September last year—we were the first jurisdiction in the world to do so. The Bill strengthens our ability to keep up with the speed at which substances evolve. It allows quicker testing for all newly identified psychoactive substances based on the generic definition of those substances set out in the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.
We face challenges in our prisons that will not be solved in weeks or months, but I am absolutely determined to turn the situation around. We now have the resources to do so: we are investing an additional £100 million a year and we have a clear plan. The measures in the Bill provide a structure under which accountability and scrutiny can take place, so we will be able to see how our prisons improve over time.
The Bill introduces major reforms to the court and justice system, which I announced in my joint memorandum with the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals in September. It will introduce more virtual and online hearings, put in place greater protection for victims and witnesses, and provide greater support for our excellent judges and magistrates.
I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the Lord Chief Justice, John Thomas, a great reformer who has spearheaded these reforms and who will retire later this year. I also want to thank the Senior President of Tribunals. Their vision for a courts and tribunals system that is just, proportionate and accessible lies at the very heart of the reforms set out in the Bill. The reforms are a tribute to their tireless work, alongside other senior members of the judiciary.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
On behalf of the Justice Committee, may I warmly associate myself with the Justice Secretary’s entirely appropriate comments on the Lord Chief Justice and the rest of the senior judiciary? Will she reflect on whether the Bill’s passage through the House may not provide an opportunity to revisit the retiring age of senior judiciary, which, at 70, runs against the behaviour of much of the rest of society and our economy?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for introducing this hotly debated issue into our discussion on the Bill. The measure is not a part of the Bill. I have had discussions on this issue with the senior judiciary. We should certainly consider it in due course, but at the moment there is no consensus.
Yesterday, we announced that we are bringing forward the roll-out of reforms to allow rape victims to pre-record their cross examination, sparing them the trauma of giving evidence during trial. This follows successful pilots of measures for child victims of all crimes. This will not reduce the right to a fair trial. During the pilots for vulnerable victims there was no significant change in the conviction rate, but we did see more early guilty pleas and fewer cracked trials. That means less stress and trauma for all of those participating in the case.
I want to praise the determined leadership of the president of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, and the senior presiding judge, Lord Justice Fulford. They have been vital in developing the plans for rolling out these provisions for child victims and victims of sexual offences in all Crown courts. Given that in some of our Crown courts, almost 50% of cases are sexual cases, this is a very important reform that will help us to support people who have to go through this terrible experience and to improve the situation for them.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
This is a very welcome announcement, but it will mean that more cases will have to be included in the roll-out of section 28, which is due to be completed by December 2017. The sexual assault referral centre in Manchester is currently a remote site, enabling cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses by video link to the court. Will the Secretary of State consider the use of existing remote sites such as St Mary’s for pre-recorded cross-examination of witnesses, which would help to prevent delays in the roll-out of section 28, which has been a fantastically successful pilot?
Elizabeth Truss
I am in principle in favour of using alternative venues, other than courts, which can be conducive to people giving the best possible evidence in a less intimidating environment. I would have to discuss that with the senior judiciary—we are working closely with them on this issue—but I am certainly in favour of using places such as sexual assault referral centres to make sure that we give the best possible support to victims and witnesses at a very difficult time for them.
The measures set out in the Bill will further enhance our ability to protect vulnerable witnesses and modernise the courts and tribunal system. Our changes to the system should be reflected in better legal support, but are focused on early help and representation. That is why we are bringing forward a legal support Green Paper in early 2018, setting out proposals to update the system of legal support in a modern court system. Put simply, what we want is less time spent navigating the system and more legal time spent on giving people legal advice and legal representation.
Parts 2 and 3 will take forward measures relating to procedures in civil, family and criminal matters, and the organisation and functions of courts and tribunals. I shall talk through each in turn.
Ian C. Lucas
One area that I am concerned about is representation in court in matrimonial proceedings, which can be some of the most difficult, emotional and contentious cases in our courts, yet very little legal representation is publicly funded. Is the Lord Chancellor content with the current situation, and which areas does she think need the most attention?
Elizabeth Truss
If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I am content with the current situation, no, I am not. We need to reform the family justice system. We need to help people to get an earlier resolution of their issues. We need to get better at helping families, and I am a big fan of the family, drugs and alcohol courts and the work that they do in supporting parents. That is why the Minister for Courts and Justice and I will bring forward a Green Paper on family justice that will look at the system in a holistic way to see how we can do things better within the family justice system. There are certainly areas where improvement needs to be made.
Banning the ability of alleged abusers to be able to cross-examine their victims in court is an important step. This was done in the Crown courts in the 1990s, and we are only now catching up with it in the family courts. It is very important to give family courts the priority in the system that they deserve, so that we can deal with these difficult issues in people’s lives as sensitively as possible.
This Bill will also make sure that victims and witnesses in the criminal courts receive the support they deserve. It will extend the use of video links from virtual hearings, which will have multiple benefits. First, it will allow victims to be eligible to take part in cases without having to meet their alleged attacker face to face. In future, about 180,000 victims and witnesses a year will be eligible to give evidence remotely from a convenient location or in advance of a hearing. The Bill will enable more bail hearings to take place through video link and away from the courtroom, saving time and money. It will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall process by allowing a number of decisions to be made outside the traditional courtroom, and it will save people time spent in travelling to court: it will save about 112,000 journeys from prisons to courts each year.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I support the thrust and intention of the Bill. Normally a victim is the first witness for the prosecution, but is there not a risk that the question that someone may wish to ask the witness will be changed by the evidence that precedes the giving of that evidence by the witness? We shall have to have a system to deal with that if a fair trial process is to be maintained.
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. and learned Friend has made the important point that a fair trial is at the heart of our justice system. We already have rules committees, and we are establishing a new online rules committee which will be managed by the judiciary. They will look at the issues in detail to ensure that a fair trial is always paramount.
The Bill will enable screens to be installed in courts across England and Wales to allow the public to observe virtual hearings from court buildings anywhere in the country. Lists of all open cases will be published online, and results will be made available digitally. That will ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.
The Bill will streamline the pre-trial process, and will make changes in the way in which cases are allocated in the Crown and magistrates courts. Defendants will be able to indicate a plea online in all cases, allowing the courts to make administrative decisions without the need for a hearing. We are also stripping out nearly 30,000 unnecessary first hearings for the most serious offences in the magistrates courts each year.
The Bill will abolish local justice areas, simplifying the structure of our magistrates courts and removing the bureaucracy and geographical constraints that cause inefficiencies and delays. It will allow those who are charged with some of the most straightforward, non-imprisonable offences to resolve their cases entirely online. For example, a commuter charged with failure to produce a ticket can log on to a website, have all the options clearly explained, and accept a conviction and pay a set penalty instantly online without waiting for a magistrate to process the case.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that a number of magistrates courts—including the court in Bedford—were closed in past years by the justices themselves, despite the best efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), whose hands were tied. Will these measures help to allay my constituents’ concern about the difficulties of additional travel in the case of some offences? Will the Bill give them some comfort by ensuring that the problems involved in having to go to Luton will be allayed?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. I represent a rural constituency, and I understand people’s concerns about having to travel far. Virtual hearings will enable people to do more online so that they do not need to travel to court, and to use virtual videos. That is already reducing travel needs throughout the country. If people want to observe a case in another part of the country, they will be able to go into their court to do so, with special permission. Victims and witnesses will have more access to the justice process.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Transferred online communications are wonderful if people have access to quality broadband, but communities in parts of my constituency have broadband that is as slow as 25% of capability. How on earth will people be able to gain access to justice when they cannot possibly do anything online because of appalling broadband?
Elizabeth Truss
We are doing a lot to improve broadband across the country. The online system is not mandatory; the paper process will be available. I have been looking recently at virtual hearings that are taking place across the country. In some areas, such as the south-west of England, there is very high take-up of these hearings, because being able to use broadband helps people in rural areas, who have long distances to travel to get to court.
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
Particularly in the west country.
Elizabeth Truss
The west country is leading the way at the moment, and we are looking at how we can encourage courts across the country to do the same thing.
I am very pleased to say that civil justice is at the forefront of our reforms. I was proud to announce the new business and property courts last week with the Lord Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the High Court. These courts are the vanguard of our world-class civil justice system, making sure that global Britain leads the world in law. They will be based in London, Leeds, Bristol, Manchester and Cardiff, and they represent the fact that our courts and commercial courts serve not only the City of London, which is of course important, but significant regional centres across the country.
Robert Neill
I promise that this intervention is uncontroversial. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as the integrity of the judiciary, one of the strengths of our commercial courts is the ability to enforce judgments worldwide, and that includes within the European Union? Does she therefore accept that it is most important that the ability to enforce the judgments of our courts in the EU remains a top priority in our Brexit negotiations?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is correct. As well as making sure that these commercial courts cover all the regions of our country, we need to make sure that there is mutual enforcement of judgments elsewhere. We have a commitment to do that as a Government; it is something that I have agreed with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and it is a priority for the Government’s negotiations.
This Bill introduces a new online court which will enable people to resolve civil claims of up to £25,000 simply and easily online. These online services will increase access to justice. It will reform procedures so that people can make witness statements rather than statutory declarations in relation to certain traffic and air quality offences in the county court. It means that people will not have to go into court to go through this process. The Bill will also streamline the use of “attachment of earnings” orders, giving the High Court the same power as the county court to make attachment of earnings orders in relation to judgment debts, and on the basis of a fixed deduction scheme.
We also want our excellent judiciary and magistrates to be better supported in the work they do. This Bill will allow judges in all our courts and tribunals to make greater and more effective use of authorised court staff, to assist them with tasks such as dealing with routine applications or ensuring compliance with court directions. This will allow our judiciary to prioritise their time and expertise on the matters where they are needed most.
The Bill will bring the legislative framework for the employment tribunal system into closer alignment with that of the wider tribunals system. It will confer responsibility for making procedural rules to the Tribunal Procedure Committee. Employment judges will be able to delegate routine tasks to appropriately trained or qualified staff. Overall, these reforms will benefit tribunal users, whose cases will be resolved more quickly and proportionately.
We have the most highly regarded judiciary in the world; they are a beacon of independence, expertise and commitment to the rule of law. The Lord Chief Justice and I are working closely together to make sure that we have the strongest possible role for judges and magistrates in a transformed and modern justice system. We are putting in place reforms that recognise magistrates as an integral part of this judicial family. The judiciary is an important part of our constitution and its continued independence is vital for the rule of law. We must continue to uphold the very high standards and to select its members purely on merit. That means ensuring that people want to apply, feel valued and have good working conditions. I value the work that the judiciary does, from the magistrates and tribunals to the High Court and the Supreme Court. As Lord Chancellor, I am determined to support them in all they do.
Part 4 takes forward measures to ensure that our judiciary have the support and opportunities they need for a fulfilling and successful career. This Bill will strengthen leadership structures in the judiciary, supporting our wider work to provide clear career progression for judges, and ensuring that the widest possible range of talent comes into our judiciary. It will make it easier for the judiciary to deploy judges more flexibly, allowing judges to gain experience of different types of cases and helping with their career progression. The Bill will also enable the Judicial Appointments Commission to assist with selection exercises in other parts of the world, sharing the leading expertise within the commission.
Part 5 tackles the rampant compensation culture that has developed around whiplash claims—
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Just before my right hon. Friend moves on, may I ask her a question about magistrates? She rightly values the work that they do, so when can we expect the Government to allow them to send people to prison for 12 months, rather than six? This Government have been promising to do that for quite some time.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his dogged support for magistrates; he is absolutely right about the fantastic work that they do. I am looking into this issue, and I would be happy to discuss it with him further.
Part 5 tackles the rampant compensation culture that has developed around whiplash claims. The number of road traffic accident personal injury claims is over 50% higher than it was 10 years ago, despite there being fewer accidents and safer cars on our roads. The Bill will enable us to introduce a transparent tariff system of fixed proportionate compensation for whiplash claims with an injury duration of up to two years, and to ensure that all claims will be supported by good quality medical evidence provided by accredited experts.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Should not the Lord Chancellor use the Bill to put in place a fairer and more balanced framework for calculating personal injury compensation lump sum insurance payments, following her seismic decision on the discount rate a few weeks ago? That decision has the potential to raise our constituents’ insurance premiums, and the Treasury has said that it could add £2 billion next year and £1 billion thereafter to NHS litigation costs, which will affect the taxpayer. Surely the Bill could introduce a better balance.
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not have to wait long for an answer to his question. I agree that the system is in need of reform, and I will bring forward a consultation before the Easter recess. I look forward to hearing his contribution to it.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House where the consultation’s tariff figures for whiplash came from? What evidence was there for the Government to put those figures in the consultation document?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we have changed the figures in response to the consultation document. Those were judged to be fair and reasonable for the level of injury that we are talking about in this case.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I strongly welcome the provisions in the Bill to clamp down on whiplash fraud. Will the Lord Chancellor consider widening very slightly the definition of “whiplash injury” in clause 61 to include injuries to the lower back as well as the upper back?
Elizabeth Truss
That issue was covered in the consultation, and we have brought it back after listening to what people fed through in the consultation. The Bill will end the unfairness of higher premiums for motorists while ensuring that fair compensation remains available for genuinely injured claimants.
The Prisons and Courts Bill will usher in a new, modern era for our prisons, courts and justice system. It will do three key things. It will ensure that our prisons are places of reform so that offenders have the skills they need to return to society, to secure employment and to turn their back on crime. It will create a courts and tribunal system that protects the most vulnerable and is more straightforward and accessible for all. It will also enable the judiciary to meet the demands of a modern justice system and enhance our reputation for legal excellence around the world. I commend the Bill to the House.
Sir Oliver Heald
The hon. Gentleman fails to mention that the policy was designed in part to increase the number of cases that are conciliated. Now, instead of 23,000 cases a year going to ACAS, 92,000 do and half of them are resolved, and of course it is free.
Richard Burgon
The coalition Government’s objective in introducing employment tribunal fees was to strengthen the hand of employers, including unscrupulous ones, and to weaken the hand of individual employees. That is what the policy was about and that is why it has worked from the Government’s perspective. The ACAS conciliation now offered as compulsory conciliation is not the same as the role of ACAS in the past when people issued an employment tribunal case. No professional advice is given on the value of the case. Just because a claim has not been issued or a matter has been discontinued does not mean that it has been resolved satisfactorily with both parties on an equal footing. To make it clear, Labour would abolish employment tribunal fees because Labour believes in access to justice.
Richard Burgon
More than implicit in the hon. Gentleman’s ill-considered comments is that allowing people to seek justice in the employment courts without paying money is a something-for-nothing practice. That is a disgraceful comment, which we look forward to publicising as widely as we can. The Government need to think again when it comes to employment tribunal fees.
Sir Oliver Heald
What is wrong with moving from a system where very many cases go to the employment tribunal to one where most cases are conciliated? It is a much easier way for people to get justice.
Richard Burgon
The problem is that the price that is being paid is that of access to justice, and that is unacceptable to the Labour party at least. Are the Government seriously contending that 70% of claims brought before 2013 were somehow fraudulent? If so, that is absolutely outrageous.
Mr Hanson
I agree, but we both know that such problems are not easy to solve. Central to today’s debate is the question of what we can do in the context of the Bill. As I have said, I would add the question of family links to the list given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham. I was prisons Minister for two years and one month. It is a difficult job, and it is difficult to change policy, but we have opportunities to consider these matters. I hope that the Minister will reflect on them in Committee, and will think about how clause 1 can be strengthened in order to achieve its objectives.
The Justice Committee welcomes the fact that clause 2 puts Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons on a statutory footing, and we consider the statutory recognition of the inspectorate’s role in visiting places of detention to be a positive development. We are pleased that the chief inspector of prisons will be required to have regard to the new statutory purposes of prisons. I am particularly glad that the Government will have to respond to the chief inspector’s recommendations within 28 days if the matter is urgent, or within 90 days in the case of a general inspection, and that there will be scrutiny of inspection powers. Clauses 4 to 20 put the prisons and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing, and we welcome that as well.
The Government accepted the Committee’s recommendation that the HMIP protocol should be finalised, and said that they would produce a final version before Second Reading. The Committee was consulted on the draft protocol in January, but as far as I know no final protocol has been agreed or published. I think it important for it to be published as soon as possible so that we can develop it accordingly. It was more than a year ago that we recommended a protocol on the relationship between the inspectorate and the Ministry, and we need to know what that relationship is.
Whiplash poses a challenge for the Minister and the Government. The Committee heard evidence from the Association of British Insurers and from the association of legal professionals who deal with whiplash cases. Because we have not been convinced by the Government’s case to date, we have established a follow-up inquiry—as the Minister is doubtless aware, it was announced last Friday—to call for evidence on whiplash. The terms of reference for our fuller inquiry include the definition of whiplash and the prevalence of road traffic accident-related whiplash claims, considering whether fraudulent whiplash claims stack up and whether the provisions in part 5 introduce an effective tariff to regulate damages for RTA-related whiplash claims. In particular, they include consideration of the impact of raising the small claims limit to £5,000 for RTA-related whiplash claims, and—this is not in the Bill, but it is directly linked to it—raising the small claims limit to £2,000 for personal injury claims more generally. They also include consideration of the role of claims management companies, which have not been touched on to date.
The challenge for the Minister, in Committee and on Report—and I hope that the Justice Committee will influence those debates—is to convince us that his policies, established on a cross-party basis with the Committee, will meet our objectives. The claims that the Government have made about savings being passed on to motorists and about the level of fraud in the system have not yet been tested to my satisfaction or that of the Justice Committee, which, it should be remembered, has a Conservative majority.
The Government’s consultation paper sets out no rationale for including employment injuries in what is billed as a reform of whiplash claims. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor last week, and was told that the employment injury aspects would be dealt with by a statutory instrument following completion of the whiplash measures in the Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald
The aspect of whiplash that is in the Bill is the tariff, along with the judge’s ability to enhance it by 20%. However, there is an entirely separate secondary legislation route whereby the small claims limit can be raised. It could be reduced, of course, but that is not happening in this instance.
Sir Oliver Heald
The point is that the small claims threshold is being raised to £5,000 for road traffic-whiplash related cases and to £2,000 for other cases.
Mr Hanson
I am fully aware of that. What the Minister needs to know is that the Justice Committee believes that there is still a tangential link between two matters, which is why it is considering the whiplash provisions in the Bill together with employment levels. We are very conscious that, as well as the potential examination of the Government’s case in regard to whiplash, there should be an examination of their case in regard to industrial and employment injuries. There are myriad cases—I have no time to list them now, but I shall do so on another occasion—in which industrial injury claims would be detrimentally impacted by the change in the limit, and while that is not directly in the Bill—
Mr Hanson
The Minister does not work in the same spheres that I work in; people in my constituency depend on that level of employment injury support to ensure that they get justice at work. We will return to that at a later stage. The Minister is looking quizzical; he will have an opportunity to come and explain his proposals and those on whiplash to the Justice Committee in due course.
The Bill’s direction of travel can and should be supported. However, the beef of this Bill is what really matters. There are measures that the Government can take to improve it, and to reduce the poor indicators that have been growing in disparity over the last few years, and not just in staffing. They should also consider issues such as those raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham and those that the Justice Committee asks the Government to look at again.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), an acknowledged expert on prison reform. What she said about HMP Parc was incredibly informative and moving, and I was really interested to hear what she said about Parc supporting families, as that could be rolled out in other prisons. I wish to declare an interest, as a former criminal barrister who both defended and prosecuted. I also wish to pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, my Norfolk neighbour, for the work she and her ministerial team have done in preparing for this Bill. They have been indefatigable in putting together a very impressive Bill, which appears, given what the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) said, to command a great deal of consensus.
On prisons, there obviously is a crisis, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members have alluded to it. I have a great deal of concern about it, because in the 12 months to December 2016 there were 25,000 prisoner assault incidents, which was a 31% increase on the previous year’s figure. Furthermore, there were 6,430 assaults on prison staff, of which 761 were serious. As we heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), there were 37,750 self-harm incidents, and 354 prisoners died while in custody, with only 55% of those deaths due to natural causes. There is obviously a crisis. Although the number of prisoners who test positive for drugs has come down, which is encouraging, there has been a big increase in the use of new psychoactive substances. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is introducing, through the Bill, measures to bring NPSs under the existing testing powers; that is sensible. I also welcome the measures on mobile telephony, because there are far too many illegal mobile phones in prisons.
I recently went round Wayland prison in Mid Norfolk, and I was struck by the number of prisoners who are getting access to Spice and other NPSs. They are having a devastating effect on the management of prisons. The death of a prisoner in HMP Forest Bank on 29 January from a Spice overdose was the 16th death throughout the prison estate in that month. One prisoner who was recently released from Forest Bank said that half the prison is on the stuff, and the other half spend their whole day trying to keep away from those prisoners who are on the stuff. We have a real problem.
When I visited a particular prison—I shall not say which one it is because I do not want to embarrass the governor—the governor said he was keen to create a drugs-free wing. I find the lack of ambition incredible. Our prisons should be drug-free; it is as simple as that. How are the drugs getting in? The prisoners do not bring in drugs and I do not believe that visitors do so. They are coming over the wire on drones and perhaps in supply vehicles, and I am sorry to say it, but there may well be a small number of corrupt prison officers. A significant amount of drugs, particularly these new psychoactive substances, are getting into our prisons and causing a great deal of mayhem, misery and, in some cases, death. I urge the Secretary of State and her team to do all she can to keep up the pressure to make our prisons entirely drug-free.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) that, in some ways, there are too many people in prisons. I think that not enough people who have done certain things wrong and have committed horrendous crimes are in prison, and they should be in prison for longer, but I also feel strongly that some people who are in prison should not be there. I am worried that there are more and more prisoners aged 50-plus, and there are currently many more prisoners aged over 65. As the Secretary of State conceded, that is partly because of the extra convictions for child abuse crimes. I certainly do not want to underestimate the seriousness of some of those crimes—no one can claim for one moment that they are victimless crimes, because they are not; there are victims of such crimes and the perpetrators need to be punished—but I agree with Chief Constable Simon Bailey of Norfolk constabulary, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on this subject, that some people need help, not prison. There has been over-zealous prosecution of some of these people, who should be given help to wean them off their dreadful habits.
Several colleagues—including the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and the good doctor, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—have mentioned the mentally ill in our prison estate. It is worrying that 4% of prisoners have a psychotic illness, 14% suffer a major depressive illness, and nearly two thirds have some form of personality disorder. I wish to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State as to how we could make some progress on this issue.
The alternative to prison for some people who suffer from serious mental ill health is to be found in the mental health treatment requirement. It can of course be added to a community or suspended sentence after a conviction, but it worries me that only 0.5% of community sentences in 2016 included an MHTR. Why is that? Perhaps the prisons Minister can look into that and elaborate further on it, because significant progress could be made on that front.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I am glad to see my neighbour the Secretary of State nodding.
I find it extremely worrying that of our prison population of 84,307—as at last week—just under 10,000 are foreign prisoners. I have not done the maths, but I think that is around 15% or 16%. Some of them are of course European, so there is a problem with ensuring that they are deported, because we have to have arrangements in place and that does not normally happen across Europe. There are, though, prisoners from countries including Albania, Jamaica, Pakistan, India, Somalia—unfortunately —and Nigeria. Roughly 3.5% of all foreign prisoners come from Nigeria, and a staggering 5.3% come from Jamaica. The prisons Minister and his team of officials really must try to do more to grip the problem. Why are better, reciprocal arrangements not in place? Why are we not working with the Jamaican and Nigerian Governments to, for example, use Department for International Development money to improve their prisons? Why are we not doing the same in Somalia? As far as I understand it, the new Government there have complete control of most of the urban areas and most of the prisons, so surely something could be done.
I shall conclude in a moment; I was going to say something about the courts, but a lot of colleagues are waiting to speak. I was keen to get the key points across, and additional points can be discussed in Committee and on Report. I find it heartening that the Bill commands a great deal of consensus among all parties and that, although the Government’s energy over the next few months—indeed, perhaps two years—is going to be focused on Brexit and all the challenging negotiations that will go with it, they still have time to stand true to their reforming zeal and introduce an important Bill. I congratulate the Secretary of State and her team. Let us hope that a really good Bill can be made better still in Committee.
Michael Tomlinson
I agree absolutely and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is clear that LandWorks is doing an excellent job in her area. We heard from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) about the good work that is done in Parc prison, which is being rolled out internationally. When we can learn, whether from institutions in our own country or abroad, we should be big enough and brave enough to learn those lessons, to adopt good practice and to roll it out across the country.
The two principles I learned from my visit to the young offenders institution in Norway related to staff ratios and officer training. There, all prison officers are either graduates or have completed a two-year training programme. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that we are recruiting more prison officers and more is being done to improve their training. Earlier today, I learned of the “Unlocked” graduate scheme—a two-year programme, I think.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
indicated assent.
Michael Tomlinson
I am pleased to see the Minister nodding. I warmly welcome that programme.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
It is a privilege, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and I very much look forward to supporting some of the amendments he foreshadowed in his speech.
At the outset, I must draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am on the roll of solicitors. I am a non-practising solicitor now, but earlier in my career I was involved in many personal injury matters, and it is to part 5 of the Bill, which deals with whiplash, that I want to restrict my remarks.
There are things to commend and welcome in the Bill, but the one area where I do have concerns is over the proposals relating to whiplash. It is completely understandable that the Government would want to root out fraudulent whiplash claims, and I am sure everybody would agree with that, but I am not convinced that the proposals in part 5 will assist in achieving that aim. I welcome the fact that the Government have abandoned some of the more extreme proposals in the consultation paper, but we have nevertheless finished up with a set of proposals that I doubt will have the desired effect.
There is no doubt that if fraudulent claims are submitted and not spotted, the damages that are paid out will increase premiums. However, I am not convinced that the way to reduce premiums is to restrict artificially the level of damages payable by someone found liable for the tort of negligence. The Government’s proposal has nothing to do with controlling public expenditure; we are told that it is all about rooting out false, fraudulent claims and trying, as a consequence, to reduce insurance premiums. If the Government are really keen to do that, one way would be to reduce insurance premium tax. It seems rather perverse that we should tax those who seek to do the right thing. I can understand the argument—I might not always agree with it—for taxing goods or behaviours that are perceived to be bad, but it is less easy to understand the rationale for taxing those who seek to do the right thing by taking out insurance to protect themselves and take care of their future.
There are already procedures in place to reduce the potential for fraudulent claims to be successful. I am all in favour of taking the strongest possible action to root out those who try to con the system, but perhaps we should have given the existing measures—it is not many years since they were introduced—more time to work, and there is already evidence that they are working. The number of whiplash claims, as reported to the compensation recovery unit at the Department for Work and Pensions, fell from 511,111 in 2010-11 to 335,365 in 2015-16.
Sir Oliver Heald
The expression we use is whiplash-related road traffic injuries. Some of them are described as upper torso strain caused by shunt by a vehicle; that is a whiplash-related claim, and it would not count as a whiplash claim, but we think they are the same thing, and we reckon that the figures show a 50% increase over the last 10 years, at a time when the number of road traffic accidents generally has been falling.
Mr Nuttall
Clearly, there are issues around the definition of what constitutes a whiplash injury. The fact remains that, under the definition of whiplash used by the CRU, there was a 34% fall between 2010-11 and 2015-16.
Regardless of the number of claims, if they are valid, appropriate damages should be paid. The introduction of tariffs will have a number of effects, particularly when combined with the proposed increase in the small claims limit, which I accept is not in the Bill but is foreshadowed in the Government’s proposals. First, the level of damages will hardly ever be correct, as the Government recognise in their proposed uplift provisions. This is a rather clumsy way to try to finesse the basic scheme, recognising that the damages will not be at the appropriate level. There will inevitably be an increase in the number of litigants in person, and that raises questions as to how the courts will cope. For example, is the portal proposed as the mechanism by which the system is accessed intended for use by litigants in person?
Claims management companies will have a field day as they look to expand their operations in the light of these proposals. I fear that there will inevitably be an increase in the number of nuisance telephone calls. The Government may feel that insurance premiums are a problem, but that is as nothing compared with the problem of nuisance telephone calls. I am sure that I am not alone among MPs in being able to say that I hardly ever get a complaint about insurance premiums in my postbag or email inbox, whereas I get many, many complaints about the number of nuisance telephone calls.
Another problem resulting from the introduction of tariffs is that the same injury will attract a different level of compensation dependent on whether the injury was suffered as a result of a road traffic accident or in the workplace. I am not sure how that could be justified to the injured person, but I look forward to hearing the explanation of how it could be justified. There will inevitably be a transfer of cases from qualified legal practitioners to unqualified claims companies—McKenzie friends and so forth—and thousands of high street practices will face closure or, at the very least, job losses. There will also be unintended consequences. For example, the Access to Justice Action Group has pointed out that an injured party would be entitled to £3,725 for a neck injury lasting 24 months under the small claims track, but £6,750 for a neck injury lasting just one month longer outside the small claims track. That will be an incentive for the small minority who try to play the system to exaggerate their claims.
In summary, why should the vast majority of innocent, law-abiding citizens be penalised for the actions of the dishonest few?
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
We have had an excellent debate this evening. I congratulate this very esteemed and experienced group of speakers: the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill); former Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly); my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), another successful colleague who actually had my job; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), who did this as a shadow Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), who has been a Minister in the Department; and former prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), who all made excellent contributions. I will comment on some of the other speeches, which were generally very thoughtful. It is obvious that there is a good deal of support for the Bill.
As the Secretary of State outlined at the beginning of the debate, these are vital provisions if we are to make the justice system fit for the 21st century. We are talking about a major reform of prisons, and an important set of changes to the law on the courts that will underpin the transformation programme that is going on at the moment and has the support of the senior judiciary. I pay tribute to those who work in our prisons, courts and the wider justice system. Their commitment to public service and care of the most vulnerable in society is inspiring, and I know that many of them will be following the Bill, which means a lot for their work.
Before addressing some specific matters, I want to clarify how the Bill does some important things and does not do some things that might have been suggested. The provisions in the Bill mean better access to justice and the simpler resolution of cases for people. It is important to reiterate that the Bill has been prepared with extensive user testing and consultation with those affected by the measures. Access to justice will not be compromised by the Bill. Sacred principles of open justice and the rule of law will be protected in a modern system that reflects how people access public services in the 21st century.
A good deal was said in support of the idea of having the statutory purpose of prisons in the Bill—for the first time, it is about not just housing the prisoner, but having to keep the person and the public safe, carrying out reform and rehabilitation, and preparing people for a life outside prison. That new framework is there, and everything follows from it: governors’ contracts, the information that is spread about best practice, and training. As the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said in her very thoughtful speech, it is also important to prepare the prisoner for release. Other Members, including the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), referred to the importance of the family and accommodation. Those things are there in the purpose in the Bill, so when we talk about the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, we are talking about tackling their mental health needs. When we talk about preparing prisoners for life outside prison, we are talking about housing, accommodation and good contacts with their family. Those things are all in the Bill, but the right hon. and learned Lady—
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Oliver Heald
I have not got much time, I am afraid.
I think the right hon. and learned Lady made the point that we might want to see whether there was a solution in secondary legislation, as well as in primary legislation, that might address some of the important points she raised. Of course, the prison rules are secondary legislation, and they already contain a lot of detail about the way in which prisoners should be treated. So it is possible to look at those issues, and I will certainly do that.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned the Prison Reform Trust and its suggestion that we should add fairness and decency to the statutory purpose. It is right that those are important considerations in running prisons, but we need to remember that there is already an interlacing of legal obligations that apply in prisons. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, with her background in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, mentioned that there are basic human rights—articles 2, 3 and 8—that apply to the way in which prisoners are treated. There is health and safety legislation. There is the duty of care that comes through the law of tort. So it would be wrong to think that there is not protection already, but this is certainly something we can examine further in Committee. I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, who has done so much as the rapporteur for the JCHR on the issue of deaths in prison.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and others asked what happens if a prison does not meet the purpose set out in law. The purpose of prisons is in the Bill, and it is underpinned by the inspectorate’s duty to inspect against the purpose and the aims. It is also protected by the Secretary of State having to respond. I would not say that it is impossible that a case could be mounted for judicial review—to even say that is to press the case too far—but I think it would only be in a case where an individual prison totally ignored or disregarded the purpose, or something of that sort, that it would be grounded. Possibly, these things could also be considered as a factor in another case, where other aspects were being raised.
The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) asked about the update on HMIP’s protocol with the MOJ, and I pay tribute to his experience in this area. Earlier this year, a draft protocol was shared with the Justice Committee and other bodies. The final protocol will be available very shortly, and I can promise that it will be there before the Committee stage. [Interruption.] Very shortly—imminently.
I could say a lot about family engagement, and the Farmer review looks very much at it. It is well understood that maintaining family relationships is a key element in trying to set prisoners on the straight and narrow and that it is very important in rehabilitation.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked about the time limits for responding to inspection reports. Action will be taken from day one of an urgent notification by the chief inspector, so immediate energy will be brought to bear. Twenty-eight days is the appropriate period in a really urgent case of that sort. On the Law Society’s concerns about safeguards for online conviction, defenders must opt in to the new procedure, and proper warnings will be available making it clear that if a defendant wants to challenge the case in any way—for example, if they want to argue that time to pay is needed for a financial penalty or that the penalty should be lower because of means or circumstances—then all these things will be made clear. The Bill also provides that in the event of a mistake made, for whatever reason, it will be possible to set aside the conviction or the sentence in order to have the matter dealt with in the traditional way. I am sure that we will discuss this more in Committee, but certainly the idea is to have those protections in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon asked about successful prosecutions of fraud cases in relation to whiplash. The insurance industry data show that in 2015 there were 70,000 cases of insurance fraud worth £800 million. The City of London police insurance fraud enforcement department has secured over 200 prosecutions in the past four years, resulting in over 100 years’ worth of jail time for insurance fraudsters. A lot of action is being taken on this.
On whiplash more generally, the Government note that over a 10-year period when we have seen the number of road traffic accidents falling and car safety improving, we have had a more than 50% increase in the number of whiplash-related cases. These cases are obviously exaggerated to some extent, and perhaps fraudulent. No Government could ignore these sorts of statistics and not take action. We have not taken extreme options but gone for moderate options such as a tariff of damages for the very minor cases. The tariff does not apply in a serious case of whiplash where the damages would be substantial—it is for cases where the pain and suffering lasts less than two years and is of a minor nature. Against that background, such a tariff is surely a reasonable approach. If there is any element of exceptionality in these cases, then there is a provision to uplift. We say that this approach is proportionate to the scale of the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) talked about violence against prison officers. I do not totally agree with him about this. I think that if there genuinely is violence against a hard-working and dedicated prison officer—he has been assaulted and it is an offence—we should go further than my hon. Friend suggests. I think that the perpetrator should be prosecuted in court for that violent offence, that he should face swift justice, and that the court should give the full penalty that is right for the offence. I would not say that it is a question of him serving his full time for the original offence, but that he should serve the full time for a serious offence of attacking a prison officer. I take a slightly different view from my hon. Friend on that.
Philip Davies
Can the Minister explain why, with all the assaults on prison officers at the moment, the average amount of extra time that prisoners spend in prison for assaulting a prison officer is 16 days, which is, quite frankly, pathetic and insulting?
Sir Oliver Heald
To be honest, my hon. Friend is looking at something different—adjudications within the prison for an offence of some sort. I am saying that where somebody has been assaulted, the perpetrator should go to court. It should not be an internal adjudication if it is a serious matter. The person responsible should be taken to court and face the full penalty of the law. That is the approach that I would take. I will be interested to discuss the matter further in Committee, and I have no doubt that we will do so.
As a result of the Bill, prisons will be safer. They will be places of reform. Our courts will provide straightforward access for all users. There will be stronger confidence in the justice system. We will enhance our global reputation for the excellence of our legal system. This is a bold, reforming ambition for justice, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Prisons and Courts Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Prisons and Courts Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 27 April 2017.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Guy Opperman.)
Question agreed to.
Prisons and Courts Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prisons and Courts Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund under any other Act.—(Guy Opperman.)
Question agreed to.
Prisons and Courts Bill (Carry-over)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this session of Parliament, proceedings on the Prisons and Courts Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next session.—(Guy Opperman.)
Question agreed to.
Tuesday 28th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPrisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 March 2017 - (28 Mar 2017)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Prisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
That is noted, thank you. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Joe Simpson: Joe Simpson, assistant general secretary of the Prison Officers Association.
Nigel Newcomen: I am Nigel Newcomen, the prisons and probation ombudsman.
Rachel O'Brien: Rachel O’Brien. I lead the work of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce on prisons.
Martin Lomas: And Martin Lomas. I am the deputy chief inspector of prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Q Good morning, and thank you all for coming. I would like to start with Joe, please, on staffing and recruitment. I would like to get your view of how the offender management model, which has been announced and will give each prison officer a workload of six, could help improve safety in prisons.
Joe Simpson: First and foremost, you have got to recruit, Minister. At the moment—I make no apology about it—the remuneration package for a prison officer is not meeting the needs of the National Offender Management Service. Will it help? Of course—more prison officers will always help. Pre-2012, we had 7,000 more prison officers. We had fewer deaths, fewer suicides, less violence and less drugs, then all of a sudden 7,000 go and we are in the situation we are in. But, yes, it would help.
Mr Gyimah
Q I guess the question I was driving at is, if you were able to get to the situation where you had the 1:6, could you improve safety? You are saying that, yes, that could help improve safety.
In terms of the other point that you made about remuneration, of course I agree that remuneration is important in this context. Do you see that what the Ministry of Justice is doing about additional allowances—there are obviously ongoing negotiations with the POA on pay and so on—could also help with recruitment and retention?
Joe Simpson: Yes. If we get the right deal, yes, of course that will always help. I hope we do.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Q Thank you very much for coming to the session. Good morning. Can I ask you about what measures are not in the Bill? I want to explore that with you. In the nine months since this Bill was promised, we have seen major riots in prisons, an increase in violence and a continued fall in staff numbers. Do you think this Bill in any way addresses those issues?
Joe Simpson: In the long term, it will; in the short term, no, because we are not seeing any difference. To get the 2,500 prison officers in post, you are going to have to recruit 8,000. As quickly as the Prison Service is bringing them in, they are leaving. It is not just new starters—you are losing experienced staff as well. They no longer want to work for the Prison Service because of the violence, because of what is happening in our prisons and because of the lack of support.
Mr Gyimah
Q If I may come in on the staffing point, are you aware that, for example, we have more people training to be prison officers than we have ever had before, at approximately 700, and that we are on track, at the end of March, to meet the commitment announced in October to recruit 400 new officers in the 10 most challenging jails?
Joe Simpson: Yes, I am aware of that, Minister. However, the question will be how long we have them for. Once they come into prison and actually see the reality of where they are going to be working, a lot of staff are not getting past the probation point, which is 12 months, because the training does not get them ready for working in a prison. It is a challenging environment, especially now.
Mr Gyimah
I have met a number of our new recruits at Newbold Revel. I think they are going into it with their eyes wide open and a lot of them are proud to be working in a uniformed service with the opportunity to turn lives around. In terms of retention, I think it is down to everyone in the Prison Service to make sure that new recruits settle in well—the governor, prison officers on the wing—so that they can actually contribute productively.
Yasmin Qureshi
Q Ms O’Brien, you have said that to have proper rehabilitation we need to return frontline staffing to 2010 levels.
Rachel O'Brien: We have not done that. I welcome the measures that have been taken, but we have not done that and I do not think for one minute that we do not have an existing staff problem. Even with what we have, it is going to take a long time for those people to come through. I have also met fantastic new officers who want to make a difference and are struggling to do so. One thing we have to bear in mind is that the new way of working means stopping doing some other stuff, and that is going to take time to flow through.
I also think, though, that there is a deeper need to look at the workforce capabilities. For example, we know that mental health is a major issue within prisons, and most officers do not feel prepared to give that kind of support; I am not talking about detailed intervention but just being aware of the key issues that they are going to face, day in and day out. The race is between really thinking about what that workforce looks like at a time when most people turn on the telly and see things that may not encourage them to join the service. I have met some fantastic people; the key is to keep them, to develop them and allow them to progress.
Michael Tomlinson
Q That brings me to my final question; you have neatly brought me round to rehabilitation. You mentioned marriage guidance counselling and so on. What further role do you think there could be for prison officers not only in relation to rehabilitation in general, but in relation to such things as education?
Joe Simpson: On education, the POA is involved with Toe By Toe, which is where we get other prisoners to teach prisoners to read and write. We are heavily involved in that. I think we must be the only profession that wants to put itself out of a job, because we want rehabilitation, but with the levels of overcrowding we have at the moment, you are not going to achieve it. It will take a long while to start the rehabilitation that the Government want for the simple reason that we have to make prisons a safe place to work and live in.
Mr Gyimah
Q Mr Simpson, I would like you to comment on professionalisation. We are consulting with the trade unions on the creation of 2,000 new senior positions across the estate, where they will be able to work at band 4 level in such jobs as self-harm prevention or mentoring, earning up to £30,000 a year. How could that help retain senior staff and professionalise the workforce?
Joe Simpson: I used to do that as a prison officer; I did not need promotion for that. It was part of my role and what I was paid for, but the service has long depended on prison officers and prison staff volunteering to do that extra work with no pay and no pay rise. Some 70% of prison staff have not had a decent pay rise in five years. That is when you get problems in the Prison Service. They feel forgotten and as though they do not count. With the 2,000, why not train the rest of them in that and make the Prison Service a truly professional service?
Liz Saville Roberts
Q I think I am correct in saying that the level of turnover among prison officers is something like 12%.
Joe Simpson: Yes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q If you as ombudsman make recommendations, how confident are you that the Secretary of State will act on them?
Nigel Newcomen: I published a report today on self-inflicted deaths among women and I said in the introduction that I was disheartened that I was saying again many of the things I had said previously. I have been in post six years, and I say very little that is new; I tend to repeat things. That does not necessarily mean that there is any ill will or any lack of desire to implement the recommendations I make. Virtually all the recommendations I make are accepted, almost without exception. I have given action plans, and my colleagues from the prisons inspectorate will go and see whether progress has been made.
Progress is often made to a degree. I am sure that if we go back to Chelmsford, to look at one establishment you just mentioned, much will have been done in the aftermath of the case of Mr Saunders and the aftermath of other cases there, too. But sustained and consistent improvement is something that the Prison Service has struggled to achieve. One of the aspirations the Bill must have is that by ensuring greater accountability and some devolution of responsibility to governors, sustained development and improvement can be achieved. To go back to your question, I personally am quite disheartened that I have been saying the same thing for so long.
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
Q I want to ask you about mobile phones and drugs. Obviously, prison has never been a pleasant place, and I visited many prisons when I was practising as a barrister, but recently I visited a prison and talked to one of the trusted prisoners who said that the impact of psychoactive substances has been marked, particularly on younger men prisoners, with there being a lot more violence than there used to be. Mobile phones are also enabling prisoners to commit crimes at one remove that they did not use to be able to do. Will you each say a word about drugs and mobile phones—what their impact has been and whether the measures in the Bill are a help?
Martin Lomas: The linkage is very clear. The tsunami of new psychoactive substances in the last three or four years has had an enormously destabilising impact on prisons. The chief inspector referred to that in his annual report, and I for one have never seen anything quite like it. Interestingly, some prisons cope better than others, and there are some lessons to be learned there.
The linkage between drugs and the use of mobile phones and technology is clear. It facilitates criminality—there is no doubt about it. I was talking to a colleague of mine who has inspected this regularly and one of the tricks is to meet a new prisoner arriving in the institution who does not have a phone card and so is unable to communicate, and entrap them in a sense by lending them a phone, in which the numbers are stored. That facilitates the intimidation of families and leverage on them.
The answer to that is proper prevention mechanisms to stop mobile phones coming in and to interrupt those that arrive, and the Bill is supportive of that; but also, in tandem, effective means of ensuring that prisoners have access to legitimate phones, either in cell—we see that in some more modern institutions, which is incredibly helpful—or through phone cards and effective access to, for example, the canteen. We routinely report on new arrivals to institutions who do not get access to the canteen for 10 days, which increases their vulnerability both to self-harm—it is a high-risk time—and to others. It is a twin-track response, and the Bill helps.
Rachel O'Brien: I agree with all of that on phones. You see that really small things in prisons, like not having your phone card and getting the small stuff right, can have a huge impact. On NPS, to go back to the centralisation and the local, we took a long time to respond—inspections were raising that from 2012 onwards —and it is an absolute game changer. We have not been adaptive and responsive, and I think that is partly because we wait for the central machine to respond. That resulted in a quite punitive initial response; it was like we had forgotten everything we know about healthcare and substance misuse, with NPS seen somehow as different, which is ironic, because it is legal outside. It is very strange. So you have had a really punitive response generally, and I think that is beginning to change now.
Thirdly, you need to look at supply and demand. Yes, stopping it coming in in the first place is absolutely critical, but if you have no activity and no purpose—there is a lot of evidence to suggest it is partly about boredom and time out of your head, if not your cell—you are going to seek it out. I am not sure I would not seek it out, if I was stuck in a cell day after day. We have to look at the demand side, as well as supply.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q If you take the aims in the Bill of active reform and rehabilitation, and trying to prepare people for the world outside, are you saying that if you achieved that sort of purposeful regime, you would have a more peaceful regime?
Rachel O'Brien: Absolutely.
Nigel Newcomen: You would also have a safer regime. Access to legitimate phones increases family contact and the ability to mitigate your pressures inside. If you have more activity, you are less likely to be bored and less likely to need the bird-killer that is NPS. I endorse what colleagues have said: it is absolutely, fundamentally right for supply reduction to be at the heart of the Bill, but demand reduction—the lessening of the need—has to be implicit, and I take it to be implicit in the new purposes of prisons that have been specified. If it is not, we will be chasing a punitive response without the likelihood of success, because we will not have dealt with demand.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q I do not know whether you would agree, Mr Simpson, but I think a lot of prison officers find it very rewarding if they are able to help a prisoner to come round and live a better life after he leaves prison, and to help him get some skills while he is in there. I have certainly always found that when talking to prison officers. Do you agree that the overall idea of having proper purposes for prison, trying to increase the number of officers and tackling this scourge of drugs and mobile phones is the overall package that is needed?
Joe Simpson: It is, but drugs are not new in prisons.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q No, it is these psychoactive substances, which are allegedly legal.
Joe Simpson: Yes. The Government have also said it is illegal to bring them into prison or throw them over the wall, yet it still happens. When you are talking about supply and demand, say for argument’s sake that you can buy a bag of NPS on the street for £1. When it comes into prison, it is worth anywhere between £60 and £80. It is big business, and it does not have a great effect on the person who is supplying it from the outside, because they are never, ever going to get into trouble, because nothing ever goes back to them. Mobile phone are big currency in prisons. As a union, we have been asking for mobile phone blockers to be put into prison for years. That would stop the criminality inside and outside of prison.
Then we have drones. When they come over, it is about what they are carrying. We have had to approach the employer and say, “When there is a package dropped off into the grounds of a prison, you have got a prison officer immediately being told to go over and pick it up. It could contain anything, and there is no proper control over that.”
Yes, more time out of cell, and a prison officer watching them and interacting with them, would help. When I was a prison officer at Holme House, we used to have prisoners out on association, and they played pool and went on the phone. When you had a bank holiday weekend, such as Easter, by Sunday dinner time they were bored, because they were doing the same thing every weekend and every evening. It is about changing that, with education in the evening, gym programmes and programmes that prison officers can lead on, because before we entered the job, we had a prior life. We have teachers who have joined the Prison Service. They have a wealth of experience, but no one is using them, because we are going back to what we fear is a turnkey situation.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Of course, a lot of these prisoners could benefit from that experience, could they not? They are not very well educated, and they could get some skills and make more of their lives.
Joe Simpson: Yes.
Martin Lomas: I agree that NPS is a specific challenge, and it has been a game changer. We have seen prisons that do better than others—this is a bit speculative, and there needs to be more research into this—and that seems to be down to effective multi-disciplinary working, particularly with local law enforcement and the like.
However, your point is valid: there cannot be reform, work, education and rehabilitation without safe institutions, but there is then a feedback loop. If prisoners understand, believe and realise—as enough of them do; there is a critical mass—that they might have to be in prison, but at least there they have a chance, or that it is worth investing their effort, or that there is a constructive opportunity for them, that in itself will begin to lift the bar and create a sense of positivity and civility within the institution.
Matt Warman
Q You briefly mentioned mobile phone blockers; the Bill allows for more rapid blocking of individual mobile phones that are associated with prisoners. Presumably, you would welcome the fact that you would not have a blanket ban on everything, or use more widespread blocking, because prison officers have mobile phones, which are useful for keeping in contact with families and all that while in the prison. Of course, people who live nearby prisons do not appreciate their systems being blocked, either. This helps with that, I would hope.
Martin Lomas: Whatever technology works. Actually, in prisons, nobody is allowed a mobile phone; there may be a community consequence.
Holly Lynch
Q Can I press you on that point? Do you think this is something that you should be looking at in that case? It sounds as if you are collecting the statistical data about frequency, but not doing the follow-up about how violence is investigated to see whether there is evidence about how deterrents should be in place, for example.
Martin Lomas: We look at outcomes. The process of investigation and whether the investigation was competent, whether the police should be more engaged and certainly whether the CPS should have charged—we would not look at that.
Mr Gyimah
Q I would like to ask a question and get the panel’s views about accountability in the new prison system and how that works. Starting with Mr Lomas, what difference do you think the Bill will make to the effectiveness of the prisons inspectorate? Could you also comment particularly on how you see the notification trigger being used?
Martin Lomas: We think this is an important step forward. We think the Bill is helpful and useful. We have already talked about what it says to those who run institutions, with regard to their purpose and what they are meant to be doing. As far as the inspectorate is concerned, we believe it strengthens our institutional framework. It recognises us formally as an entity and clarifies our powers. At one level, those powers have not changed, but the Bill clarifies them, which is important in terms of asserting our independence and reflecting the public’s understanding of what we are about. We believe that the reference to OPCAT—the optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—is absolutely critical in emphasising the independence of the inspectorate and consequentially its authority and ability to speak to issues and to all stakeholders, including the Government and others.
We believe the specifics around the requirement to respond on recommendations—reflecting current practice, but raising the importance of the process, formalising it, and making it more accountable—is a very big step forward in terms of our impact. Added to that, the notification arrangement and the significant concerns that are referred to again reflect practice. We would not walk away from a disastrous prison and not do something. We do act, and in fairness to the National Offender Management Service as it is now—Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service—it does respond in those circumstances. This is about making that process more transparent and accountable and putting names to the responsibilities. It is most definitely a step forward.
Rachel O'Brien: I agree with all of that. We recommended that stronger role for the inspectorate. There is a question about what happens in between inspections; that is sometimes a bit strange. There are top-level things that drive change for the three or four years in between. That is a question that we did not answer. We looked at the possible role of the independent monitoring boards, for example, to look at the more institutional day-by-day changes in the shorter term, but also new issues that might come up. The danger is that sometimes we say, “Those are the three priorities” and meanwhile something changes over here, in the local drugs market or whatever it is, so there is a question about what happens in between.
My overall accountability freedom issue would be that I worry about the balance. There are a lot of new accountabilities, still from the top-down league tables. Are those governors and new group directors going to have sufficient freedoms to make local decisions? That is the key question. That cannot be defined in primary legislation; it is much more about the narrative coming out from Government and so on.
Joe Simpson: The POA welcomes the changes, but do not think they go far enough, both for the chief inspector and for the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. We would like to see the same legislative powers given to them as the Health and Safety Executive. If someone is going to inspect prisons, then inspect prisons and everything that goes on. If there are recommendations, someone should turn round and say to the governor “You are not doing something right.” If we are giving governors autonomy, it is not the Secretary of State who is running the prison—it is the governor. He is the employer and the person who is in charge of that prison, so they should get the 28-day notice. What is the point in putting that all the way back up for the Secretary of State, so that she can say, “Yes, we have an action plan”? We would rather see something coming from the chief inspector of prisons go to the governor to improve things, and if they do not improve them, the legislative powers akin to the Health and Safety Executive given to the chief inspector and the PPO. If we are going to have independence—the independent scrutiny of prisons and the independence over deaths in prisons—they should have that legislative power to turn round and make things change, rather than wishing for it.
Richard Burgon
Q I have two questions. First, following on from what Joe has just said, should the inspector review the resourcing and availability of staffing in prison, and should this Bill legislate to enable that?
Joe Simpson: Yes, because we have got a chief inspector of prisons and you cannot just go and do some parts of a prison and not do it all. You have got to look at everything. You have got to look at the safety—are there enough staff, are staff being looked after, are assaults against staff being investigated properly? Then you have to make the recommendations to the governor to get it right.
Richard Burgon
Q When you mention staff, Joe, is there a level of staffing beneath which you believe it is dangerous to go?
Joe Simpson: There is, yes. You have to have enough staff to do what we call the basics—to ensure that prisoners are safe and getting their meals, access to medication, access to education and access to fresh air and exercise. That is the basic minimum we can give, and everything above it is what we term the fluffy parts of prison. At the moment we are operating at that level. We believe that if the chief inspector has that legislative power things will change, because the governor becomes accountable and so does the Secretary of State.
Mr Gyimah
Q The role of the Secretary of State in the Bill is to be responsible for the whole system and accountable to Parliament. Just to make it clear, are you arguing that somehow the Secretary of State should not be in this loop at all, and that it should all be about the governor? In which case, how is the Secretary of State responsible for the system?
Joe Simpson: What I am saying is that if the chief inspector goes in and has the 28-day order, the notification to change something comes to the Secretary of State—it does not go to the person who can make that change. The Secretary of State gets it, and then you have a three-month intervention. They then come back down to the governor to say, “This is what is wrong. What are you going to do about it?” They give the plan, it comes back up to the Secretary of State, and then the Secretary of State announces it to Parliament. Why do we not just give it to the governor and, for want of a better word, copy the Secretary of State in so that they know what is happening? Then if things are not improving, the Secretary of State intervenes once the chief inspector turns around and says they need to do that.
Mr Gyimah
Q There is a line management structure that goes from the Secretary of State through HMPPS and the governor. If a prison is failing—for want of a better word—it makes sense to have the person who is accountable for the system, and the line managers of the prison, be aware of it and take action with the governor.
Joe Simpson: My answer to that is, why has not anyone done anything about HMP Featherstone?
Richard Burgon
Q The prisons and probation ombudsman touched on this earlier, and I just want to give everyone on the panel the opportunity to respond. The Howard League, the Prison Reform Trust and the Prison Officers Association have all highlighted the need for the purpose of prisons to commit to decent and fair conditions. The wording comes from Lord Woolf, who set it out in 1991. Would the panel members prefer the Bill to clarify that with reference to “decent” and “fair”, as set out by Lord Woolf in 1991?
Nigel Newcomen: Having made that point previously, I have to repeat that it merits consideration at least. I stick with my previous balancing point: we need to minimise the verbosity of the statements and limit the words, although maintaining an environment that is safe and secure will not necessarily ensure an outcome that is a “decent environment”, let alone a “fair environment” —again, Lord Woolf’s phrase. I hope that as the Bill goes through Parliament that will at least be explored.
Martin Lomas: I agree with that. In the inspectorate, one of our key judgments is “return of respect”. It is essentially saying the same thing and we see it as significant in defining a healthy prison.
Rachel O'Brien: I agree. For a long time, “decent, safe and secure” has been the vision, if you go into most prisons. Having that vision should be absolutely fundamental for institutions. How the new stuff is interpreted and kept simple and straightforward is what really interests me, as we talked about before.
Joe Simpson: We welcomed it. I was at Strangeways when it was done and we welcomed everything that was said. Yet again, it is another report that is gathering dust. We have seen this with different reports since I joined in 1987. My colleague has already had a go at the Corston report; it is 10 years old and nothing has happened. There has been the Mubarek report and the Woolf inquiry to end over-crowding—nothing has happened with any of that. If we are going to have a report, let us do what it recommends.
The Chair
We are coming to the end of the session. Two Members are indicating a wish to speak. We will take their questions and, if any Members wish to declare any interests, they can do so before we wrap up.
Mr Gyimah
Q On deaths in custody, I would like to hear Nigel Newcomen’s thoughts on how putting the PPO on a statutory footing is beneficial and what difference it could make to your investigations.
Nigel Newcomen: I am very clear that this is a step-change improvement in the situation for the prisons and probation ombudsman and I hope my successor benefits from it. It is quite astounding that a body tasked with investigating some of the most sensitive and secretive contexts in looking at deaths in custody and complaints in custody is basically dependent on the goodwill of those whom it is investigating for access to places, people and documents. The Bill rectifies this. This is something that not just I but parliamentarians of many hues have been calling for for many years.
There have been two previous attempts. You will note that there has been very little objection in any of the materials I have seen from NGOs. I think it will enhance the actual and perceived independence of the office, but more particularly it will improve the practical and investigative capacity and, I hope, contribute to the outcome of greater safety and fairness in custody.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Q I want to touch on the point about the education and health needs of offenders. I will refer to the written evidence submitted by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists today that there is a high prevalence of speech, language and communication needs in the criminal justice system. It says that
“over 60% of young offenders have speech, language and communication needs”—
and that this affects offenders’ ability to engage with
“verbally mediated physical and mental health assessments effectively including suicide risk screening”
and their health and rehabilitation programmes. Will the Bill help to address these issues, particularly in commissioning health and education professionals to support offenders with these needs?
Martin Lomas: The Bill sets out the purposes of imprisonment, which are meant to take account of specific needs and rehabilitative agendas. If a needs analysis of a particular population group confirms that view—and I believe it—then that is a priority that the governor will need to emphasise.
If the Bill works, and that is to be seen, it gives opportunities for governors to make decisions locally based on their understanding of what is going on around them and the connectivities they can create with local providers and services. What applies to the specific case you have identified also applies to a range of other things to do with—for example, education or mental health intervention, partnerships with health authorities, safeguarding initiatives and all sorts of opportunities in that regard.
Rachel O'Brien: Yes, I think the implication of that key change is profound, but the prison system does not communicate well, generally, I would say, from top to bottom. It is a huge and complex system. We had Nils Öberg from Sweden over recently. He said the most important thing they had changed was how they communicate across the system. That goes right down to that level of forms and communication on the wings, how you do education, and so on. In my experience the best way to change that is not top down. Again, often the prisoners will say, “The way we are going to try to engage people in this is through a different format”—very visual, very simplistic. They will be best placed, often, alongside officers, to know how to do that, rather than that being mediated from above.
I am doing some work at the moment on something called the New Futures Network, which will look at how you drive innovation through the system. A key part of what we want to look at is the way we use animation, visuals and so on, right across the piece. That requires technology questions to be answered, but absolutely it is about innovation and fairness, and sensitivity in thinking about the audience. I do not think that is a kind of legislative issue in that way.
The Chair
Are there any hon. Members who want to declare an interest before the end of the sitting?
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Guy Opperman)
I declare an interest as a non-practising former barrister. I am still owed certain fees by the state and insurers even after seven long years, and I wrote a book called “Doing Time”, which unaccountably has not sold out, on prison reform—so I declare its existence.
Richard Burgon
I am a former practising solicitor—I am non-practising now. I used to be an employee of Thompsons solicitors who have an interest in matters discussed this afternoon.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To add to the point made by the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Hexham, I am still owed thousands of pounds in fees, some of which I think may be from insurers.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am a barrister, not currently practising, and I am the legal aid Minister, so I apologise, boys.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
May I also declare an interest? I am a solicitor, not currently practising, and a prison visitor at HMP Lowdham Grange in my constituency.
Prisons and Courts Bill (Second sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 28th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPrisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 March 2017 - (28 Mar 2017)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Prisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, Professor Richard Susskind, the Law Society, Women’s Aid and Transform Justice. We have until about a quarter past 3 for this session. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Richard Miller: My name is Richard Miller. I am head of justice at the Law Society.
Penelope Gibbs: I am Penelope Gibbs, director of the charity Transform Justice.
Polly Neate: I am Polly Neate, chief executive of Women’s Aid.
Jenny Beck: I am Jenny Beck, co-chair of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group.
Professor Susskind: I am Richard Susskind. I am IT adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and I chaired the Civil Justice Council advisory group on online dispute resolution.
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
Q51 It is a joy to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Brady. I thought I would start with some questions to Professor Susskind about the online procedure for civil and family courts and tribunals, which is dealt with in clauses 37 to 45. Then, after colleagues have put their questions, I will perhaps deal with cross-examination in family matters—clause 47—and criminal proceedings, which are dealt with in clauses 23 to 30 and 35 to 36.
Professor Susskind, I believe you have been the technology adviser to the Lord Chief Justice for many years and you are an advocate for the law adapting to modern technology. These proposals involve the use of digital processes, simpler rules and an online procedure rule committee to set them up. I wonder what your views are about whether the quality of this work will be as good as it is now—that it will not be not a second- class system—and what you think are the implications for the legal professions.
Professor Susskind: The motivation behind this is interesting. If one thinks of low-value claims—say civil claims—the current process is too costly, too time-consuming, largely too combative and largely unintelligible for the non-lawyer. Lord Dyson, the former Master of the Rolls, put it well when he said that any system that has a 2,000-page user manual has a problem, and that is the traditional civil justice system. I have long been an advocate of thinking of different ways of resolving disputes.
It seems to me that one argument that is often put is that we are going to allow people who can afford lawyers and legal advice access to the traditional court system, and those who use an online process will receive a second-class service, but our group—and, I believe, the Government—anticipates a system that is more accessible, more proportionate, quicker, easier to use and does not require people to take a day off work or pore through thousands of pages of rules, which seems to me to be a first-class service rather than a second-class service. It may be that, from a purist’s point of view, one can see advantages in the traditional system—I am a great believer in the traditions of the law—but for small, low-value claims, I think what is proposed here will be a great improvement rather than some pale substitute for the traditional system.
The implications for lawyers are very interesting. In so far as one of the great mischiefs sorted out here is that of litigants in person—that is to say people who represent themselves—then today lawyers are not involved in the process in any event. So for both litigants in person and for the great mass of people to whom we often refer as having unmet legal need—those who cannot afford or find too forbidding entry into the system in the first place—there is no impact on the legal profession at all, because the legal profession is not involved today.
As for the cases—they will probably be slightly higher value cases—that lawyers currently undertake, it is wrong to suggest that lawyers will be excluded from the process. There is a misunderstanding and ongoing debate about this. It has never been anyone’s intention that lawyers should not be allowed to participate; the intention is that this should be a system that people can use without the assistance of lawyers. My research is in medicine, law, tax, audit and architecture, and I think there is no denying that right across the professions we are seeing technology being used in ways that will reduce the number of some traditional jobs. On the other hand, new jobs will arise.
As I often say, the law is no more there to provide a living for lawyers than ill health is there to provide a living for doctors. It is not the purpose of the law to keep lawyers in a living. Lawyers, like all other industries, have to face the challenge of modernising and industrialising, and this is one of the consequences of offering far greater access to justice through technology.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Do any of the other witnesses want to comment on the online court for civil cases, family courts and tribunals and whether it improves access to justice—the point that Professor Susskind just made?
Richard Miller: I think it has been readily accepted among many people who have discussed this issue that the system will work most effectively if there is good legal advice at appropriate points within the process. It may well be that the role of lawyers in this revised system is very different, but people who are looking to enter into any sort of dispute resolution system will want to know whether they have a good case, what evidence they need, whether any defence filed is valid and how to respond to it. There will be key stages within any case where good-quality legal advice will be essential if the system is to work effectively, but that is not to say there will not be a different role for lawyers within the system if it rolls out as is currently envisaged.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Lord Justice Briggs said that it might be a role where a particular piece of legal advice would be given and then fixed recoverable costs would be involved, as a way of ensuring it could be funded. Do you have any views on that?
Professor Susskind: That is entirely feasible. I take the point entirely that there will be places where it would be beneficial to have the participation of lawyers. It might well be that we can, in an online process, involve lawyers in a more modular, occasional way, rather than an all-or-nothing way. If I am absolutely honest, we are to a large extent on new ground here. We can look at what has happened in Canada and what is happening in Singapore and Holland. We are feeling our way.
The overwhelming evidence is that online dispute resolution provides a cheaper, quicker, less forbidding service, but no one in the world has yet delivered an integrated service of the sort that the Law Society is sensibly anticipating, where lawyers can be involved in a structured, systematic way in the new process. I would welcome that, but again, we cannot forget the swathes of cases just now where people are self-represented or do not go to law at all, and lawyers are not involved. With online dispute resolution, there is the possibility of lawyers becoming more involved in some of those cases that they do not reach at all now.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Perhaps I can ask one more question, before opening this up. Would you like to say a word about the benefits of virtual hearings and dispute resolution within this process?
Professor Susskind: It is important to draw a fundamental distinction—I am doing it in my terms—between virtual hearings and online process. With virtual hearings, there is a hearing: that is to say, there are people communicating with one another at the same time, but they are not all physically in one place; there is a video connection and an audio connection. Technologists would call that “synchronous”. Everyone has to gather together, and it may not be in one physical space, but there is a hearing and they are all attending it virtually. Online process is quite different. It is asynchronous: that means a party can submit a piece of evidence and a judge can respond, but they do not all need to be online at the same time. I am not sure if the Bill or people around the table are completely comfortable with that distinction between virtual hearings and online process. They are very, very different beasts.
The virtual hearing, in a sense, is a natural evolution from the traditional hearing. If people are vulnerable, if they are many miles away, or if it does not seem proportionate for them all to attend in person, why not attend by video and audio? That is the idea of a virtual hearing. It is an extension of the current system. An online process is often entirely different.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Q I want to talk about virtual and online courts—I am with Professor Susskind in recognising that they are very different animals—in the criminal context. I will start with Penelope from Transform Justice. In your recent report you looked at an evaluation of the use of technology in the criminal courts back in 2010. The report said:
“The evaluation of the pilot was published in 2010, and concluded that virtual courts as piloted were more expensive, may lead to more guilty pleas and longer sentences, and impeded the communication between lawyer and client.”
As we embrace new technology, how can we seek to deal with those worries?
Penelope Gibbs: With huge difficulty. I would say that the virtual hearings as done now are slightly different from the ones piloted in 2010 in terms of the cost basis, but we still have a huge problem about the relationship between the lawyer and the client. Every piece of research that exists suggests that that communication is impeded.
The other huge problem that came up in that research, which was under-reported, was that actually it reduced the number of people who used a lawyer. In that research, I think only 52% or something of the defendants used a lawyer, despite the fact that all had access to legal aid. So there was something about the circumstances of doing it virtually that meant that they did not use a lawyer, and I would say that the criminal system, in some ways like the civil system, is pretty unsuited to anybody not having a lawyer. It is very complicated and complex, the procedure is difficult and the law is difficult, so there are huge concerns about having people virtually, nearly half of them without a lawyer, with huge decisions being made about remand and sentence, and even the proposition of trial in the Bill by conference call or virtually where you can see people.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q I will just move to the online criminal convictions—this is clauses 35 and 36 of the Bill. This is a general question to the panel. Do you think there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill for defendants who use the automatic online conviction process? For example, how could you make an offender aware of the consequences to their employment status of having a criminal conviction? What are the safeguards to enable them to fully understand the consequences of that guilty plea?
Penelope Gibbs: That is a challenge. The Bar Council has suggested that only non-recordable offences should go on to the online conviction system, and I agree with that. To an extent, that would resolve some of the criminal record issues, because non-recordable offences are not added to the police national computer. They can attract a rehabilitation period, but they do not come up in Disclosure and Barring Service checks. That is one of the issues.
If we move on to recordable offences that do attract a criminal record, it is absolutely crucial that people are given full information. A criminal record is not just a barrier to employment: it is a barrier to education, travel and housing. Also, something might be minor and recordable, and you think, “Oh well, that is okay,” but if you have two minor offences, they come up on a DBS check. So if you apply for lots of jobs, they will come up. It is a complex area, and it is crucial that the online conviction system does do that.
It is also important that the system gives people an idea of what a viable defence is. There is an idea that people know whether they are guilty or not. It is true that they might have done the deed, but if they have a legally viable defence, they have a good possibility of being acquitted. This is a complex legal area, and it is crucial that the online criminal conviction court should go through what a viable legal defence is, and refer people to legal agencies that could help with that.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Penelope, you mentioned the 2010 pilot, which was between a police station and the magistrates court and which did reveal some interesting lessons, such as how to schedule cases—that needed to be done better—the elements of a case that are best dealt with by videolink, and the importance of technical quality and reliability. I am sure you would agree that, since then, videolinks have been used successfully in the Crown court, magistrates court hearings and in many other ways, and that the lessons have been learned. Now videolinks are better scheduled, they are used in a more targeted way, and the technology has improved.
There are a lot of benefits to a videolink: for vulnerable witnesses it is often used as a special measure, it stops people having to travel long distances, it stops the wasting of police time, and the professionals find it increasingly helpful to be able speak to their clients at distance. Then there is the security side of it, which means you do not have a lot of people having to use prison transport. Do you accept that things have moved on since 2010?
Penelope Gibbs: They have moved on in a tiny way. I went to observe a court the other day and the videolink worked but the camera angle on the defendant was towards the top of his head and he was quite distant from the camera. People had real difficulties understanding what he said. That was just a month ago.
I would like to talk more about that case—
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Before you go on, on that point, in the Rolf Harris trial that recently concluded, the video evidence was given from Australia. That meant the victims did not have to travel thousands of miles. Surely that is a benefit?
Penelope Gibbs: Can I distinguish between the use of videolink for expert witnesses and other witnesses and defendants? There are different issues with witnesses, who will often benefit from a videolink, and defendants.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Rolf Harris watched it from prison.
Penelope Gibbs: It was his choice to do so, but in the 2010 research, the evidence was that those who were on videolink got longer sentences.
On the police station videolink, it is worth going backwards and saying, “Why are so many defendants being detained by the police on quite minor charges?” When I twice observed videolinks the other day, those people had been detained by the police, they are produced in the videolink room and most of them were released immediately after that videolink appearance. One of the police stations that it was linked to was 15 minutes’ walk from the magistrates court and the cost of the journey—in the 2010 report; I do not know if it is the same now—was only £35. For a defendant to be participating in their own process, it is worth £35 to get them into the court, because all the evidence says it is a less good process. Also, crucially in the 2010 report, people on videolink got longer sentences.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Do you not accept you are going back to the very early history of this and that since a whole range of videolinks have been set up in prisons and in other places right across the country, as well as in police stations? The whole thing has moved on in leaps and bounds over the last seven years.
Penelope Gibbs: I do not think the basics of what was looked at in the 2010 report have actually changed. Of the lawyers I am in contact with, I have not met one lawyer now who thinks they can have the same relationship and the same communication with somebody who is on videolink as if they are in the court with them.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q It has been made clear that there will be safeguards for the online procedure. Although I accept they have to be done well, it is a procedure that should be tried, given how simple it is for everybody concerned. Are you against even trying it?
Penelope Gibbs: I am not opposed to online criminal conviction if we are talking about non-recordable offences and if sufficient, very rich information is put on the net. I have many more concerns about online indications of plea.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q Jenny, one of the critical things in the virtual court environment is that people and defendants understand what is going on within that environment despite being on videolink. This is why I raised a concern earlier about young defendants. How do you feel the cuts to legal aid and the proliferation of litigants in person will affect the way people are able to understand what is going on when there is no lawyer present either?
Jenny Beck: It is a massive risk. The critical point is that those who are the most marginalised are the most affected. People who have difficulty understanding, people who have learning needs and people who have language difficulties are the most likely to be those facing the most difficulty. I can see a split in access to justice as a consequence. In the absence of really targeted lawyer intervention at very strategic points, including the introduction of early advice across the board for people, which would be a huge step in the right direction, from a qualified lawyer via legal aid, you can get into a situation where people will be pushed to the margins and miscarriages of justice will result.
Professor Susskind: I want to highlight something that is important in civil, family and tribunals, which is that the introduction of the online process is to be accompanied—this is crucial—by a highly simplified set of rules. That does not fully meet Jenny’s point, but I do not want people to think we are cutting and pasting the old rules online. The idea is that the system will be governed by a very simple set of explicit rules, a lot of which will be embedded within the system, so it will be intuitive and easy to use. There will always be the hard to reach, those who do not use technology comfortably, for example, and the Government have in mind some assistive technology services. I think we will need services for people who otherwise would find the process difficult, but for the lion’s share of people, who use Amazon daily or perhaps renew their tax online, the system should not be complex in the sense of its having a vast body of unintelligible rules.
Liz Saville Roberts
Q Could you recommend what form that should take?
Professor Susskind: I am bound to say this, because in part I am an academic by background, but I think we need to move beyond anecdote. I can tell you what I heard in the court room that I visited—it was nothing like what was heard over here—but actually, what each of us says as individuals is less important than engaging serious researchers to undertake attitudinal surveys and surveys of people who have been through the process. That is the kind of work that we have seen someone like Hazel Genn at UCL doing over the decades—understanding why people go to the law, how they feel when they have been through the process and whether they have confidence in the system.
I have been strongly advocating, even for the civil system that I have recommended we introduce, that we should not rush in. We should think big, but start small. We should start small, monitor, evaluate, undertake serious academic empirical research, report back, invest where things seem promising and be prepared to accept if developments do not work out. We do not have the evidence yet so we have got to kick-start it somewhere. This, for me, is a call for an incremental—the technology would say an agile—modular step-by-step approach. If I was getting the sense that the Government were advocating a big bang—one single system, architect in advance—I would be very critical of that, but that is not the approach being taken.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q I was hoping we might move on to clause 47—the cross-examination in family justice. I was hoping to ask Polly from Women’s Aid, who is sat very patiently, one or two questions about this. Polly, could you give us a sense of the harm caused by victims being cross-examined in person by alleged abusers in the family courts?
Polly Neate: It is hard to overstate how harmful it is, actually; it is genuinely traumatising. In particular, it makes it very difficult for the family courts to play the role they should play, which is to put the child’s best interests first, when usually the mother of the child is not able to advocate adequately because she is being questioned by somebody who has put her through abuse—sometimes, years of abuse.
The other thing that is really important to understand about this—this is what is worrying about judges’ understanding, if I may say so—is that domestic abuse is not all about incidents of physical violence; it is all about control, and coercive control. The family courts are being used, if you like, as an arena for perpetrators to continue to exert the control over their partner or former partner, and in particular they are using child contact proceedings as a way of continuing to exert that control.
So it is not only that the person might be overtly abusive towards the survivor in the court, although that happens unfortunately. It is also that there are like trigger words and almost code words that a perpetrator can use when talking to the victim, which will mean something to her that is extremely traumatic but to anyone listening it would not necessarily appear to be abusive, on the face of it. That is why we say that the practice just has to be banned, because as an onlooker you cannot necessarily tell the meaning of what is being said between those two people, particularly—this often happens—after years of abuse and coercive control of all kinds, and psychological control in particular.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q We have been very grateful to work with Women’s Aid on this issue and for the help that you have been giving in trying to help with the training of those in the family justice system. Do you think the provisions in the Bill will help, and do you have any more that you feel needs to be done in terms of guidance and the judiciary?
Polly Neate: Absolutely, the provisions in the Bill will help. As you know, we very warmly welcome the move that has been made; I think it will make a big difference. We work on this issue with quite a number of women who have been through this experience and their reaction to the news that this is coming in the Bill has been quite amazing; there has been a very big kind of welcoming from women themselves. That is really important.
The only bit where I think we really need to take care is the level of judicial discretion in the other cases. So, we know that where an alleged perpetrator has already been convicted or charged, or where there is an injunction in place, automatically they will not be able to cross-examine the witness—the victim. However, there are other cases that will rely on judicial discretion and I guess my concern with that is, as I said, the understanding of judges. Their understanding of domestic abuse is what they will have to draw on in order to use that discretion. Very often their understanding is simply extremely inadequate, to be completely frank—particularly their understanding of coercive control, which is the key issue here.
Either the ban on cross-examination has to apply whenever domestic abuse is alleged, which would be our preference, or it is really vital that training for judges is absolutely ensured, and also that there is much better access to special measures in protection as well, so that the whole family court estate and system can be much safer for survivors of domestic abuse.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Jenny, I know that the Legal Aid Practitioners Group has been very involved with this issue, as well.
Jenny Beck: Yes, we have.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q I do not know whether you would like to say something about all of those issues.
Jenny Beck: Yes, please. I echo all the points that Polly has made. I am also a family practitioner, so I go to court a lot and specialise in domestic abuse work. Last week, I had a client who did not give evidence in the case concerning her children, because she was terrified of being cross-examined. I know that the applicant in that case deliberately was unrepresented in order to be able to cross-examine her. That is a hands-on example of exactly what is happening, which is that perpetrators are using the court process to effect further abuse on their victims. We all know that; it is commonplace. It is not a special trick; it is very well known, so this is a hugely welcome move in the right direction.
Equally, I would like to see a widening of the last provision for the other cases to make sure that the representation covers the victim cross-examining in those cases as well, because that is not quite as clear as it is in the first two clauses. The reciprocity is quite clear in the first two clauses, but in the other cases there is a concern because, although legal aid is still available for victims of domestic abuse, there are still people who are not able to get it, because they have not got the right gateway evidence or because they are excluded on the basis of means or unable to make a contribution. It would be a perverse situation if you found that the perpetrator were able to be represented and the victim were not.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q As you probably know, on the evidence requirements, we have made partial announcements and we are reviewing it with the aim of making a fuller announcement fairly soon.
Polly Neate: Which is also extremely welcome.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Richard Miller, do you want to come in?
Richard Miller: We also very much support the proposals. One of the issues that has been of concern, but I think is understood, is that there is a lot of comparison with provisions in the criminal courts. However, in the criminal courts, the victim is a witness in the case who comes in and gives evidence and leaves, whereas in the family courts they are a party and there is interaction throughout the entire process. It means this is a different situation with more scope for harm to be caused to victims of domestic violence within the family courts. We would want to continue to have dialogue to ensure that as much protection as possible is given in those circumstances.
We have identified a couple of specific points that we want to think about a little further. For example, the first provision talks about instances where someone has been convicted or charged. We wonder whether that ought to cover instances where they have been cautioned for the offence as well. That is something that might be added in.
The other issue that has struck us is that this protection will apply not just to the victim but also potentially to other witnesses, such as a child of the family who has witnessed some of the alleged abuse. In that situation, the child could be called on behalf of either party and therefore the issue might not be strictly cross- examination. That may also need to be looked at to ensure that adequate protection is there for all the vulnerable witnesses we are trying to protect.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q Clause 47 is very welcome. These protections have existed in the criminal courts for some time and to have them now in the family courts is absolutely right. Starting with Polly, what is your view on extending that principle to the civil courts more generally, even beyond simply the family court?
Polly Neate: This is why in the other cases where there was judicial discretion, I said we should discuss any alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse, where there is an allegation. I cannot see the benefit in any situation of any perpetrator of abuse being able to use any court directly to question or cross-examine the victim or the children in the situation. Coercive control does not only exist between a couple; it is something that is deliberately exerted by one person on the other members of the family, which very often includes the children. I want to back up that point, which was very well made.
I can think of no reason other than cost for the idea that someone has to have his day in court. I think that notion needs to be done away with altogether. There is no circumstance where that could possibly be a good idea.
The Chair
I welcome the next panel of witnesses. We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of British Insurers, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and Aviva. We have until 4.30 pm for the session. Please will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Brett Dixon: Hello, I am Brett Dixon. I am the vice-president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. We are a not-for-profit organisation that looks out for the interests of injured people.
Rob Townend: Hi, I am Rob Townend. I am the UK claims director for Aviva.
James Dalton: I am James Dalton, the director of general insurance policy for the Association of British Insurers.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Let us start with you, Mr Townend. In recent years, since 2005, we have seen a fall in the number of road accidents, we have seen safer vehicles and we have seen a more than 50% increase in whiplash-related claims. Can you put this in perspective and tell us what you think the problem is and whether you think our tariff system is going any way to solving it?
Rob Townend: The first part, yes, we have seen a reduction in road traffic accidents and an increase in injury claims. From our perspective, it is the easy access to cash that has created the problem. In terms of your tariff, I think that will go part way with the other parts of the solution to deal with the problem around whiplash in the UK. It is interesting if you look at places such as Germany, where injury claims have fallen in line with a reduction in road traffic accidents.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q On what you think the problem is, you said “easy access to cash”. Would you like to explain the whole thing a bit more fully?
Rob Townend: The insurance industry has been part of this in settling claims too quickly. Some of that has been an attempt to avoid ongoing costs. A whiplash claim can get anything from £1,500 to £4,000. It is quite difficult to diagnose whiplash, so the propensity for claims has increased over the last 10 to 15 years.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q What do you put it down to? What is actually going on?
Rob Townend: I think it is claims farming, nuisance calls and people drawn to easy money. I think it is everything from “cash to crash” gangs to opportunists. Claims management companies are driving up claims and incentivising people to make claims.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q What about you, Mr Dalton? Do you agree? Do you think the tariff system will help?
James Dalton: I think the way Mr Townend has articulated the problem is exactly right. The behaviours that he described are symptomatic of a system that has too much money in it and incentivises lawyers to farm claims and to push claims into the system for insurers to pay, which drives up the cost of car insurance for everyone.
In terms of the Government proposals in the legislation, the tariff system is an important mechanism to provide clarity to claimants about the amount of damages that they will receive. That is an important clear signal to claimants in terms of ensuring that they get some compensation for the injury that they have suffered.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Say that Mr Dixon says in a moment, “No, these are all genuine claims, and anyway they haven’t gone up; they’ve gone down.” That is something I have heard said. What would you say about that?
James Dalton: I am sure Mr Dixon will say that. He is being selective with the numbers he is using. There is absolutely no doubt that the number of whiplash claims has decreased. That is true—it is what the Compensation Recovery Unit statistics will tell you—but at the same time that the number of whiplash claims has gone down, the number of back injury claims has gone up significantly. Claimant lawyers re-labelling what is essentially the same injury as a back injury rather than a whiplash injury does not mean that the claim has gone away.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q The circumstances are the same, are they not? A shunt up the back, and then it is described as a back injury rather than a whiplash injury.
James Dalton: Correct.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Well, Mr Dixon, are you going to tell us what I predicted, or do you disagree?
Brett Dixon: No, I was going to start by correcting something Mr Dalton said. It is not the claimant’s lawyer who enters the details for the Compensation Recovery Unit; it is the defendant’s representative. If they are being entered as back injuries, it is the defendant’s representative doing so. I am aware of that as a practitioner. The Government CRU statistics seem to me to be crucial to understanding this. If you look back—
Sir Oliver Heald
Q Can you explain what it is, in case anybody here does not know? It is the DWP, isn’t it?
Brett Dixon: It is. If you have an injury claim, the defendant’s representative informs the DWP—the Compensation Recovery Unit—that a claim is being made. Then there is a mechanism for the Government to recover costs such as NHS costs or benefits paid because someone has been unable to work. It is important that the money from the person who has negligently caused harm finds its way back into the Government system, rather than the Government and the taxpayer footing the bill, but what is important about those statistics is the simple fact that they effectively record the number of claims that go through the whole court system as well as claims settled before the court system.
If you look back six years, you can see that the Government figures show a 41% decrease in this type of whiplash claim. If you look at it in terms of neck and back—there are different recording mechanisms; they are all available and there to be seen—there is an 11% decrease over a similar period. The ABI’s own statistics also show that since 2013, which is roughly after the last major set of reforms, the cost of dealing with these types of claim is down 12%. They are saving approximately £500 million per year. There is not an issue in terms of cost.
I would urge the Committee not to be taken in by the hyperbole prevalent in the sector and think how we as a society we would want to deal with someone who has been genuinely injured as a consequence of somebody else’s negligence. There should be consequences for wrongs, and insurance is there and takes a premium to cover people in those circumstances. If there are issues with people pursuing claims that are not genuine, that is a completely different thing for the Committee to look at. We should not impact on genuine people and the fabric of our society in an effort to deal with that problem.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q So, Mr Townend, you are exaggerating the figures and these are genuine claims.
Rob Townend: There is a point around it being a choice for society—that is the one thing we agree with—whether people want to pay for these claims in their premiums; whether they want the ongoing nuisance calls; whether they want the fraudulent and opportunistic claims. We seem to think of this as victimless crime where people are not injured, but we have to defend our customers from spurious claims through the courts. We have had serious injuries and fatalities related to “cash for crash”.
In terms of the volume point, our volumes have been flat for the last three or four years. We still see significant variations between different areas of the country in terms of injury as a proportion of total claims. Somewhere like Exeter has 20% of road traffic accidents with an injury. If I go to Manchester, it is nearly two and a half times that. Why do they have weaker necks in Manchester than in Exeter? The road traffic accidents are no different, so that tells you the extent of the problem.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q If there are some savings here, is it right that Aviva has said that they will pass them on to the customer?
Rob Townend: Absolutely. We will guarantee to pass on 100% of the savings through the premiums.
Richard Burgon
Q Can I just start by clarifying with the Aviva representative that Aviva has chosen to pass that saving on? That is not compulsory; it is your organisation’s choice to do that.
Rob Townend: It is our commitment as an organisation. Most of you are aware of how the market works; it is a highly competitive motor market. There are a lot of underwriters and business providers. Whether claims costs increase or reduce, they typically flow through to our premiums.
Chris Philp
Q In the absence of any change, what is your assessment of the percentage impact on the average car insurance premium in this country?
James Dalton: It will go up significantly. I think the impact on young drivers is going to be particularly bad, because those are the customers who are most likely to have catastrophic injuries. It is estimated that their premiums could increase by £1,000.
Rob Townend: I will not say a lot that differs from what Mr Dalton has said. We have got to sort out the methodology for setting out the discount rate, because I think nobody would say that it fits the current world, either from an investment return point of view or from the point of view of looking after those who are seriously injured.
The fact that there are so many variations of the potential solution that the Lord Chancellor could have chosen tells you that the mechanism does not work. At the moment, while the consultation is happening, there is a world of uncertainty around what will happen in the future. I think it is in everybody’s interest to get clarity around a longer-term rate that can be as formulaic as possible and looks after the long-term interests of those who are seriously injured while looking at the longer-term investment returns that lump-sum payments can achieve. We just plead that the consultation is got on with quickly. We would love to see the piece of legislation that it could be put into.
Brett Dixon: It is important to understand that you are dealing with issues at two ends of a different spectrum. You are talking about a whiplash claim, and in the same breath, in terms of the discount rate, you are talking about the catastrophically injured person. The important point in relation to that is that, first, the insurers have known for some time that this change was coming. It was long overdue. For a number of years they have made provisions in their own accounts for this, so to suggest that this has come like a bolt out of the blue is disingenuous.
Secondly, the changes are to ensure that a seriously injured person has sufficient moneys available to make provision for their future needs because of somebody’s negligent act. A lot of it is about care. If you are not making sure the person who did the damage is paying via their insurance policy, it will be the NHS and the taxpayer who ultimately have to foot the bill to look after that seriously injured person. What you will not change by changing the mechanism for the discount rate is the fact that that person is seriously injured and needs that care. It is right for society that the person who did the damage should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.
Insurers knew this was coming. I hear a lot of talk about how you cannot buy Government gilts. Because of the mechanism chosen in the Damages Act 1996, the person who is investing their money does so on the basis that they are taking a no-risk investment. That is why that is there. There are no other no-risk investments available. If you want a judge to calculate damages, he has to have a methodology and a starting point.
James Dalton: No one is arguing about whether these claimants need the support that an insurance company is going to provide. No one is saying that these people should get less money. What we are saying is that the formula for setting the rate, which is now 20 years old, needs to be updated to take into account the fact that it is linked to Government bonds and assumes 100% compensation. These things do not just happen in practice.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q I do not know if Mr Dixon and Mr Dalton would agree that the Lord Chancellor has had to exercise her duty in a quasi-judicial way under the existing mechanism as it stands. It is right for this to be a consultation about the future, but that was the law. Do you agree?
Brett Dixon: I agree entirely. The Lord Chancellor made the decision that she was legally required to make. She was exercising a quasi-judicial function when we made the reforms, introduced the Supreme Court and made other changes. That role was retained by the Lord Chancellor, even though setting damages is properly a judicial function.
James Dalton: I do not agree. The Government undertook consultation exercises in 2012 and 2013 specifically asking questions around whether the regulatory framework for setting the discount rate was right. Indeed, there is going to be a consultation now asking similar questions. To me, that suggests that the Government do not think that the framework is right. In that context, it also suggests that the decision that the Lord Chancellor has decided to take, based on legal advice, is questionable. I do not think that the way that she has taken that decision is right.
Wednesday 29th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPrisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 March 2017 - (29 Mar 2017)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
he Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Prisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yasmin Qureshi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. May I inform the Committee that we will be seeking a Division on amendment 10?
When we heard that this Bill was being introduced, everyone got very excited about it because it was advertised as a once-in-a-generation chance to reform prisons. However, when we actually went through the Bill, we found that it has left out many things that it should be dealing with. Although we welcome certain parts of the Bill, it does not deal with many of the things that are at the crux of the problem with our prison system.
I think everybody is aware of the fact that there has been disorder at Lewes, Bedford, Moorland, Birmingham and Swaleside prisons. Yesterday, we heard from the experts that violence against staff and inmates and suicides are at record levels. Hard-pressed prison officers need more numbers and resources to deal with prisoner violence and to make prisons safe. The Bill does not deal with the issues of overcrowding, understaffing and the proper rehabilitation of offenders.
The probation service is not working, and again the Bill does not address its issues. People should leave prison ready to lead productive and law-abiding lives, but that can be achieved only if prisons are safe, decent and fair places in which those being punished can also begin to rebuild their lives. It is with that in mind that we tabled these amendments.
Rather than simply aiming to deliver the purposes of prisons, we want to adopt prison procedures and practices designed to deliver the purpose of prisons. Therefore, we want to add the words “decent” and “fair” to the clause. We think the prison environment should be decent and fair. That was one of the central conclusions of Lord Woolf’s inquiry into the disturbances at Strangeways and other prisons in 1990, which remains the central foundation for everything that a prison might achieve. The link between safety and decency is also recognised by the UN’s Nelson Mandela rules, which require that, in addition to safety, prisons must maintain the dignity of every person in custody. To ensure the Bill is compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations, that duty should not be assumed or implicit; rather, it should be made explicit in our legislation.
A lack of confidence in the complaints system among prisoners stubbornly persists. Fewer than 30% of prisoners reported to inspectors that they felt their complaints were dealt with fairly. That view was upheld by the prison and probation ombudsman, which has seen the proportion of upheld complaints rise from 26% to 40% in only five years.
Establishing the minimum standards of safety, decency and fairness in prisons should also be a matter for Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. The Prison Reform Trust has argued that, on the purpose of prisons, we should also enshrine in statute the existing case law about what life in prison should be like, as set out in Raymond v. Honey in 1982, which states that prisoners retain all civil rights not taken away expressly by Parliament or by necessary implication of the fact of imprisonment, such as voting and freedom of movement. An annual reporting duty will be linked to the statutory duty of prisons.
Amendment 11 would insert the words
“for prisoners and prison staff”.
Prison officers work in some of the most challenging conditions, and the Bill needs to focus on protecting them. We must ensure that their safety and working conditions are taken into consideration. In 2016 there were 25,049 assault incidents, which was up by 5,995 or 31%. That included 6,430 assaults on staff, which was up by 1,833 or 40%. No measures in the Bill impact on the likelihood of violence. An official statistics bulletin recognises the role of staffing cuts in the rising violence:
“The rise in assaults since 2012 has coincided with major changes to the regime, operating arrangements and culture in public sector prisons. For example, restructuring of the prison estate including staff reductions, which have reduced overall running costs, and an increasing awareness of gang culture and illicit psychoactive drugs in prisons.”
On 15 November last year, members of the Prison Officers Association took national protest action over the failure of the National Offender Management Service to address concerns about health and safety before a court injunction required them to return to work. The POA said:
“The continued surge in violence and unprecedented levels of suicide and acts of self harm, coupled with the recent murder and escapes demonstrate that the service is in meltdown.”
Staff morale is low and the statistics show that the number of prison officers continues to fall, and the leaving rate is increasing, in particular after one or two years’ service, despite the recruitment efforts. Unless we recognise that prison staff—their rights and working conditions—must be considered within the scope of the legislation, there is little prospect of prisons achieving their statutory purpose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Mr Brady, may I say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship on this historic day for our country? It is 65 years since the last major prisons Bill.
I am grateful to the Opposition for the points that they have made on the important issues of the debate, in which we are considering the statutory purpose of prison. From the outset, we should remember that prisons are there to deliver the sentences of the courts. As the Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes clear, one of the purposes of sentencing is to punish offenders, and of course this is important; but equally important is what we do with offenders when they are in prison.
The clause will make it clear in statute for the first time that the purpose of prisons should not only be to house prisoners, but include reforming prisoners and preparing them for a return to their community. Given the significance of that, I understand hon. Members’ interest. However, before I respond to the amendments individually, it might be helpful if I touch on four opening points to show how the statutory purpose fits within the broader prison landscape, as this will come up with some of the subsequent amendments that we will be debating.
First, we are enshrining the purpose of prisons in statute, to provide a clear common purpose that everyone working in the prison system, whether prison officers, governors, the independent inspectorates or the Secretary of State, can unite behind. Secondly, we have prison rules set out in secondary legislation, and therefore approved by Parliament. The rules are there to ensure the good regulation and management of prisons, and to make provision for the classification, treatment, employment, discipline and control of prisoners. They are also there to ensure that prisons are run fairly and to provide a clear legal basis for any interferences with prisoner rights. I emphasise the importance of prison rules in ensuring that some of the more detailed arrangements of running our prisons are captured in legislation.
Thirdly, our reforms will sharpen accountability through the system. We are clarifying the distinction between the Secretary of State’s role in managing the prison system as a whole and the operational running of individual prisons, which is for governors and their staff, as part of a new, operationally focused Executive agency, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. As hon. Members will be aware, the Secretary of State made a written ministerial statement on the introduction of the Bill which set out the standards for which governors will be held to account. Of course, they include security, such as the number of escapes or absconds from closed prisons, but they also include progress made on getting offenders off drugs, progress in health and in maintaining or developing family relationships.
To hold governors to account for these new standards, they must be free to manage. We are freeing them up to deliver change and devolving key operational policies to them, a subject I look forward to discussing further in amendments on minimum standards. The new performance management regime works with the purpose and prison rules by ensuring that a clear line of sight exists between the purpose and the standards.
Fourthly, we are enhancing the transparency and scrutiny of our regime. We already publish data on a wide number of different topics, for example, safety and custody statistics but we will go further because we want the public to understand that progress is being made in our prisons, so we will publish data setting out how prisons are performing. Data on some of the new performance measures will be available from October, as data start to be made public on a quarterly basis, and the performance agreements will be published from the summer. We will also publish performance tables to show how individual prisons are performing against key safety and reform standards. The table will present the data in a format that the user can rank by standard. It will be populated as data become available.
Finally, we will discuss later our approach to strengthening the independent scrutiny of our prison system through the prisons and probation ombudsman and Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons. All of that will contribute to assessing how the statutory purpose is being met.
As we consider the proposed additions to the purpose from the hon. Member for Bolton South East, it is important to consider whether they are rightly aims, or better suited to a different part of the new operational framework. I shall consider each in turn. Amendment 9 would replace “aim” with “adopt procedures and practices designed”. Although I understand that the hon. Lady’s purpose is to strengthen the clause, I am not sure I agree that it would do so. The Government consider that it is implicit in the drafted duty of “must aim to” that prisons must “adopt procedures and practices designed” to achieve those aims. As I have set out, the statutory purpose is designed to provide a common purpose that all parts of the justice system can unite behind. In my view, “aim” is a broader and more inclusive way of ensuring that all the different parts of the system can identify their role in meeting the purpose.
Amendment 10 proposes the inclusion of “decent and fair” in the purpose. I want to stress that of course the Government strongly believe that all prisoners should be treated fairly and with decency. It is absolutely right that decency and fairness are, and continue to be, essential elements of running prisons. That is why there is already a range of legal obligations to ensure that prisons are run in a way that is decent.
First, it is a general principle of public law that the public authority must act fairly with those whom it deals with. Many of the obligations we signed up to under the European convention on human rights, and which were incorporated into domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998, are relevant to decency in prisons. For example, article 3 of the convention means that prisoners must be detained in conditions that are compatible with respect for their human dignity.
Prisons must, of course, comply with the Equality Act 2010 and ensure that they do not discriminate against a person with a protected characteristic, such as race or disability. That is also an important part of ensuring fairness and decency. Many of the minimum requirements that contribute to ensuring that prisons are run in a decent way are also set out expressly in secondary legislation, in the Prison Act 1952 and principally in the Prison Rules 1999, which are secondary legislation approved by Parliament in the usual way.
The provisions are detailed and extensive and cover a wide range of requirements. For example, they include rules on checking cells and cell conditions; the provision of wholesome, nutritious food; hygiene; beds and bedding; and clothing adequate for warmth and health. In order to ensure that prisons are meeting those minimum standards, all prisons have an independent monitoring board that examines all aspects of prison life in order to ensure that prisoners are treated with fairness and decency. I argue that it is better to focus on ensuring that the aspects of a decent regime are included in the prison rules, rather than in the Bill. Prisons are already bound by legislation that requires them to act with decency and fairness.
Turning to fairness, there are a number of safeguards in place in the day-to-day running of prisons to ensure that the regime is fair. There is, of course, the general public law duty on prisons to act fairly and there are statutory requirements in place too. For instance, should a prisoner be charged with an offence against discipline, prison rule 54 provides that the prisoner
“shall be informed of the charge as soon as possible and…be given a full opportunity of hearing what is alleged against him and of presenting his own case”.
Prison rule 45, on removal from association, requires extended periods to be authorised by someone who is external to the prison who can scrutinise the reasons for the segregation. Where a prisoner has exhausted the internal complaints procedure, he may direct a complaint to the prisons and probation ombudsman. The Bill puts the PPO on a statutory footing to ensure his permanence and give him statutory powers. I look forward to discussing the role of external scrutiny in prisons in more detail later.
It is, of course, vital that we treat prisoners with decency and fairness if we are to expect them to turn their lives around. I completely agree about the importance of ensuring that we do. However, I believe that it is not necessary to include such a provision in the purpose, because a requirement for a fair and decent regime already exists elsewhere in legislation.
Although amendment 11 raises a very important question, I am happy to confirm that we are confident that the clause already covers prisoners and prison staff without an explicit reference to both. There is a risk that including such a reference may inadvertently omit others working within or with prisons, such as charities, inspectors and civil servants, who also need to take account of the purpose while performing their duties. I therefore beg the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
The Chair
The shadow Minister has already indicated that she wishes to press amendment 10 to a Division; it would be helpful if she indicated whether or not she wishes to withdraw amendment 9.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(da) maintain an environment where it is safe for prisoners to practise their faith.”
This amendment guarantees the rights of prisoners to practise their faith in prison.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important topic. As hon. Members are aware, there is already legislative provision in the Prison Act 1952 to ensure that every prison has a chaplain. The hon. Member for St Helens North asked for some information at the start of his speech on the amendment, and I will write to him with the breakdown requested.
Prisons are committed to enabling prisoners to practise their religions, and all prisons have multi-faith chaplaincy teams to facilitate and enable them in the practice of their faith. Secondary legislation, in prison rule 15, provides for regular visits to prisoners by ministers of religion. If a prisoner belongs to a denomination for which no minister has been appointed at a particular prison, the governor must arrange for visits by a minister of that denomination.
Instructions and guidance on religious practice in prisons is set out in Prison Service instruction 5/2016, “Faith and Pastoral Care for Prisoners”, which includes specific information on a wide range of religions and beliefs. The PSI was developed in consultation with NOMS faith advisers and includes specific information on the requirements to practise each religion. For example, the PSI requires that prisoners have the opportunity for corporate worship for one hour per week led by the relevant faith chaplain. For numerically smaller faith traditions, there is scope for prisoners to meet together under supervision, in the absence of the faith chaplains if needs be.
The PSI also makes provision for informal, unsupervised worship, religious study or meditation so that prisoners can also practise their faith in their cell, and they may have key religious artefacts and scriptures in their possession. Prisons will also meet the religious dietary requirements of prisoners, and prisoners are able to observe key religious festival dates. Given that those provisions and existing legal protections are clearly in place, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Mr Gyimah
In responding to amendment 3, I stress at the outset that the Government attach huge importance to prisoners, in the vast majority of cases, developing and maintaining supportive family relationships, which are critical to rehabilitation and reducing intergenerational crime. Families can play a significant role in supporting an offender. They are the most effective resettlement agency once a prisoner has been released, and research has found that prisoners who report improved family relationships over the course of their sentence are less likely to reoffend after release. Positive family relations have been identified as a protective factor in helping prisoners to turn their backs on crime.
Lord Farmer, working in partnership with Clinks, was commissioned to chair a working group to investigate how supporting men in prison in England and Wales to engage with their families could reduce reoffending and assist in addressing intergenerational crime. The Government will consider his findings and respond in due course. The evidence that his review has gathered will allow governors to deliver a local offer that best meets the needs of their respective prisoner cohort, thereby helping them to improve family ties.
However, the Government’s view is that maintaining and developing family relationships is already covered by paragraphs (b) and (c) of what will be new section A1 of the Prison Act 1952 when the Bill becomes law. Requiring prisons to aim to reform and rehabilitate offenders and to prepare prisoners for life outside prison is intended to capture a wide range of activity that is rehabilitative and helps to reduce reoffending. Maintaining family relationships is critical to both those aims.
I can also confirm that the role of the family is already contained in secondary legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole pointed out. Prison rule 4 already ensures that “special attention” is paid to the maintenance of family relationships, so long as they are in the best interests of both prisoner and family. Furthermore, rule 4 ensures that both encouragement and assistance is provided for prisoners in establishing relationships with those outside prison that will best promote the interests of his family and his own social rehabilitation.
An explicit reference to the maintenance and development of family relationships for that purpose ignores the fact that, for some prisoners, such as violent domestic cases, that would not be appropriate and therefore should not be pursued. Family relationships are already covered in the aims, with important detail contained in prison rules. That strikes the right balance between the overarching aim of the system and the detailed way in which the management of the prison should be carried out.
Let me be clear about the importance of family ties and relationships. Lord Farmer refers to that as a golden thread that runs through prison life, which is why from autumn 2017 governors will control budgets for family services, such as visitors’ centres, family engagement workers and family learning, which includes parenting skills classes. Those reforms will help governors to improve the way in which prisoners can engage with their families. Governors will therefore be able to respond flexibly to the particular needs of their local prison population in order to put in place the programmes and services that will be of most benefit. They will be able to deliver a local family offer that best meets the needs of their prisoners, helping them to develop and maintain positive family ties and reducing the risk of reoffending.
My hon. Friend rightly said that we need consistent practice across the estate. The ideas that Lord Farmer has generated, which we are considering, will help to deliver such consistency. I hope that I have provided my hon. Friend with the necessary reassurance and ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
We support the amendment. I assume that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole tabled it because although everybody says that it is important for offenders to maintain family relationships, in reality that is not happening. We find that many a time the offender is locked away in a prison about 300 miles away from his or her family, and the families are unable to visit either because of the great distances involved or because they cannot afford to travel several hundred miles or find the time to go—they may have young children or be elderly. There are all sorts of issues. Therefore, in reality families are unable to maintain contact with the offender, and the offender is unable to maintain contact with their family.
A number of constituents have come to me about this. A young woman has just had a second child, the husband has gone to prison and he has never seen his baby. She wants the father and the child to know each other, but because the distance to travel is so great and it is often so costly, in reality that is not happening. I ask the Government and the Prison Service to think about that. It is all very well saying, “Let’s maintain family relationships,” but we must ensure that the resources are there so that relationships can be maintained. Retransferring prisoners, perhaps to a location near to their home, if possible, should be considered urgently. I know from trying to get prisoners moved from one prison to another that it is an almost impossible task. It is all very well in theory, but we need something in the prison reforms to take place in practice.
By seeking to enshrine this provision in law, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is flagging up the importance of family relationships and ensuring that everyone is mindful of it. That is why we support the amendment.
Mr Gyimah
I want to make a couple of brief points. I acknowledge what the shadow Minister said about prisoners sometimes being located a long way away from their families. One of the facts about prison life is that prisoners often have to be moved. Sometimes prisoners want to be moved of their own volition, for example if they get into debt in prison or they are being bullied, and sometimes they do things that require them to be moved. At other times, for example if there is a major disturbance in a prison, it makes sense to disperse prisoners to deal with it. When that happens, we have the assisted visits scheme for those families who need help.
As we embark on reorganising the prison estate, we will be designing flexible facilities so that families can visit more easily, and the prisoner’s journey throughout their sentence will be organised in such a way that prisoners spend as much time as possible close to where their families are. That said, that is not always possible because prison life is incredibly complex. However, I take on board the points made by the shadow Minister.
Michael Tomlinson
I have listened carefully to the Minister and am grateful for his considered response to my amendment. All I ask is that when Lord Farmer’s report is widely disseminated, he does not close his mind to the possibility of the amendment’s wording being in the Bill. Obviously that will depend on timing. At present I am content not to press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Liz Saville Roberts
The amendment concerns the wellbeing and healthcare of offenders, the relationship with bodies such as probation and the co-ordinated rehabilitation of offenders. Despite reforms, the evidence is clear that the physical and mental healthcare we offer our prisoners still needs to be addressed. The purpose of prisons is undoubtedly to protect the public, rehabilitate and keep prisoners safe and prepare them for a life outside the institution. I welcome the inclusion of those concepts in this part of the Bill. However, it seems to be an obvious omission not to recognise specifically prisoners’ healthcare needs, both mental and physical. Equally, although the need to prepare offenders for life outside of prison is stated in the Bill, there seems to be somewhat a lack of foresight when it comes to expressing how prison should ensure a smooth transition into our communities by liaising with external organisations.
Let me inform the Committee of the statistics on healthcare: prisoners are 12 times more likely to suffer a personality disorder and 16 times more likely to suffer from psychosis; 10% to 14% of prisoners suffer a major depressive illness; two out of three have a personality disorder; seven out of 10 have alcohol abuse issues; and a third have a drug addiction on entry. I shall raise hepatitis C specifically under a later amendment.
The Government’s own regulator on the standard of healthcare in prisons, the National Guideline Centre, which is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, said last year that it had become clear that healthcare provision in prisons was typically poorer than in the general community and not sufficient to meet prisoners’ needs. If we do not recognise that most basic of obligations, healthcare in prisons is likely only to slide. That in turn will mean a risk of significantly worse outcomes, both for offenders in prison and those leaving prison. By not recognising the need for a prison to cater for the basic needs of its inmates, we will continue to fail to address key issues that contribute to criminal and disruptive behaviour inside and outside prisons, which of course will only burden the state further in the long run.
The amendment would add new paragraph (f) to proposed new section A1 of the Prison Act 1952; that relates to the need for prisons to look outwards as well as inwards, to properly reintegrate offenders back into communities. The Bill indicates that it is entirely within the prison that an inmate will become proficient in skills and learn to deal with demands in the way that reintegration requires. The reality is of course very different. A prison must liaise with a plethora of organisations across the public, private and third sectors to ensure that offenders have the best possible chances of reintegrating. New paragraph (f) would ensure that that reality was reflected in the Bill.
I recognise, of course, that clause 1 could become a list as long as my arm; however, I feel that the two relatively modest additions in the amendment would reflect the necessity and reality of the way modern prisons function, which is not, of course, in isolation. I will not press the amendment to a vote now, but I hope that the Government will give it proper consideration and a full response.
Mr Gyimah
The Government are very aware of the serious challenges that mental health, drug and alcohol issues pose for offenders and the prison system. The Ministry of Justice is committed to working closely with my colleagues at the Department of Health, NHS England and Public Health England, to help to provide the right support and healthcare in prisons.
There is already a statutory underpinning to the health of prisoners; ensuring that prisons are safe is already one of the aims contained in the statutory purpose. Our duties under the Human Rights Act 1998, which, as I have said already, incorporates the European convention on human rights, are also relevant to prisoner wellbeing and healthcare. For instance, under article 2 we must take active steps to prevent suicide and self-harm in custody. Under article 3 prisoners must be detained in conditions compatible with respect for their human dignity and not be subjected to distress or hardship that goes beyond the suffering inherent in detention; the article also requires that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, prisoners’ health and wellbeing should be adequately secured.
There are also already many processes and protections in place in prisons to protect prisoners’ health. For example, health needs assessments help to ensure that accurate information is available on the provision of healthcare needed in each prison; and we are introducing new training for prison staff, including awareness training on supporting prisoners with mental health issues, so that governors and staff better understand the mental health issues of the prisoners they are helping to support.
As set out in the National Health Service Act 2006 as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and regulations, healthcare in English prisons is commissioned directly by NHS England. That is important because it is right that healthcare in prisons should be delivered by clinical experts. Governors do not have the qualifications or the capability to make clinical decisions about patients, so it is right that responsibility for those decisions should lie with those professionals who can ensure that patients receive the best care.
Governors are already under a legal duty, under prison rule 20, to work in partnership with local healthcare providers to secure access to the same quality and range of services as the general public receive from the national health service. Part of that involves making sure that governors facilitate access to the healthcare provided by NHS England, including giving security clearance to the right people and providing escorts to appointments. However, as set out in the Government’s “Prison Safety and Reform” White Paper in November 2016, we want to go further.
Yasmin Qureshi
Although everyone is aware that, theoretically, prisoners are treated for drug or alcohol misuse, in reality it is not happening. In reality, substance abuse is leading to more disturbances in prison and, of course, causing much reoffending. We are spending something like £16 billion tackling reoffending, so something is not going right. Many people are coming into prison because they are addicted to drugs or alcohol. I remember from my 20 years of prosecuting and defending in the criminal law that many of my clients and some whom I was prosecuting, often involving domestic violence, for example, were there because one partner was normally drunk and, in an argument, would start hitting out at their partner.
Young people I would see, who were often committing what we would call low-level offences—although I do not like to use that term—were often addicted to drugs. So, for example, they might be walking past a car with a door open or a window down, and if they saw a purse, they would take it; or they might break a window, take a purse and run off with it because they needed the money; or a mobile phone, which they could sell to get money to feed their drug addiction. In the same way, if they walked past a house with an open door and nobody seemed to be there, they often thought it was an ideal opportunity to go in and steal. I am not making excuses for anyone, but that is the reality of how things happened.
Why did those people do those things? Because they were addicted and they needed to find money quickly. They needed to sell something and get their next fix, to use a colloquialism. Therefore, as I think everyone knows, a lot of people who come into prison already have substance or alcohol abuse problems, and they still have those problems when they leave prison. It is therefore appropriate for the Committee properly to consider this issue, so we very much support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. It is one thing to say what should happen in theory, but that is not happening in reality. In reality, there is not enough provision in the Prison Service to deal with substance and alcohol abuse, and we know that that causes reoffending and violence. This really important issue needs to be addressed.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the shadow Minister for her points; I will make a couple of brief points in response. I agree that the level of violence—particularly violence related to the use of new psychoactive substances such as spice and mamba—is too high. In September, we rolled out a new drug test for psychoactive substances—the first and only such test in the world—so we are aware of the issue and we are dealing with it.
We are all aware that prisons are difficult places with some very difficult people to manage. The question is whether we need provision in the Bill to manage these issues. I contend that we need effective practice. When it comes to mental health, for example, we should ask whether processes work well in every prison and whether our prison officers are properly trained to identify how people present when they have mental health problems. I spoke to one of the people who works in our prisons about these issues, and they said that when a prisoner has a mental health problem or is considering taking their life, they enter a dark place and seek to cover their tracks and not really show what is happening internally. These are issues that we really need to train people on the ground to deal with.
I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn. This is about effective practice on the ground. We are alive to these issues, and we will get to grips with them by empowering governors to work closely with the agencies that matter, rather than by adding another list to the Bill.
Liz Saville Roberts
I thank the Minister for his comments. I note that he referred exclusively to NHS England. Healthcare is devolved in Wales; prisons are not. That in itself raises the question: to what degree are we consistent in our approaches, and does this issue really need to be raised?
Others eloquently made the point that mental health problems and alcohol and drug addictions are so significant among the prison population that their treatment is surely critical to both rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. The Bill refers to prisons aiming to
“maintain an environment that is safe and secure.”
That does not seem to fully reflect the gravity of the situation, which we need to respond to. I hope that the Government will consider that. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
‘(da) maintain and promote physical and mental health of prisoners.’—(Yasmin Qureshi.)
This amendment requires the purposes of prisons to include the wellbeing of prisoners.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
‘1A Cooperation with agencies
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to co-operate with other agencies and bodies whose functions are relevant to the purpose outlined in section (A1).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), agencies and bodies must include—
(a) local authorities,
(b) the National Probation Service,
(c) Community Rehabilitation Companies, and
(d) any agency which provides to offenders the following—
(i) housing,
(ii) education,
(iii) employment,
(iv) health care,
(v) treatment for addiction,
(vi) mentoring for offenders, or
(vii) support to families of offenders.’
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to co-operate with other agencies to fulfil the purpose of prisons.
It is vital that agencies work together to provide the best context in which to avoid reoffending. Many of the solutions to offending lie outside prison walls, in education and training, health and social care, accommodation and family support. A duty to co-operate introduced under amendment 13 would establish clearly in statute the vital importance of agencies working together to achieve the purposes of prison, and bind them to it.
The newly formed community rehabilitation companies are responsible for “through the gate” provision, but a recent joint inspection by Her Majesty’s inspectorates of probation and of prisons into the through-the-gate resettlement services found that the CRCs
“are not sufficiently incentivised under their contract arrangements to give priority to this work. Payment is triggered by task completion rather than anything more meaningful. Additional financial rewards are far off and dependent on reoffending rates that are not altogether within the CRC’s gift. CRC total workloads (and therefore income) are less than anticipated when contracts were signed. As CRCs continue to develop and adjust their operating models accordingly, CRCs are hard-pressed and are generally giving priority to work that is rewarded with more immediate and more substantial payment.”
Most concerning, the report also found:
“Too many prisoners reached their release date without their immediate resettlement needs having been met, or even recognised.”
The problems associated with CRCs are only exacerbated by the lack of co-ordination between relevant agencies. For example, housing is a crucial issue, with up to two thirds of prisoners requiring support to find housing once released. However, the inspectorates’ report found that prisoners did not know who would help them, what that help would consist of and when they would know what had been done. Many applications for housing made by those responsible were standard applications to local authorities.
At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, however, when we were considering prison leavers, all the witnesses agreed that local authorities regard housing former inmates as a low priority. Furthermore, the APPG found:
“Local authorities do not record people who become homeless immediately after leaving prison and we do not know the scale of prison leavers who are hidden homeless.”
The Bill should attempt to overcome such lacuna by mandating closer co-operation between all relevant agencies.
On mental health, it is crucial to consider the effect of leaving prison on former inmates. A report published in 2013 found that
“those leaving prison are almost seven times more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population”.
Mr Gyimah
The amendment is about a duty for the Secretary of State to co-operate with other agencies and bodies whose functions are relevant to the purpose outlined in the Bill. There are already well-established ways of working between governors and different agencies and bodies, some with their own pre-existing legislation. For example, the multi-agency public protection arrangements provide a process through which the police, probation and prison services work together with other agencies to manage the risks posed by violent and sexual offenders living in the community, in order best to protect the public. Probation is one of the represented bodies, along with the police, local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and health, represented on community safety partnerships, which were set up under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The responsible authorities work together to protect their local communities from crime and help people feel safer.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm whether the Prison Service also works closely with the Home Office to ensure that we act quickly to deport foreign national offenders at the end of their sentences?
Mr Gyimah
I assure my hon. Friend that we work closely with the Home Office, which is ultimately responsible for deportation. The Prison Service has to facilitate its work in prisons. There is a lead Ministers group, including Ministers from the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, which meets regularly to discuss all the issues about moving foreign national offenders under various schemes.
New legislation is not needed to ensure that co-operation between governors and other agencies and bodies continues; governors do that on a daily basis to ensure that different services, from education and employment to healthcare, are carried out. That can be seen in the relationships with employers, such as Timpson and Halfords, which run academies within prison to train offenders for employment on release, and in formal arrangements with NHS England to ensure that prisoners have access to the healthcare they need. We are introducing new performance measures to hold governors to account for their performance in a wide range of areas, including education and housing, and we expect governors to work closely with other agencies and bodies to do that.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East mentioned probation and, in particular, the community rehabilitation companies. I assure her that we are going through a probation system review and will publish the results shortly. That will deal with some of the challenges she outlined. Furthermore, the National Probation Service—as opposed to the community rehabilitation companies—is already covered by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, so the amendment would have the effect of creating a duty for the Secretary of State to co-operate with herself. We already have a formal contract with CRCs, so it would be unnecessary to create an additional duty to co-operate. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Yasmin Qureshi
How many people we send to prison is clearly an issue. Many argue that there has been sentence inflation in the last number of years. There are two approaches. The Secretary of State could say that she does not want to look at prison sentencing reform in the sense of either reducing prison numbers or sentence inflation. In that case, we need to build a lot of prisons and recruit a lot of people to man them. The other option is to look again at sentences and the question of whether people who are in custody should be. As a senior judge recently said, community service orders, which could be stringent, could be made more widely available. Presumably that would require the Sentencing Council to revisit sentencing issues, which of course is one of the political issues.
It would be good if the Government thought about sentence inflation. We know from the last number of years that more offences now have longer custodial sentences than 20-odd years ago when I started work. As a result, there are more people in prison. If we want to have a policy of incarcerating people, we must ensure that there are enough prison spaces and enough people there to look after them—and to deal with the rehabilitation side, because we spend £16 billion a year on reoffending. Those issues need to be looked at, and there is nothing in the Bill to address them.
I apologise to colleagues for using statistics, because sometimes people can be blinded by them, but I use them to demonstrate a point. The fact is that there has been a large rise in assaults on prison officers and inmates since 2012. There has also been a large rise in self-harm and many incidents of people committing suicide. It is not surprising that every few weeks it seems a prison riot happens in some part of the country. I know from speaking to prison officers, the Prison Governors Association and other people about how they feel really depressed when they go to work in the morning, because they do not know what challenge there might be; who might assault them or what might happen. That must be addressed.
We are asking for the principles to be crystallised in statute. When that is done in statute, rather than put somewhere in prison policies or rules, or some manual tucked away that says, “This is the right way of doing things”, people have to be aware of it. By having that in the Bill, the measures that need to be achieved are there for everyone to look at.
Mr Gyimah
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a series of minimum standards to achieve the purposes of prisons. As I outlined, we want to put the governor at the heart of reform, ensuring that they have the ability to make decisions, innovate and be more responsive in meeting the needs of their prison. We are moving away from a centralised bureaucracy mandating the processes by which that should be achieved.
We are empowering governors by giving them the levers and controls they need to drive forward reform in their prisons. However, at the same time we are strengthening how we monitor and take leadership into account. That will include a more prominent role for Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons in specifically reporting on the effectiveness of leadership in a prison. We are giving freedom while sharpening accountability. From April, we will give governors greater authority to do their own workforce planning and design their regime to fit the needs of their prison; greater power over service provision in their prison, such as work in partnership with health commissioners to plan health services; and greater authority to decide how to spend their budget to deliver their strategy.
It is important that the Bill should not inadvertently take away control from those who are best placed to run our prisons. However, the amendment raises important issues. I am pleased to confirm that many of them are already addressed by secondary legislation. The Prison Rules 1999 include measures to deal with crowding, or overcrowding, which—to be absolutely clear—means having more prisoners per cell than it was originally designed for: two people in a cell designed for one, or three in a cell designed for two, which is happening in 25% of the prison estate. Section 14 of the Prison Act 1952 provides that every prison will have
“sufficient accommodation…provided for all prisoners.”
It further states:
“No cell shall be used for the confinement of a prisoner unless it is certified by an inspector”—
an officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State—
“that its size, lighting, heating, ventilation and fittings are adequate for health”.
Rule 26 of the 1999 rules states:
“No room or cell shall be used as sleeping accommodation for a prisoner unless it has been certified in the manner required by section 14 of the Prison Act 1952… A certificate…shall specify the maximum number of prisoners who may sleep or be confined at one time in the room or cell to which it relates”.
Access to appropriate education is governed by rule 32:
“Every prisoner able to profit from the education facilities provided at a prison shall be encouraged to do so.”
Rule 31 provides that a prisoner
“shall be required to do useful work for not more than 10 hours a day, and arrangements shall be made to allow prisoners to work, where possible, outside the cells and in association with one another.”
Access to healthcare is governed by Rule 20, which ensures access to the same quality and range of services that the general public receive from the national health service. Rule 30 governs access to time in the open air:
“If the weather permits and subject to the need to maintain good order and discipline, a prisoner shall be given the opportunity to spend time in the open air at least once every day”.
Rule 29 governs weekly time spent in locations other than cells, allowing one hour of physical activity a week. As part of the privilege systems set out in rule 8, prisoners can also get additional time to associate. Like all public authorities, prisons are legally bound to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, including the public sector equality duty. There is therefore already a statutory framework for the sorts of issues that the amendment covers.
On the ratio of prison staff to prisoners, I agree that we need the right numbers to provide a secure and safe regime, increase staff confidence and have the resilience to deal with unexpected incidents that take staff away from duty, such as hospital escorts. We are therefore investing £100 million to increase staffing by 2,500 officers. However, that is only the start of what is necessary to provide a properly rehabilitative, supportive regime that engages with prisoners properly. We know from many sources of evidence that the relationship between staff and prisoners is fundamental in helping prisoners decide to turn away from crime, and that having the right support and challenges from a trusted prison officer can help them come to that decision.
Having a positive relationship with staff can also help reduce the drivers of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths. We are therefore changing to a key worker model, as mentioned in Lord Harris’s review into self-inflicted deaths on the youth estate. There will be a dedicated prison officer, on the landing, for each prisoner across the closed estate, on the basis of one officer for six prisoners, on average. They will spend 30 to 45 minutes each week with their prisoner to deal with complaints, talk about issues that affect them, encourage them to engage with wider regime activities and challenge offending behaviour. Probation will also be involved for higher risk individuals, case managing the prisoner, including sentence planning. That will be done by other prison staff, not officers. The governor will manage the levels of staff in their own establishment, tailoring the model to the needs of the population and regime availability. They will be empowered to vary the staffing regime as they see fit.
It is deceptively simple to propose a fixed staff-to-prisoner ratio. We will ensure that we have the right staffing levels to run safe regimes, but setting out a ratio in primary legislation would not be meaningful. That is partly because the ratio varies from prison to prison, and also because even within a prison it will vary from day to day. I have been in prisons where more staff were needed because they had prisoners on bed watch, and I have been in prisons that needed more staff on the vulnerable prisoner unit at a particular time because of a problem there. To have a fixed ratio would not exactly fit with a prison’s practical needs, and the prison governor, who understands the needs and is designing the regime, should be the one looking at that.
A future Secretary of State could meet the proposed ratio by, for example, filling prisons with staff acting as turnkeys and guards rather than key workers. That is why I agree with what the deputy chief inspector of prisons that a fixed staff-to-prisoner ratio would be “a crude measure”. The most important thing, as we look at the system that the Bill will set out, is to look at the outcomes from prisons. I hope that explains why we do not believe that it would be appropriate to include this measure in the purpose, and I beg the hon. Member for Bolton South East to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Yasmin Qureshi
We entirely support the amendment and agree with the points that the hon. Lady made.
Mr Gyimah
This is a probing amendment concerning a duty on the Secretary of State to include as part of her annual report to Parliament the steps taken to meet targets on blood-borne viruses and substance abuse.
Healthcare in prisons is provided by NHS England, which already uses health and justice indicators of performance and other data to report the performance of substance misuse services and blood-borne viruses. Those data inform NHS practice in commissioning and providing healthcare to prisons. For example, Public Health England, NOMS and NHS England introduced opt-out testing for blood-borne viruses for people in prison in the first national partnership agreement published in 2013. Full implementation across the whole adult prison estate in England is planned by the end of the 2017-18 financial year.
Data on the offer and uptake of testing and referral for treatment are measured through the health and justice indicators, which are based on information provided directly by healthcare teams in prisons to NHS England and shared with Public Health England. Additionally, data on people treated for substance misuse in prison and in the community are collected by Public Health England through the national drug treatment monitoring system.
Using those data, under the programme of co-commissioning that the Government are implementing, prison governors will be able to work with NHS England to commission healthcare services that meet their individual prison’s needs. That, of course, can include elements that provide testing and treatment for blood-borne viruses and substance misuse. I hope I have provided sufficient assurance to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that placing this requirement on the face of the Bill is unnecessary, as a programme of work is already under way in this area.
Liz Saville Roberts
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gyimah
We have had a full and detailed debate on clause 1. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that in drafting the clause, the Government thought long and hard about what it should contain in view of the fundamental changes it makes to the current legislative framework.
The clause reforms the framework of the prison system, providing aims for the system as a whole to unite behind, clarifying the role of the Secretary of State and sharpening accountability. It modifies the Secretary of State’s overarching responsibility for prisons, removing the outdated duty to superintend prisons. The clause also reforms and modernises the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament for the performance of prisons. It replaces the existing archaic requirements to report on operational detail, such as hours of work completed in each prison and number of punishments, with a requirement to account to Parliament for the extent to which prisons are meeting the statutory purpose created by the clause.
Yasmin Qureshi
We have raised our concerns about the issues we think are important and should be covered in the clause. We hope that the Minister will reconsider some of those things on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and Inspectorate of Prisons
Yasmin Qureshi
We support any attempt to ensure the independence of the inspectorate from the Government, so we support this amendment.
Mr Gyimah
These amendments concern the role of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. Increasing the inspectorate’s impact is one part of our plan to have in place effective mechanisms to monitor and improve performance. There will be new performance measures, on the outcomes of which governors will be held to account. We will create new three-year performance agreements, which will be phased in over the next two years.
If we are to hold governors to account for meeting the new standards, they must be given the power to deliver change. We are devolving key operational policies to give governors greater flexibility, and have already cancelled 101 policies to help to reduce bureaucracy for prisons.
We are empowering our leaders, but at the same time strengthening our monitoring of leadership. That includes a more prominent role for HMIP: for the first time in legislation, the chief inspector will be required to report on the effectiveness of leadership in a prison. We will set up a new quarterly performance committee, chaired by the permanent secretary. The committee will reach evidenced assessments of performance, both at individual prison level and across the system. We will also make data available so that the public and governors can see how prisons are performing across different measures. This monitoring is supported by other assurance activities, such as internal audit, providing a complete view of prison performance. It is clear that we will not be waiting around for the inspectorate to signal problems, but within this framework, external scrutiny is vital, too. We need independent, objective assessments of our prisons to hold the governors to account.
We are seeking in the Bill, and specifically in clause 2, to achieve a number of aims for HMIP. I will set those out before turning to the amendments. First, we are making changes to what the inspectorate is required to report on. Importantly, the chief inspector will continue to set his own inspection criteria and report to the Secretary of State on the treatment of prisoners and the conditions in prison, but in addition, when preparing inspection reports, the inspectorate must have regard to the statutory purpose of prison. That will align inspections with the new statutory purpose of prison. As I have set out, inspections will also be required to consider the effectiveness of the leadership in a prison.
Secondly, we are seeking to increase the inspectorate’s impact: we want inspection reports to lead to improvements. There is a requirement for the Secretary of State to respond to the findings of an inspection within 90 days. Where the chief inspector has significant and urgent concerns about a prison, he can trigger an urgent response from the Secretary of State, but as I have outlined, the system will not be waiting for an inspection in order to ensure that proper oversight takes place in our prisons.
Thirdly, we wish to enhance the statutory footing for the inspectorate to conduct inspections. For the first time, it is established in legislation that there is an inspectorate of prisons supporting the chief inspector. The clause also gives the inspectorate new powers to enter prisons and to request information so that they have the right tools to do their job.
Finally, clause 2 provides statutory recognition of the inspectorate’s role in meeting the objectives of the optional protocol to the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, or OPCAT.
The final point is relevant to amendments 6 and 15 and is about independence. We have above all in the Bill sought to maintain the independence of HMIP. I hope the chief inspector would agree with me that his role includes being able to report freely on what he sees. We believe the Bill reinforces such independence.
Amendment 6 seeks to make it explicit that “an independent” person is appointed as chief inspector. The independence of the chief inspector derives from how the inspectorate is set up and how it operates. The chief inspector sets his own inspection criteria, so he decides what matters he wishes to look at and report on. He decides where and how inspections will be conducted. That includes, for example, whether inspections are announced or unannounced and the frequency of visits. The chief inspector publishes his own inspection reports, so the findings are not restricted in any way.
Following interest from the Justice Select Committee, we have just finalised a protocol between the Ministry of Justice and HMIP setting out the terms of engagement between the two organisations. Taken together, we consider the chief inspector’s independence is clear, and I am therefore not persuaded that amendment 6 is necessary.
Amendment 15 concerns the appointment of the chief inspector. Like other chief inspector posts, this role is subject to the Cabinet Office’s governance code on public appointments, which is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Commissioner regulates the processes by which Ministers make appointments to public bodies. The appointment therefore follows an established transparent process for public appointments. We agree that Parliament should play a role in such an important appointment. The Justice Select Committee is consulted on the job description and criteria prior to a recruitment being launched. The chief inspector appointment is subject to pre-appointment hearing by the Justice Select Committee. This allows the Committee to assess the preferred candidate and provide its views to the Secretary of State before any appointment. The Cabinet Office guidance on pre-appointment scrutiny states:
“In relation to the findings of the Committee, Ministers should weigh the views of the committee carefully against the evidence from the appointments procedure to reach a final view to ensure that the decision is made fairly and taking all relevant considerations into account.”
There is, therefore, an important role for the Committee, but, overall, I consider that the choice for this critical role should rest with the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for prison performance.
I hope that I have been able to set out our plans for strong, external scrutiny of the prison system, with an empowered, independent inspectorate at its heart. The Bill strengthens the independence of the inspectorate, and on that basis I hope that the hon. Lady is able to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out “The provisions in this Act about” and insert “The operation of”.
This amendment requires the work of HMIP to be compliant with OPCAT.
Yasmin Qureshi
The purpose of amendments 16 and 17 is to say that the work of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons should be compliant with OPCAT, the optional protocol to the convention against torture, a treaty that supplements the 1984 United Nations convention against torture. It establishes an international inspection system for places of detention and requires “national preventive mechanisms” to be independent. Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons is one of 21 statutory bodies that together make up the UK’s national preventive mechanism. We know that the Government consider that the UK’s national preventive mechanism is already OPCAT compliant, but the previous chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, voiced concerns, as I mentioned earlier, that having to apply to the Government for reappointment compromised his independence. Amendments 16 and 17 would make this commitment to OPCAT explicit and have been welcomed by John Wadham, chair of the UK’s national preventive mechanism. To assume OPCAT compliance is not sufficient.
Mr Gyimah
Clause 2 provides statutory recognition of the chief inspector’s role in meeting the objectives of OPCAT. In the context of making changes to the provisions in the Prison Act 1952 on the chief inspector, we consider it helpful for the statute expressly to recognise the role of the chief inspector in relation to OPCAT. The UK is, and has always been, a strong supporter of OPCAT and we consider that we are fully complying with the international obligations contained in the protocol. OPCAT requires states parties to establish a national preventive mechanism to ensure regular, independent inspection of places of detention to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Clause 2 captures the role of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons in relation to OPCAT. However, the obligations contained in the protocol are aimed at the states parties to the protocol—thus, the UK—not the organisations that are designated by those states to be members of the national preventive mechanism. It would therefore be inappropriate to place upon the inspectorate international obligations aimed at the UK, as amendments 16 and 17 seek to do. In addition, the inspectorate alone would be unable to fulfil all the OPCAT obligations. The UK national preventive mechanism is in fact composed of 21 members from across the UK.
The statutory recognition of the inspectorate’s OPCAT role is an important change that I know is strongly welcomed by the chief inspector. Given the difficulties that I have highlighted, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Prisons and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 29th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPrisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 March 2017 - (29 Mar 2017)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Prisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 4, line 22, leave out “90 days” and insert “60 days”.
Amendment 20, in clause 2, page 4, line 23, at end insert—
“(5A) The response must set out the actions that the Secretary of State has taken, or proposes to take, in response to the concerns described in the report.”
Amendment 21, in clause 2, page 5, line 2, leave out “28 days” and insert “14 days”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Stringer. I explained earlier that we are making changes to what Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons is required to report on. The chief inspector will continue to set his own inspection criteria, but in addition the inspectorate, when preparing inspection reports, must have regard to the statutory purpose of prison, which is set out in the Bill. It must also report on leadership.
Amendment 18 would require the chief inspector to report on procedures relating to prisoners’ rights. We have discussed how the Bill gives statutory recognition of the inspectorate’s role in relation to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. OPCAT is about preventing ill treatment of prisoners and HMIP draws on OPCAT in setting out its inspection criteria.
Furthermore, section 5A of the Prison Act 1952 already requires the chief inspector to report on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons. The current inspection framework focuses heavily on prisoner rights. One of the four HMIP “healthy prison tests” is “Respect”, which assesses how far prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity. Prisoners’ rights are therefore already central to the work of the chief inspector.
Amendments 19, 20 and 21 relate to responses provided by the Secretary of State to inspection reports. We want to increase the impact of the inspectorate and we want inspection reports to lead to improvements. Amendment 19 seeks to shorten the time taken by the Secretary of State to respond to an inspection report, from 90 days to 60 days. Although I am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure a timely response to inspection reports, I would not want that to compromise action needed to implement recommendations.
Some inspection reports have around 80 recommendations, which involve contributions from prisons, policy leads and other providers, such as NHS England. It can take time to evaluate inspection reports and then to put in place meaningful responses to them, particularly if recommendations relate to services that are not directly provided by the Prison Service, such as health.
Of course, that does not mean that action is not taken before 90 days. Where a report highlights matters of concern, those matters will start to be addressed immediately. The 90-day limit to respond to inspection reports is informed by current practice. It enables thorough responses to be given to what are serious and detailed reports.
Amendment 20 seeks to shorten the time for the Secretary of State to respond to an urgent notification from 28 days to 14 days. I must stress that of course action will be taken from day one of an urgent notification by the chief inspector, but immediate energy should be focused on securing improvements rather than drafting a report. We consider that 28 days is an appropriate period, first to take action and then to present the steps that were taken through a report.
Finally, amendment 21 would require responses to inspection reports by the Secretary of State to set out actions that have been taken or that will be taken to address concerns. We consider that that is already covered by subsection 2(6), which requires the Secretary of State to provide a response to recommendations made by the inspectorate. It will be clear from such a response what actions are planned.
Having given these assurances that prisoners’ rights will be central to inspections and that we will act immediately when significant concerns are highlighted, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Yasmin Qureshi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I will speak to amendment 22 as well as speaking on behalf of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who tabled amendment 7. The amendments would enable the inspectorate to enter prisons at any time. At the moment there is no guarantee that it has access to an establishment at the time of its choosing. Clearly that is unacceptable, and it must change. Different duties are performed in prisons at various times of the day and night, and it is important that the inspectors be allowed in to observe the policies and procedures of the prison regime at all times. It is important for that to be codified in law.
Amendment 7 would ensure that the chief inspector had the necessary powers to obtain information about staffing levels, education programmes, rehabilitation programmes and reconviction rates. Again, that is important because those are crucial markers showing whether a prison fulfils its statutory purposes. They are rightly of concern to the inspectorate, which should be able to get the information.
Mr Gyimah
The Bill gives the inspectorate new powers to enter prisons and to request information so that they have the right tools to do their job. That brings it into line with other inspection bodies that already have such powers. Although the inspectorate currently enjoys good co-operation with prisons, the powers put it beyond doubt that it can request information to complete its inspections.
Amendment 22 is intended to make it clear that the chief inspector may enter a prison at any time. We agree that that is an important requirement for an independent inspectorate. We consider that access to be implicit in the clause, which reflects the fact that inspections can be conducted unannounced.
The purpose of amendment 7 is to make it explicit that the chief inspector can request information on specific areas such as staffing levels and literacy programmes. Paragraph 2 of new schedule A2 to the Prison Act 1952 requires any person who holds relevant information to provide it to the chief inspector. “Relevant information” is defined in paragraph 4 of new schedule A2 as information needed for the inspection that
“relates to the running of a prison, or to prisoners detained in a prison”.
The definition is therefore sufficiently broad to capture the information described in amendment 7.
We agree that the inspectorate should be able to get the information and access that it needs. Given those assurances, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Gyimah
Having listened to the shadow Minister, I believe that amendment 23 is a probing amendment, so I will give assurances about the work we are doing on IPPs. In dealing with all IPPs, public protection is and will always be of paramount concern to us. I recognise, of course, the concerns about prisoners serving IPP sentences. We are taking considerable steps to address those concerns and continue to explore what further improvements could be made to the process.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a report describing progress made on recommendations from the chair of the Parole Board concerning the treatment of prisoners serving IPP sentences. I do not believe that there is a need for such a report. We work very closely with the independent Parole Board and its partners on tackling the issues presented by IPP prisoners and will of course take account of any views or recommendations from its chair on further improvements that could be made. We do not believe that there should be a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament in response to such recommendations.
The Government are already making significant efforts to address the issue of IPP prisoners. Our most up-to-date figures show that there were 512 first-time releases of IPP prisoners in 2015, the highest number of releases since the sentence became available in 2005. I fully expect that trend to continue. Figures on releases in 2016 will be published in April. I believe that these figures show that the efforts we are making to give IPP prisoners support, opportunities and motivation to reduce their risks and so progress through the system are bearing fruit. Those efforts, which are being taken forward by the Parole Board and, from April, the new HM Prison and Probation Service, are encapsulated in an IPP action plan. A new unit has been set up within the Ministry of Justice to improve progress in individual IPP cases. We are also working with the Parole Board to improve further the efficiency of the parole process for these prisoners.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining what is happening. He may recall that I have raised a constituent’s case with him. Will he continue to be alive to such cases, so that we can continue to bring those cases to him and he can continue to explain how the process will improve in the future?
Mr Gyimah
Yes, I am always open to representations on specific cases, although decisions are made by the independent Parole Board. Where there are challenges in the system that hon. Members become aware of, I am open to receiving representations and will look into them. Obviously, in order to speed up the process, the board has increased its capacity and is successfully tackling delays in the listing of cases. We are making sure that IPP prisoners have access to accredited offending behaviour programmes where appropriate and ensuring that such programmes can be delivered more flexibly, so that prisoners with particular complex needs, such as those with learning difficulties, can have greater access. I should mention, in particular, the progression regime at HMP Warren Hill, which has proved very successful, with 77% of IPPs who have had an oral hearing under the regime achieving release. The potential for additional places within the progression regime is currently being explored, with the aim of improving the geographical spread of places, including in the north of England.
All these measures are already having a significant beneficial impact on the IPP prison population and are facilitating the release of prisoners where the Parole Board is satisfied that their detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. These diverse measures, and the evidence that they are working, shown by the current highest-ever release rate, demonstrates that a report of the sort proposed by the hon. Member for Bolton South East is simply not necessary, and I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
Yasmin Qureshi
The Committee will be relieved to hear that I am not going to comment on amendments 30 and 31, as the hon. Gentleman has made an eloquent case for them, but I promised the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that I would speak to amendment 8 on her behalf.
Amendment 8 would give the ombudsman the functions of
“investigating…attempted suicides…the number and nature of assaults on staff or prisoners …the adequacy of staffing levels to prevent such behaviour…investigating the content and effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes and liaison arrangements with the probation and other relevant agencies to ensure that such rehabilitation continues after a prisoner’s release from custody.”
Those are perfectly proper things for the ombudsman to look at, so we ask the Government to consider accepting the amendment. We also support amendments 30 and 31.
Mr Gyimah
Before dealing with amendments 30, 8 and 31, I will speak about some of the broader policy objectives of clause 4. The prisons and probation ombudsman was established in 1994 as the prisons ombudsman, following Lord Woolf’s public inquiry into the Strangeways prison riots. Over the years, its role and remit have expanded, but despite many calls for it to be put on a statutory footing that has yet to happen.
The ombudsman plays an essential role, not only by providing an independent avenue for complaints, which can be a source of great tension for prisoners, but by investigating deaths in custody, the numbers of which are worryingly high, as all hon. Members will be aware. There have been long-standing commitments from successive Governments to put the ombudsman into legislation, and statutory status has been widely supported by stakeholders, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Harris review. I am pleased that we can finally establish the office in legislation.
I should say that the ombudsman is part of a much broader response to the record high levels of self-inflicted deaths and self-harm. We are redoubling our efforts to make prisons places of safety and reform for those at risk. The actions that we are taking include rolling out new training across the estate to support our staff in identifying the risks and triggers of suicide and self-harm and understanding what they can do to support prisoners at risk; putting in place specialist roles—regional safer custody leads—in every region to provide advice to prisons and to spread good practice on identifying and supporting prisoners at risk; and developing our partnerships with experts, including by providing extra funding for the Samaritans to provide targeted support to prison staff and to prisoners directly. All that is in the context of an extra 2,500 staff and the roll-out of new ways of working that I have already set out, which will enable individual prison officers to manage a caseload of about six prisoners each. That extra capability will enable staff to support at-risk prisoners more effectively and will enable prisons to run more predictable regimes, improving safety.
That is all happening without legislation; however, when a death occurs, it is right that it is investigated with the utmost seriousness. Having a statutory office will give the prisons and probation ombudsman more visible independence, permanency and stronger powers of investigation.
Amendments 8, 30 and 31 relate to the ombudsman’s remit. Amendment 8 would widen the remit of the ombudsman to include investigating
“attempted suicides…assaults…staffing levels…and effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes”.
There are already other routes of investigation or scrutiny for these matters. At present, there is no set category to capture data on attempted suicides because it is not possible to determine intent when someone resorts to self-harm. NOMS records all self-harm incidents in prison custody. A self-harm incident is defined as
“any act where a prisoner deliberately harms themselves, irrespective of the method, intent or severity of any injury”.
Nearly 38,000 self-harm incidents were reported last year, so it would be neither practical nor desirable for the ombudsman to investigate them all; however, they are taken very seriously. There are existing systems for treating the prisoner and for providing support through assessment, care in custody and teamwork. Where appropriate, prisons investigate internally and take relevant action.
Investigating assaults is done through adjudications or by the police, so it should not be a function of the ombudsman. In the safety and order section of prison performance standards, we have included a measure of the rate of assaults on prison staff, which we will supplement with an additional measure of staff perception of safety within the prison. Governors will be held accountable for the results that they achieve in reducing assaults on staff; the inclusion of this measure is designed to drive positive change and improve staff safety. Requiring the ombudsman to investigate the effectiveness of post-release arrangements would be a significant departure from its current remit and would overlap with the work of the probation inspectorate.
Clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to request the ombudsman to investigate other matters that may be relevant to the ombudsman’s remit. In the past, that has included the investigation of an attempted suicide and rioting at an immigration detention centre. The ombudsman therefore has flexibility to investigate wider matters, but that is intended for exceptional cases and not to duplicate other established routes for investigation. In conclusion, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary, as other provisions are already in place to cover the functions.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move amendment 24, page 68, line 5, in schedule 1, at end insert
“, with the consent of the Justice Committee of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman to be appointed with the consent of the Justice Select Committee.
Establishing the ombudsman’s independence, similar to that of the chief inspector of prisons, is a priority for a range of stakeholders. The amendment would ensure that independence.
Mr Gyimah
Amendment 24 relates to the appointment of the ombudsman. We have already debated the appointment of the chief inspector, and as the arguments are similar I will keep my comments brief.
Like that of the chief inspector, the appointment of prisons and probation ombudsman is subject to the Cabinet Office’s governance code for public appointments, which is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It therefore follows an established transparent process for public appointments. We consider that the appointment of this critical role should rest with the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for prison and probation performance.
Like the appointment of the chief inspector, that of the prisons and probation ombudsman is subject to a pre-appointment hearing by the Justice Committee. The Justice Committee therefore already has a role in assessing its preferred candidate and providing its views to the Secretary of State. I hope Committee members agree that Parliament has an appropriate role in the public appointment process of the ombudsman, and I hope the hon. Member for Bolton South East is therefore content to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 5
Investigations of deaths within the Ombudsman’s remit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gyimah
Clauses 5 and 6 set out which deaths fall within the ombudsman’s remit for investigation. They should be read in conjunction with clause 20, which sets out which institutions are in scope. Clause 5 also requires the ombudsman to investigate any death of a person who at the time of their death was detained or resident in an institution within its remit. Clause 6 provides the ombudsman with a discretion to investigate deaths that occur when the person is no longer detained or resident in a relevant institution or immigration detention facility, or subject to immigration escort arrangements.
If the ombudsman is aware of the death of a person who has recently ceased to be detained in a place that is within his remit and has a reason to believe the person’s death may be connected with their detention, clause 6 allows him to investigate the death. The ombudsman will determine the extent of the investigation required according to the circumstances of the death. For example, a death that is clearly the result of natural causes may require less investigation than an apparently self-inflicted death.
Clause 7 refers to the position of the Lord Advocate, who leads the system of criminal prosecutions and the investigation of deaths in Scotland. It states that the Lord Advocate’s role as head of the system of investigation of deaths in Scotland is not affected by putting the ombudsman into legislation. That is relevant, because the ombudsman has a duty to investigate the deaths of those detained in immigration detention facilities or under immigration escort arrangements in Scotland. It is intended that the ombudsman will enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Lord Advocate to provide a clear framework for both officers to discharge their independent functions effectively.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Reports on deaths investigated by the Ombudsman
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 8, page 10, line 36, after “recommendations” insert “within 60 days”.
This amendment requires a response from the Secretary of State within a set timeframe when a Prisons and Probation Ombudsman report on a death makes recommendations.
Yasmin Qureshi
Amendment 25 would require the Secretary of State to respond within a set timeframe—we think 60 days is reasonable—after a prisons and probation ombudsman report on a death makes recommendations. Amendment 26 is also designed to elicit a fast response from the Secretary of State. Just as with Her Majesty’s inspectorate, the Secretary of State should be required to set out how he or she will respond to the recommendation of the ombudsman.
Amendment 27 is similar, requiring a response from the Secretary of State within a set timeframe when the prison and probation ombudsman reports on a complaint and makes a recommendation. We think that 60 days is a reasonable time for the Secretary of State to respond to that complaint. Amendment 28 is sequential to amendment 27 and requires a response from the Secretary of State to set out actions, because in reality there is no point in having a report if there is no response to set out actions that the Secretary of State will take. We believe that a response should be statutorily encompassed in the legislation and that it should be done within the relevant statutory framework.
Mr Gyimah
These amendments concern the Secretary of State’s responses to the ombudsman’s reports. Clauses 8 and 10 currently provide that a response must be provided within a period specified by the ombudsman. Currently, the ombudsman’s terms of reference establish a 28-day time limit for responses to the ombudsman’s recommendations to set out whether or not a recommendation has been accepted. In practice, the majority of the ombudsman’s recommendations are accepted and responses provided to this effect. We consider it preferable to retain flexibility for the ombudsman to set the time limit for responding by not providing a statutory timeframe for responses.
Finally, amendments 26 and 28 would require that responses to ombudsman reports by the Secretary of State must set out actions that have been or will be taken to address concerns. We consider this already covered by clauses 8(5) and 10(5), which require that the Secretary of State must provide a response to recommendations made by the ombudsman. It will be clear from such a response what actions are planned. I hope that hon. Members will agree that provisions are already in place for the ombudsman to require a response within a timescale that he thinks appropriate and for the Secretary of State to respond on actions to be taken. I therefore suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Investigation of complaints by the Ombudsman
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gyimah
We have discussed the benefits of putting the ombudsman into legislation. I will briefly set out the remaining clauses that establish the ombudsman’s statutory role. Clause 9 sets out the eligibility criteria for individuals who wish to lodge complaints with the ombudsman and the powers of the ombudsman in relation to complaints. It also provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the type of matters that fall within the ombudsman’s complaint remit. This clause will give the ombudsman the discretion required in conducting these investigations and the power to act and enable the Secretary of State to reflect necessary changes in the ombudsman’s remit without further primary legislation.
Clause 10 sets out the reporting requirements and powers following complaints investigated by the ombudsman. Importantly, the nature of reporting and publication will be determined by the ombudsman, so that he can maximise the effectiveness of the report in the light of the intended recipient. Clause 11 makes provision for the ombudsman to investigate matters that relate to the ombudsman’s functions at the request of the Secretary of State. This is a valuable function that we wish to retain in practice. Examples of its use include an investigation of a major fire at Yarl’s Wood in 2003 and a more recent suicide in prison.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 21, page 19, line 34, at end insert—
‘(8) Before this section comes into force the Secretary of State shall—
(a) carry out a review of arrangements for prisoners to make telephone calls, the cost of such arrangements, the benefits of such arrangements, the level of charges to prisoners and options for providing an improved and more affordable service, and
(b) lay a report before Parliament containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions as a result of the review.”
This amendment requires a review of prison phone arrangements.
The reason for the amendment is that everybody accepts that when somebody is in prison they need to be able to communicate with their families. We recognise that mobile phones have also caused problems. In 2015, nearly 17,000 mobile phones and SIM cards were found in prisons in England and Wales. That was an increase from around 10,000 in 2014 and 7,500 in 2013. Since October 2015, data have been collated differently, so that direct comparisons cannot be made.
In 2016, there was a total of 8,813 reported incidents of mobile phone finds and 4,067 reported incidents of SIM card finds. Section 1 of the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012 already allows the Secretary of State to authorise governors to interfere with wireless telegraphy to disrupt unlawful mobile phone use. Clause 21 would allow the Secretary of State to authorise PCPs—for example, telecoms and internet service providers—to interfere with wireless telegraphy in prisons.
The Serious Crime Act 2015 makes provision for prison staff or the police to apply to the courts for a telecommunications restriction order, to require a mobile phone network to stop the use of a phone remotely. Regulations under the Act came into force on 3 August 2016.
Fundamentally, the clause seeks to provide PCPs with greater independence to conduct interference. Limiting access to mobile phones is necessary. However, a central plank of rehabilitation is ensuring prisoners have sufficient controlled contact with the outside world. In discussion with former prisoner officers, we were told that a lack of access to telephones was a major cause of disturbances in prisons.
The Prison Reform Trust has stated that access to telephones is limited and relatively expensive, hindering rehabilitation. It has suggested establishing a mandatory minimum level of access to telephones. The health charity, Change Grow Live, said:
“We recognise that the use of mobile phones within the prison estate can have negative security implications, but we do believe this could be better managed by ensuring there is wider access to telephones within prisons, to enable prisoners to maintain contact with friends and families.”
The Royal College of Psychiatrists states:
“The Joint Commissioning Panel guidance for forensic mental health services in the NHS…recommends that family support and maintenance and re-establishment of family relationships should occur where possible.”
The Howard League states:
“Steps to increase access to legal methods of communication in prisons would have a much greater impact. Ensuring that prisoners can frequently access affordable payphones with a reasonable amount of privacy to make calls to their families would reduce the demand for mobile phones in prison.”
The Public and Commercial Services Union states:
“It is worth noting that these reforms are long overdue and unions have been arguing for this issue to be addressed for many years.”
We are asking for improved, controlled access to telephones, which will have the benefit of helping the prisoners and, we hope, lead to fewer mobile phones being found illegally in prisons.
Mr Gyimah
As hon. Members will know, technology—particularly mobile technology—is constantly evolving. The Government are determined that legislation should keep pace with developments to combat the serious problem posed by the use of illegal mobile phones in prison.
Illicit mobile phone use is linked to the supply of drugs and other contraband, serious organised crime and the evasion of public protection monitoring, bringing further harm to the victims of crime. The scale of the issue is stark. In 2016, nearly 20,000 mobile phones and SIM cards—that is 54 a day—were found in prisons in England and Wales.
Although this is not a new problem, the scale has increased steadily. In 2013, only about 7,000 mobile phones and SIM cards were found. To help combat that challenge, clause 21 and the associated schedule 2, will make a number of changes to the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012. In its briefing on the Bill, the Prison Reform Trust stated:
“We welcome the introduction of sensible and proportionate measures to prevent the damaging and illicit trade in mobile phones in prisons.”
The Government welcome the trust’s support for measures to tackle the many serious problems caused by illicit mobiles in prison. They are used, as I have said, as a link to the supply of drugs and contraband and serious and organised crime. The trust noted that, as well as targeting the supply side, attention should also focus on limiting demand by improving the availability of, and prisoners’ access to, lawful telephones in prison. Once again, we agree with the trust.
As part of our digital prison programme, we have made changes to make it easier for prisoners to use telephones in HMP Wayland. Secure telephone handsets are now available in cells. The deployment started in September 2016 and was completed in December 2016. This has been repeated at HMP Berwyn, and we are in the process of extending it across the estate as part of the programme. We are then able to reduce the phone tariff in these institutions to make calls more affordable and accessible, and the result has been excellent. Notably, call minutes used in Wayland are up 114% from our baseline week in September. Anecdotal evidence also indicates noticeable improvement in behaviour.
As a result of these encouraging developments, we are now looking at further ways to accelerate the improved accessibility and affordability of telephony across the whole estate. We are steadily building a body of evidence that shows the benefits which arise from a nudge that simultaneously discourages the illegal use of mobile phones, while encouraging legitimate calls to families, friends and supporters, by making handsets more accessible and affordable. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures over the coming months. We intend to retender the national telephony contract this calendar year to reduce call charges to prisoners, while introducing technologies that block and disrupt illicit mobile phones.
We have given detailed consideration to the need to assist prisoners in maintaining relationships with family members while they are in prison, as we develop policy on prisoner access to telephone services. I do not believe that it would be right to accept the amendment, because the work to be covered by the review is already under way and will continue.
Further, placing a requirement to conduct a review in primary legislation would delay commencement of provisions in the Bill designed to improve our ability to combat the use of illicit mobile phones in prisons until such time as a review is carried out. Our work to improve prisoner access to telephone services will continue, irrespective of a review. I hope therefore that the hon. Lady is persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 22
Testing prisoners for psychoactive substances
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Yasmin Qureshi
The Opposition support my hon. Friend’s new clause. It is important that prison officers should be able to work in a safe environment and have the right to know if they are being exposed to any infectious diseases.
Before I sit down for the last time today, I want to make a brief observation about clause 22 and the proposal to simplify the legislation so that testing can be done for all drugs. Testing alone is not an adequate response to the problem of drugs and psychoactive substances in prisons. Although it is important, it can only be of limited value because not all prisoners can be tested regularly; far greater resources would have to be provided.
The Prison Reform Trust has said that testing can be partial, but must be intelligence-led. The Howard League states that,
“drug testing alone does little to reduce drug use in prisons. Recent HMIP reports have found that overcrowding and a shortage of officers mean that intelligence-led drug tests often do not take place.”
Testing must therefore be intelligence-led. Again, that requires greater resources than are available at present.
Mr Gyimah
I want to pay tribute to the incredible work that our prison officers and support staff do every day. They work in an incredibly challenging environment and do a very brave job indeed. The new clause highlights some of the more challenging circumstances that they face when an offender spits or bites a prison officer. I also want to put on the record now that I recognise the additional worry and stress that prison officers can face waiting, as the hon. Member for Halifax has mentioned, often for several months to discover whether, in addition to the assault they have suffered, they have contracted a transferable medical condition. I therefore welcome the debate that that raises. I know that the hon. Lady has raised this issue before in relation to assaults on emergency workers. The only concern, and why we will resist the new clause, is that, as currently drafted, I can see some legal and practical difficulties, which I will outline.
A detailed regime applicable to securing samples from prisoners already exists under the powers set out in a Prison Service instruction in the Prison Act 1952. The powers enable testing for illegal activity and testing for drugs either by randomised samples or where there is a suspicion of drug use. Section 16B of that Act provides a power to test for alcohol. Changes in clause 22 of the Bill extend testing powers to psychoactive substances. Testing can be voluntary or mandatory and is normally conducted by urine testing and other non-invasive testing methods.
It is not clear to me, however, where the main focus of the power in the new clause lies. Is it for the detection of crime—proving the assault—or is it to provide information quickly to the prison officer involved about the risk of a communicable disease? A testing power without specific safeguards does not serve to understand what the purpose of a test is.
Also, significant practical issues have to be considered. Under PACE, other than urine tests, all intimate samples, including blood samples, can be taken only by a registered medical practitioner or registered healthcare professional. A blood sample cannot be taken by a police officer under the PACE regime in a similar situation. Prison officers are simply not trained to take blood samples. They are not medical professionals, and the sterile medical conditions required are not always available in prisons.
I would also be concerned to avoid situations in which prison officers, owing to a lack of medical training and the absence of a provision requiring prisoner consent in taking blood samples, found themselves accused of assault.
We need to consider what impact the use of the power would have on the relationship between prisoners and prison officers, which is crucial to successful offender management. The safeguards on consent, testing processes and data protection are needed for practical and legal reasons. Without sufficiently circumscribed criteria giving rise to the power to take samples; without suitably qualified staff to take the samples; and without proper training of staff and fair and proportionate penalties for non-compliance, the power is unlikely to be compatible with article 8 rights, and the Government cannot support it.
Having said that, I want to make some additional points about what can be done now. As we set out in our “Prison Safety and Reform” White Paper, we are committed to improving the safety of prisons for all who live and work there. We do not tolerate any behaviour against staff that undermines their essential work. Staff must have the confidence that assaults against them will be met with a robust and swift response.
To that end, we are taking an evidence-led approach to improving prison safety. I have already mentioned the 2,500 staff in the new key worker regime that we are rolling out. I believe that increased numbers will also enable more staff to be available on wings, to increase staff confidence in the support that they have available from colleagues, and that they will also act as a deterrent to assaults by prisoners on staff.
Additional staff will also mean more predictable regimes, reducing prisoner frustrations and providing opportunities for purposeful engagement. We already have a well established process for sanctioning violence in prisons. A range of sanctions is available, from downgrading privileges, segregation and adjudications. Cases that are serious enough are heard by an independent adjudicator, who has the power to add up to another 42 days to a prisoner’s sentence.
Governors are also required by the published adjudications policy to refer more serious assaults to the police for investigation. It is worth stressing that an assault that involves biting may be charged as a more serious offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, rather than the lower level common assault, depending on the nature of the injuries sustained. Spitting and biting can also be considered as aggravating factors within the offence, meriting a more severe sentence. Any sentence imposed should also, in accordance with sentencing guidelines, be served consecutively to the existing sentence.
Finally, there are also some technical issues relating to the penalties for failing to comply with a test. I do not want to labour the points, but I think that the hon. Member for Halifax has raised some important matters in the debate and, as I said at the outset, I completely understand the thinking behind the new clause. I sympathise with the intention, but given the legal and practical difficulties in the drafting, we cannot support it at this point. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
The Chair
Order. When we have exhausted the debate, we shall vote on clause 22. The vote on new clause 6, if there is one, will happen later in the proceedings.
Tuesday 18th April 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPrisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 April 2017 - (18 Apr 2017)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Prisons and Courts Bill 2016-17 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful, Mr Stringer. I will confine my remarks to those two amendments. I was trying to be helpful; it is a slight curiosity that although amendment 32 relates to clause 34, it is grouped with the others because it relates to independent evaluation. That is the point I wanted to clarify.
The Opposition very much appreciate the need for greater efficiencies throughout the justice system, but to ensure that our justice system is just, proportionate and accessible, it is of the utmost importance that there be access to justice—access for the most vulnerable citizens in our communities, whether they are witnesses, victims or, indeed, the accused. It is well established that high numbers of people who come into contact with our criminal justice services have multiple needs, many of which are directly related to their ability to interact with Her Majesty’s Courts Service in a meaningful and effective manner using technology. To ensure that all defendants—especially the vulnerable, including children and those who suffer from mental health issues and may have addictions or learning difficulties—do not fall prey simply to the exigencies of swift and efficient resolution, robust safeguards have to be in place to ensure informed decision making and a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the decisions.
Clause 23 includes the ability of the defendant to give a written indication of their intention to plead guilty or not guilty. The aim is to save time and money. In subsection (4) there is already a provision for defendants to be given information about the written information procedure, how it works and the consequences, but we believe, in accordance with representations we have had from a variety of stakeholders, including the Bar Council, the Law Society, Justice, and the Magistrates Association, that the wording is not as explicit as we would like it to be. In addition, we wish to ensure that there is a user-friendly way in which the language is expressed. It is vital that people clearly understand their right to legal assistance before making a decision, to understand their options before they follow the online process; and, critically, that the defendant is aware of the consequences of indicating a plea in writing.
There is an additional concern that written procedures will lead to more unrepresented defendants in our system. Research by Transform Justice suggests that entering the plea is one of the points in the system where those without a lawyer are at their most disadvantaged. Unrepresented defendants did not understand when they had a viable defence and should plead not guilty, but that works in reverse as well: people can plead not guilty when the evidence against them is overwhelming, thus losing credit for an early guilty plea.
Furthermore, there are concerns that under the new written procedures defendants will no longer have access to the informal support network in courts, which includes clerks and ushers in addition to legal counsel. It is vital that we at least seek to replicate such support in the written procedures with an option to stop and seek legal advice at each stage. We need to prevent a situation where the defendant could reach the sentencing stage of their case before even seeing a judge or magistrate and for there to be a risk that a conviction should not have been entered. Of course, that could ultimately lead to an outcome that is in nobody’s interest: a miscarriage of justice.
In subsection (5) there is provision for how and by whom written information may be given to the defendant, but, again, concern has been raised by Transform Justice about the minimum levels of training that individuals will receive to ensure that they are appropriately qualified to offer advice on such complex issues. It is sometimes hard to imagine a situation in which representatives would not be in that position. We all have to try to ensure that they are in a position where we can serve the interests of justice.
Clearly, there are concerns. I refer specifically to amendment 92. Justice and the Prison Reform Trust are concerned in relation to persons who are unable to follow written procedures because of their particular needs. Many people in the justice system can lead chaotic lives for a variety of reasons and have complex needs, including mental health needs and/or learning difficulties. Others may be partially or wholly unable to read or write. There is also a concern that defendants and witnesses are reluctant to declare, or may not even be aware of, a disability, and online and virtual processes can exacerbate that assessment challenge. We are concerned about the risk that a vulnerability will be missed, and we certainly want to ensure that those who have to deal with it are able to do so. There is also a concern about the incentivisation of guilty pleas owing to the ease of simply responding to written options. I hope I have set out some of the concerns in relation to clause 23.
We suggest that the two amendments in this group—the first, amendment 92, is about adequate information; the second, amendment 91, is more specific, on the notification of the right to legal assistance, consequences of a plea and notification of plea procedures available—would deal with some of the concerns that I have outlined and would be sensible for the Government to adopt.
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again on such a momentous day, Mr Stringer. I put on the record my gratitude to the Ministry of Justice officials who have put so much work into briefing me and helping me with this Bill. I thank them all very much indeed.
I commend the hon. Member for Torfaen and his hon. Friends for seeking to ensure, in proposing amendments 92 and 91, that our planned reforms to pre-trial criminal procedures are fair, transparent and as straightforward as possible. I share the concerns about protecting the principles of justice. I hope that I can reassure them that the safeguards they seek are to be provided and are catered for by the Bill.
The first thing to say is that engaging with the written information procedure will always be entirely optional: defendants will always be free to opt out for a court hearing if that is their wish. The court will always retain the discretion to hold a hearing if it thinks that is necessary. Every defendant will be given a hearing date at the same time as they are invited to engage online. They will be provided with enough information to make an informed choice. If they choose not to engage online, they can simply attend the hearing that they have been notified about.
Clause 23(4), mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, states that the criminal procedure rules may specify what information is to be given to defendants about the nature of the written information procedure and the consequences of following it as well as about seeking legal representation. It states that this information can also be given to a parent or guardian where a defendant is under 18.
The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, independent of the Government, is chaired by the Lord Chief Justice and is full of expertise, given that it has representation from other judges, magistrates, justices’ clerks, barristers, people from voluntary organisations and so on. It will have the power to stipulate the information that it considers to be pertinent to the defendant’s ability to make an informed choice. We believe that it is appropriate to give that committee the power because it has that expertise, and also because it will be able to refine the rules once it sees how the written information procedure works in practice. Section 69(4) of the Courts Act 2003 already requires that the rules be accessible, fair, simple and efficient. Those rules, of course, come before Parliament as secondary legislation.
In terms of accessibility, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is determined that the written information procedure shall be straightforward and comply with government digital service accessibility standards. User research has been at the heart of developing the technology. There will also be assisted digital provision for those, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, who are unable to use digital services; they will be able to get help either over the phone or in person if they need it. I commend the hon. Gentleman for seeking reassurance and hope that I have provided it. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir Oliver Heald
Again, I commend the hon. Gentleman on putting forward a protection, but I hope to be able to satisfy him that the Bill tackles the issue.
I start by saying that I agree it is desirable for defendants to seek legal representation in the case of serious crimes. Engaging with the court online at pre-trial stages will be voluntary, and if a defendant wants to speak to a lawyer at a hearing before indicating a plea, he will be perfectly entitled to do that. Similarly, if he wants to obtain legal advice before indicating a plea online, he can do that. The measure does not fundamentally undermine the current system. In fact, it is probably better.
It is also relevant that, save when specific procedures apply in respect of summary offences—those are very limited—the defendant will have to enter a plea at the court hearing rather than simply indicating what their plea is online. So before trial or sentencing, a plea will have been entered at court.
If a defendant withdrew a previously indicated guilty plea, the previous admission of guilt could not be admitted as evidence in the proceedings, and no defendant who attended a court hearing rather than engaging online would be disadvantaged for the purposes of the early guilty plea discount.
Amendment 93 is undesirable to some extent because it would restrict the defendant’s right to self-representation, which has always been there, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 91, in clause 23, page 21, line 13, at end insert—
“(4A) Criminal Procedure Rules must include provision for a person charged with an offence, or a parent or guardian of that person, to be given in writing—
(a) notification of a defendant’s right to legal assistance;
(b) notification of plea procedures available, not limited to the written information procedure;
(c) an explanation of the consequences of indicating their plea in writing.
(4B) Information provided under subsection (4A) must be presented in an accessible format using clear language.” —(Nick Thomas-Symonds.)
This amendment ensures defendants receive adequate information and notification about the written information procedure, including alternative plea procedures and the consequences of indicating their plea in writing.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sir Oliver Heald
Again, I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed. I support the idea of reviewing and monitoring measures put in place in legislation. However, the proposals have all been developed alongside extensive user research, and we already intend to review and monitor the new processes on a continuing basis to make sure that they are used properly. We consider that that iterative approach is better than conducting a one-off evaluation of the matters that we are discussing.
We also have plans to monitor performance data and gather feedback on all our new systems. Both Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice publish annual reports and accounts, reviewing performance against the year’s priorities and objectives, which are available to Parliament and the public. Defendants engaging online will be given the same information and warnings that they would receive in court, and will have access to the same legal advice. Of course, the court has discretion to conduct its proceedings at a hearing whenever it wishes.
The measures concerning audio and video technology in the criminal courts are very specific about the circumstances in which live links and virtual hearings may and may not be used, so sentencing hearings may not take place wholly as audio hearings. We have also invited the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, which I mentioned before—an independent body chaired by the Lord Chief Justice—to consider the new powers and whether the current rules should be amended to set out additional factors that the court should consider when deciding the appropriate mode of hearing. The court will always have the final say on that, and assisted digital provision will be in place to support users to interact with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service using digital channels, and to support access to the necessary technology and digital skills, so that it can be easily used.
I turn to public participation. Open justice is a fundamental principle of our justice system. It is vital that we maintain transparency, which is why we propose to enable access to fully virtual hearings that do not take place in a physical courtroom, using terminals, which will be located in court buildings across England and Wales. We have conducted extensive research with stakeholders to help develop our proposals, and we will be testing the provision with court users.
As we make virtual hearings available, HMCTS will carefully monitor observer demand to ensure that we are providing the appropriate levels of access. We anticipate that observer numbers for virtual hearings will generally be low but we will ensure, as far as we can, that provisions are flexible in order to accommodate interested observers of a virtual hearing.
I hope I have been able to reassure hon. Members that the appropriate arrangements and safeguards are in place, and that the written information procedure of virtual hearings will be used effectively and appropriately and to enable access to fully virtual hearings.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I intend to push amendment 94 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nick
Thomas-Symonds: I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert—
“(11) Persons under the age of 18, when charged with the relevant offence, are exempt from this section.”
This amendment removes children from provisions allowing defendants to engage with a court in writing.
Sir Oliver Heald
I will speak to Government amendments 51 and 50, but amendment 95 raises the important issue of whether the written information procedure in the Bill should apply to young defendants. Government amendment 51 clarifies how the court might proceed if a youth is on the cusp of turning 18, and Government amendment 50 looks at how the expanded power to remit cases from the youth court should apply when a defendant turns 18.
The written information procedure means that a person charged with offences may choose to give specified information to the court, including an indication of a guilty or not guilty plea. The plan is that that will usually occur online through the Government’s digital channel, which is a unified digital case management system that is currently being developed by HMCTS. Although young defendants may therefore indicate a plea earlier than now, amendment 51 makes sure that the court will retain discretion in relation to those on the cusp of turning 18 so that it can still treat them as youths, because they will no longer have to wait until the first courtroom hearing. Therefore when a defendant turns 18 having previously indicated a plea online, the youth court may still treat them as a youth and deal with them using the powers under the Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
Amendment 50 clarifies how the expanded power to remit cases from the youth court to another criminal court will apply when a defendant turns 18 between charge and trial. If a defendant turns 18 post-charge and the youth court decides pre-trial to remit the youth to the mainstream magistrate’s court, the receiving court will not be able to continue to treat them as a youth, and for example use the more extensive custodial powers of a youth court. As a result, defendants will have greater certainty about what will happen as a result of the youth court’s decision to remit. They will therefore be in a better position to decide whether at the time of remittal they want to elect for jury trial. From time to time the age of a defendant may be unclear, and there are young defendants who, for example, are also victims of human trafficking. In some such cases, fresh information may arise later on that allows the court to more accurately determine age. Amendment 50 caters for those scenarios and allows a case to be remitted back to the youth court.
Turning to Opposition amendment 95, the purpose of clause 23, combined with clause 30 and schedule 3, is to reduce the number of times young defendants and their parents or guardians need to travel to court. That is part of the distinct service model that is being developed for young persons. For example, when a case must be sent to the Crown court because it can be tried only with an indictment, young defendants will no longer have to travel to a youth court to allow that simple process to occur.
That is important, because there has been a 70% decline in the number of proceedings against young people in the criminal courts since 2006-07. Although that reduction is welcome, its scale does pose logistical challenges. In some areas, sittings of the youth court are in fewer locations and are already occurring less frequently, causing delays. Allowing case management at the pre-trial stages of cases to take place outside the courtroom means that young defendants ought only have to travel to court for a trial or for a sentencing hearing. Through its six-year reform programme, HMCTS is developing a specific service model for young defendants, including those who provide information in writing. It is a distinct youth justice system for children and young persons. Young defendants will therefore continue to be subject to procedures and processes that are different from those for adults.
The Bill provides a number of safeguards applicable to young defendants who choose to provide information in writing. I will not say more about those at this stage, as we have clause 30 to come. In the light of those safeguards and the distinct service model that is being developed, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 95.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Charge by police or prosecutor: non-appearance in court after guilty plea
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald
The purpose of clause 24 is to extend the current procedure of pleading guilty in writing, which is in section 12 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, to summary offences that are charged by the police. Under the procedure, a defendant can indicate a guilty plea in writing, and then the court can convict him or her of the summary offence in question without the defendant’s having to appear before it for a hearing.
Under existing law the procedure applies only to summary offences begun by summons or written charge. Clause 24 provides that a defendant can adopt the procedure in cases begun by police charge. In all cases, opting to plead guilty in writing and to be convicted in absence will remain entirely voluntary. Clause 24 reaffirms and continues the important safeguard that a magistrates court cannot sentence a defendant to custody, or impose a driving disqualification, without first bringing him or her to court.
Under the clause it will also remain the case that the section 12 procedure can apply only where the defendant has been served with the information about the charge and the evidence against him. Where there is reason to do so, clause 24 allows the court, relevant prosecutor, or police to decide not to apply the procedure whereby a defendant pleads guilty and is convicted in their absence, so that they are brought before the court to enter a plea.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Either way offence: choice of written procedure for plea before venue
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 25, page 24, line 7, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
“(d) explain that, if the person chooses not to give a written indication of plea or fails to do so within 21 days of the date on which the document was sent, the court must proceed under section 17A upon the expiry of the 21 day period;”
This amendment gives greater clarity and certainty about the timeframe in which a court hearing must be held where a person does not give a written indication of plea.
The purpose of the amendment is to give greater clarity and certainty about the timeframe in which a court hearing must be held where a person does not give a written indication of plea. Clause 25 inserts into the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 a section that provides for the defendant charged with a summary, indictable or either way offence to have a choice to engage with the “plea before venue” procedure in writing, without having to attend court, provided that they have been equipped with certain information. Under the section, where the defendant indicates a guilty plea in writing, the offence is treated as if it were a summary offence.
In the case of a guilty plea, the defendant can be convicted without the hearing of any evidence, and the magistrates court can proceed to sentencing or refer the proceedings to the Crown court, if it considers its powers inadequate. Where the defendant indicates a not guilty plea in writing, they are given the choice of agreeing that the court should proceed to decide mode of trial outside court in their absence. Clause 25 also provides that where the defendant fails to give any written indication of plea, the proceedings continue in accordance with existing court-based procedures. There is a concern that that is likely to build in delay, rather than reduce it.
The clause provides a safeguard, in that it allows a defendant who has given an indication of plea in writing to withdraw it in writing at any time before the case is heard. However, it is our view that further safeguards should be added, to ensure that assistance is provided for those who are not able to engage with a written or online procedure. It is well established, as I mentioned in my remarks on clause 23, that high numbers of people in contact with the criminal justice system have multiple needs, many of which are directly related to their ability to interact with Her Majesty’s Courts Service in a meaningful and effective manner using technology. For example, literacy rates among prisoners are low, with about half at or below level 1 in reading, and four fifths at or below level 1 in writing.
It is generally acknowledged that between 5% and 10% of adult offenders have a learning disability of some kind, thus support is required in reading, writing, communication and comprehension. There is also a worry that someone with a learning disability before the justice system may be suggestible. We have to ensure that they are not in a situation where they fail to understand what they are accused of and the implications of decisions they are being asked to make.
There is a worry that someone may plead guilty in order to expedite proceedings in the hope of being allowed, for example, to leave custody and return home quickly, without appreciating the implications of entering a guilty plea.
Many people with mental health problems have conditions that fluctuate. That, of course, means that they may engage well with technology on one occasion but not on another. That can vary, not just day to day, but over the course of a day. It is vital that, where a defendant does indicate a plea, they must be able to choose between using a written, online or court procedure and that that is a legitimate choice, free of pressure or prejudice of any kind.
There are concerns that indirect pressure will be applied to defendants to opt for the written procedures by unduly delaying in-person proceedings. On that basis, I seek assurance that, where a person does not indicate his plea in writing or online, a clear and reasonable timeframe is offered in which a court hearing must be held. That is precisely what the amendment would do. It would make clear in circumstances where a person does not indicate his or her plea in writing or online that the timeframe of 21 days is given in which a court hearing must be held, so as not to discriminate against those who opt for an in-person hearing.
Sir Oliver Heald
The point underlying the amendment is, again, valid. Clearly, defendants will have to be told that, if they wish to indicate a plea online, they must do so before the date to which they have been bailed to appear at court. The time allowed for that purpose must not be so long as to lead to increased delay. However, the deadline set by reference to the date when documents were sent would not in my view work.
The date to which defendants are bailed after charge, pending their first court appearance, is governed by the criminal practice direction, issued by the Lord Chief Justice. It is significant that the date set for a hearing depends on the circumstances of the case and varies according to whether a guilty or not guilty plea is likely: respectively, 14 days or 28 days after charge.
The 21-day deadline specified in the amendment would expire a week before the hearing date in the case where a not guilty plea was expected or, less practically, a week after the date to which a defendant would be bailed to appear where a guilty plea was anticipated.
There are two conclusions. The first is that a single deadline, set by reference to the date when the documents were sent, would not work. The second conclusion is that, whatever deadlines may be suitable, it is probably not for primary legislation. I know that the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has started to look at this matter. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to agree that this could more appropriately be prescribed in the criminal procedure rules and so ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hope that something like that will be prescribed in the criminal procedure rules, as indicated by the Minister. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Either way offence: choice of written procedure for mode of trial
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald
The purpose of clause 26 is to provide for defendants to choose to have mode of trial dealt with in writing outside court and without being present. It will allow the court to hold fewer pre-trial hearings and to deploy its time more effectively and proportionately. As the Committee no doubt knows, mode of trial is the procedure for offences classified as triable either way when there is a decision to be made as to whether the case is more suitable for a magistrates court hearing or a Crown court hearing.
As part of the mode of trial procedure, the defence and prosecution have the chance to make representations to court concerning, for example, previous convictions. The defendant may have the right to ask whether a custodial sentence would be likely if he pleaded guilty. After such communication, the magistrates court makes a decision about whether summary trial at the magistrates court or Crown court trial is more suitable. If the magistrates reject jurisdiction, the defendant is sent to the Crown court for trial and their consent is not required. If the court decides that summary trial is more suitable, the defendant is asked to choose whether they wish to elect for trial at the Crown court.
Clause 26 makes it possible for all these interactions with the court to be conducted in writing if the defendant so chooses. As such, it plays an important role in allowing the criminal court to streamline case management procedure. It also amends the provision dealing with police bail after arrest. The date, time and place at which a defendant is remanded to attend court is to be that fixed by the court officer. This gives the court the flexibility to allow the defendant a reasonable opportunity to engage in the written procedure.
I turn to clauses 27, 28 and 29. Clause 27 would enable magistrates courts to decide mode of trial for either way offences in the absence of an adult defendant. It is needed to allow the courts to continue to progress cases when defendants have failed to appear. When mode of trial is to be decided in the defendant’s absence, he or she is deemed to have indicated a not guilty plea and the court then proceeds to allocate the case for summary or Crown court trial as appropriate. If the court allocates the case for summary trial, the defendant retains the right to elect for Crown court trial up to the start of that trial.
Clause 27 provides a safeguard in that the court can proceed to decide mode of trial in absence only if it is also satisfied that all the relevant documents have been given to the defendant and that he or she has been made aware of the date of the mode of trial hearing. Moreover, the court does not have to allocate the case in the defendant’s absence in accordance with this provision, but may choose to adjourn.
Under existing law, theft from a shop of goods worth less than £200—known as low-value shoplifting—is triable only summarily unless the defendant exercises the right to elect for trial in the Crown court. Clause 28 gives defendants in such cases the choice of exercising that right in writing without attending court.
Clause 29 enables indictable offences to be sent to the Crown court without a hearing and the defendant to be notified in writing that this has been done. A so-called sending hearing in the magistrates court—sending to the Crown court—would be superfluous in either way cases that are allocated for Crown court trial pursuant to clause 26 when the defendant has engaged online. Such a hearing would also be superfluous in any indictment-only case, which has to be sent to the Crown court for trial regardless of the defendant’s consent.
Clause 29 also provides that the circumstances when joined cases or co-defendants are to be sent to the Crown court along with the main offence are to be dealt with by criminal procedure rules, which may also include provision for related summary-only offences to be sent to the Crown court.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 27 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Children and young people
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald
We have already had some discussion of the clause when considering amendment 95. The clause introduces schedule 3 to the Bill, which permits preliminary proceedings for defendants aged 10 to 17 charged with criminal offences to be conducted in writing. A person charged with offences may choose to give specified information to the court in writing, including the indication of a guilty or not guilty plea. It is planned that the giving of that information will usually occur online through a common platform—a unified digital case management system—currently being developed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
Through its six-year reform programme, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is developing a specific service model for young people, including those who provide information of the sort I mentioned in writing. That is in recognition of the fact that there is already a distinct youth justice system for children and young persons, with separate procedures and processes applying to them when they come to court. The future service model for young people takes account of the 70% decline in the number of young people proceeded against in the criminal courts since 2006-07. While that reduction is welcome, its scale poses the logistical challenges I have mentioned before, which can lead to delays; for young people, it is particularly important that cases are heard as quickly as possible.
The purpose of the clause and schedule is to reduce the number of times young defendants and their parents or guardians need to travel to court, so reducing the burden of travel. The Bill will allow for case management at the pre-trial stages of cases to take place outside the courtroom, so that young defendants preferably travel to court only for trial and sentencing hearings—for example, where a case must be sent to the Crown court, it will no longer require a court hearing to do so.
The Bill provides a number of safeguards applicable to young defendants who provide information in writing. For example, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the age of the young defendant, the court will ascertain whether the parent is aware of the written proceedings, and if not, will make them aware. The aim is to ensure that, taking into account the young defendant’s age and maturity, he or she is given enough information to make an informed decision when choosing to participate in the preliminary proceedings in writing. Courts must therefore also provide the young defendant, and as appropriate, their parents, with information that explains the written procedure, the choices available to them and the effects of those choices.
Where a plea of guilty or not guilty is indicated in writing, courts will also subsequently have to make sure, at the first hearing in the courtroom, that the young person has understood and confirms their written indication of plea before proceeding further. It is worth underlining that the young person is indicating their plea, not pleading in writing; they have to do that in court. As with any case involving a young defendant, when dealing with preliminary matters in writing, courts must have regard to the overarching statutory duties to prevent offending by young people and to have regard to their welfare.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We oppose clause 30. As the Minister has indicated, we have already discussed children being involved in written proceedings when we discussed amendment 95 to clause 23 a moment or two ago. I am grateful for some of the safeguards the Minister has set out, but for the Opposition they remain insufficient. I indicated in our discussion about amendment 95 concerns about the awareness of parents and guardians, the likeliness of children entering guilty pleas, peer pressure and, most fundamentally, children being able to understand proceedings.
I want to deal specifically with the Taylor and Carlile reviews, with which the Minister will be familiar. The Taylor review, which was commissioned in 2015, looked at the youth justice system and was published in December last year alongside the Government’s response, which included a commitment to implement the spirit of the review. The Taylor review was highly critical of the court system, which it found was
“not set up to ensure the full participation of children in criminal proceedings.”
It should trouble the Committee that Taylor found that court procedures and outcomes are frequently not understood by children. He stated:
“On many occasions children leave the court confused by the outcome and need to have their sentence explained to them by a YOT”—
youth offending team—
“worker… Too often children are the passive recipients of justice and do not understand the process to which they have been subjected.”
In addition, he found that the youth justice system
“has a statutory aim to prevent offending, but the criminal courts are not equipped to identify and tackle the issues that contribute to and prolong youth offending… Magistrates frequently report that they impose a sentence without having a real understanding of the needs of the child, and they rarely know whether it has been effective.”
The phrase “frequently report” is important; it is not simply a problem that a minority worry about, but a frequent problem.
Taylor recommended the introduction of a new system of children’s panels to sentence children. Those panels would have greater powers to identify and tackle the causes of offending, and panel members would oversee a child’s progress. In 2014 a major review of the children’s court system, chaired by the noble Lord Carlile, made similar findings—particularly that children were not engaged in proceedings—and advocated a problem-solving approach.
The Opposition’s concern is that the Bill does nothing to rectify the very serious problems that both Taylor and Carlile identified. We worry that those problems of engagement, participation, understanding and comprehension will be made worse by introducing proceedings in writing in this way. Our position is therefore that clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill and should be deleted altogether.
Sir Oliver Heald
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the reports to which he refers are well worth considering. The Government responded warmly to the Taylor review.
Young people lead their lives in a more online way than some of us older folk, so having an online procedure that explains things to young people, with the safeguard of their having to attend court so that they give only an indication of plea in writing—they do not actually plead—will help.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On online procedure, in the initial evidence session Professor Susskind referred to the fact that children interact with one other in a very different way from the way they did 20 or 30 years ago. My only slight concern about that is that we often urge caution on children when they engage with people online, particularly when that online contact is transferred to offline contact.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We should therefore perhaps exercise some caution about the way that children engage online.
Sir Oliver Heald
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about being cautious—as a Conservative, it comes naturally. Having said that, there are a range of safeguards in the Bill, for example the fact that the parents and guardians are involved and that the parent has to be made aware of the written proceedings if they are not already aware. That has to be investigated. The online procedure will explain matters, as well as the oral explanations that always take place in the youth courts.
We obviously do not agree about this, but I invite the Committee to support clause 30, which will help rather than hinder the cause of young people in the courts, and schedule 3.
Sir Oliver Heald
Clause 31 creates a power for the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to enable or facilitate the making of preliminary and enforcement decisions in criminal proceedings by a court on the papers—that is, without a hearing. Regulations may only be made under that power with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice and will not be able to remove from the court the option of holding a hearing. The regulations may be used to amend primary or secondary legislation.
Courts already have an inherent power to determine matters on the papers in some circumstances, but existing provisions preclude that in certain cases. In order to give the court greater flexibility to manage criminal proceedings, it may be appropriate to remove those barriers, so that the court can decide whether a hearing is required. I should emphasise that any regulations made under this power will be subject to affirmative resolution. Both Houses of Parliament will therefore have the opportunity to scrutinise any proposed change and will be invited to approve it.
Given the wider court reform proposed in the Bill, we believe that the merits of removing legislative requirements for a hearing will be best assessed once the reforms have come into force and have bedded in. It is therefore not possible to say exactly which matters we would like to enable the courts to deal with on the papers, but Members can be assured that the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that this power will only be exercised where it is appropriate to do so.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is not my intention to oppose the clause, but perhaps the Minister could comment on one or two concerns. It is doubtful whether this provision would save time overall in highly complex cases, but I can see the case for it in numerous other eventualities. We should always remember that case management decisions are judicial, not administrative, decisions. What flows from that is that we have to ensure that the relevant information is available to the judiciary in deciding that, and that interested parties always have the opportunity to contribute, should they wish. Of course, in this, as in other situations, the court has to be able to respond to the individual circumstances of a particular case.
Sir Oliver Heald
I agree that these are judicial decisions, but I believe there is a case for flexibility. Where appropriate, any legislation that requires that a pre-trial or enforcement matter be determined at a hearing, if that is to be removed, the courts can still on a case-by-case basis decide whether a hearing is required. That, of course, is a provision that requires the support not just of the Lord Chancellor but of the Lord Chief Justice. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point but still commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Expansion of availability of live links in criminal proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald
I had understood that it might be the case that the amendments would be dealt with next, but I am more than happy to move straight to the clause if I should.
Sir Oliver Heald
Then I will. I propose to deal with clause 32 and schedule 4 together, as the clause simply gives effect to that schedule. Schedule 4 expands the court’s powers under section 51 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to make better use of live audio and video links in trials, appeals and other specified hearings in criminal proceedings. At present, section 51 enables a witness, but not the defendant—
The Chair
Order. May I help the Minister? At the moment we are dealing only with the debate that clause 32 stand part of the Bill; we will come to amendment 104 to schedule 4 next. I hope that is helpful to the Minister.
Sir Oliver Heald
I beg to move clause 32.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Live links in criminal proceedings
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 4, page 77, line 14, at end insert—
“(aaa) in the case of a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, a live audio link or a live video link is in the individual’s best interests,”
This amendment ensures the court will only give direction to under 18 year olds to take part through a live audio link or a live video link, when it is in their best interests.
Sir Oliver Heald
Again, I think that, across the Committee, we are seeking to achieve the same result. The Government sympathise with and share the intention behind the amendment. We want young people only to take part in proceedings that use such technology where it is appropriate for them to do so. I will reassure Committee members as to how the provisions in the Bill, and other protections, will achieve that objective.
Under the provisions in the Bill, a court may direct that a young person participate through a video link only where it considers that it is in the interests of justice for that person to do so. In exercising that power, the court also has a statutory duty under section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to have regard to the welfare of the young person. Furthermore, safeguards set out in the Bill will help to make sure that the court has adequate information with which to make that decision.
Schedules 4 and 5 provide that the court can make a direction to use a live link in respect of a young person only where the relevant youth offending team has been given the opportunity to make representations. Overall, it would be considered to be in the interests of justice for a young person to participate in proceedings through a live link where it could also be said that it was in their best interests to do so. The interests of justice test will consider the entire proceedings, and a detrimental impact on the young person would be, in my view, inconsistent with considerations of justice and having regard to the welfare of the young person.
Of course, where the defendant, victim or witness would not give their best evidence through appearing in person in the courtroom, it would likely neither be in the interests of justice or in their best interests to not use a video link. Conversely, where a young defendant’s mental condition is so disturbed that his or her production would be a significant detriment to his or her welfare, it would be difficult to argue that the use of the video link as an alternative—on medical advice—might not be in his or her best interests.
It is also worth noting that the recent amendments made by the Lord Chief Justice to the criminal practice directions of 2015 currently state that it will usually be appropriate for the young person to be produced in person in court. The directions suggest, where it may be appropriate, using video links on a case-by-case basis. They also refer to the need to ensure that the court can engage properly with the youth, and that the necessary level of engagement can be facilitated with the youth offending team, the defence representative and an appropriate adult. Those are the protections in place.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be more use of the live link, but I think the key point is that the means through which a young defendant attends court proceedings will be and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Courts have to consider whether it is in the interests of justice for a young defendant to participate, and I think we can rely on our courts to take those decisions with great care. Personally, I think one of the strengths of our independent legal system is that we have such expertise in our youth courts.
The 2010 study was mentioned, but 2010 is a lifetime ago in modern technology. That study did not cover the range of virtual hearings that we are talking about; it simply covered cases that were dealt with between the police station and the magistrates court. It came out in the evidence that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—many witnesses made this point—that that was not comparing apples with apples. Well, they did not use those words, but that is the way I put it. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw amendments 104 and 110.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am still not entirely satisfied, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 105, in schedule 4, page 78, line 36, leave out “not”.
Together with amendments 98 to 109, this amendment would require that reasons be given for issuing live link directions, rather than for not giving them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
This group of amendments seeks to require courts to give reasons for issuing live link directions rather than reasons for not issuing them. Our position is straightforward: we do not want a “digital by default” system to arise. We believe that the best method of achieving justice is having all participants in the same room. We suggest that that is a simple, well established proposition on which we should all be able to agree.
The amendments would still allow live links where appropriate, but they would build into the Bill an assumption in favour of the physical majesty of the courtroom rather than of digital technology being used most of the time. I suggest that the amendments would create the right balance in our court system, so that courts are able to utilise new technology when it is appropriate to do so but we do not lose sight of the fact that having all participants in the same room is the most appropriate way of producing a just outcome.
Sir Oliver Heald
I understand that hon. Members are concerned, as the hon. Member for Torfaen said, that the Bill will have the effect of making virtual hearings the default mode, but I assure them that that is not the case. Instead, it will enable the use of virtual hearings in a wider range of circumstances to improve accessibility and efficiency. Live link technology is already used by the courts to great effect. It reduces inefficiencies for court users and time-pressed citizens, and it makes the court process less intimidating for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses and young people, as we recently discussed.
Asking the court to give its reasons for not giving a live link direction is the established practice—for example, in respect of an accused person in custody at a preliminary hearing under section 57B(6) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Although it does not create the presumption that live links must be used, it encourages the court at least to consider whether it would be more proportionate or in participants’ interests to make use of live audio or video link technology. With the status quo of the court hearing there is really no need for that particular measure.
We want to encourage the court and other participants to make greater use of live audio and video links, but at the same time there will be rigorous safeguards in place to ensure that those are used only appropriately and that defendants get a fair hearing. The court will always have the final say on mode of hearing and will need to be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice and compatible with the defendant’s right to a fair trial, having considered representations from the parties and, in the case of young people, the youth offending team.
I hope I have been able to reassure hon. Members that asking the court to give its reasons for not issuing a live link direction is the established practice. It will not have an impact on the court’s determination and it will, of course, provide useful information to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service on what limitations there may be to the use of live audio and video links, according to the reasons given by the court. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We think that this is a very important point of principle in the Bill, so I propose to push amendment 105, but none of the others, to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 4, page 79, line 5, leave out paragraph (10) and insert—
‘(10) A court may not deal with bail, sentencing or any hearing where a remand decision is to be made, other than for the purposes of giving evidence, through a live audio link.”
This amendment would prevent live audio links being used in bail or sentencing proceedings, or at any hearing where a remand decision is to be made, except for the purposes of giving evidence.
The amendment is on the same theme of safeguards with regard to the use of live links. It would prevent live audio links from being used in bail or sentencing proceedings or at any hearing where a remand decision is to be made, except for the purposes of giving evidence.
We put this forward as part of the battery of concerns about the use of live links. Live links can be utilised by courts to speed up a process but we are firm believers in robust safeguards, as shown again in this amendment.
Sir Oliver Heald
We say that the safeguards are there. Schedule 5 provides that sentencing hearings may not take place with participation through a live audio link, except to enable persons other than the defendant to give evidence where there are no suitable video facilities available. We believe that has the same effect as that intended by the amendment.
In relation to live audio links more generally, they can be used at a hearing where conditions of bail are in dispute but not the principle of bail. The protections in schedule 5 deal with the points that have been raised and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Having pressed amendments 104 and 105 to a vote, I do not propose to divide the Committee further on amendment 109. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Live links in other criminal hearings
Sir Oliver Heald
I beg to move amendment 52, in schedule 5, page 96, line 14, leave out “accused” and insert “offender”.
The amendment makes the terminology of this provision consistent with other provision in Part 1 of Schedule 5.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 53, 54 and 55.
Sir Oliver Heald
I proposed to deal with clause 33 and schedule 5 together as the clause simply gives effect to that schedule, but we have already dealt with the clause. Schedule 5 expands the courts’ powers under part 3A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to make better use of live audio and video links in preliminary sentencing and enforcement hearings.
Amendment 52 agreed to.
Amendments made: 53, in schedule 5 page 96, line 16, leave out “accused” and insert “offender”.
The amendment makes the terminology of this provision consistent with other provision in Part 1 of Schedule 5.
Amendment 54, in schedule 5, page 97, line 32, leave out “deals with” and insert “is minded to deal with a person for”. —(Sir Oliver Heald.)
The amendment makes the terminology of this provision consistent with other provision in Part 1 of Schedule 5.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34
Public participation in proceedings conducted by video or audio
Amendment proposed: 32, in clause 34, page 33, line 22, at end insert—
‘(1A) Within two years of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of matters under section 34 and shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament.”—(Nick Thomas-Symonds.)
This amendment ensures the Secretary of State will undertake a review within two years of the Bill’s provisions relating to public participation in proceedings conducted by video and audio
Sir Oliver Heald
Schedule 6 facilitates the observation of fully virtual hearings by members of the public and the media. The measures also prohibit unauthorised recording of virtual hearings in order to protect the solemnity of the court as well as the rights of victims, defendants and other participants. We propose to enable members of the public to view virtual hearings using screens located in court buildings.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 6 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 35
Changes to institution of proceedings by written charge
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald
The clause replaces the single justice procedure notice with the new written procedure notice. The new notice will be used to initiate proceedings that may proceed as now or, if eligible and appropriate, by way of the new automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty procedure introduced by clause 36. If it is offered, defendants will need to actively opt into using the procedure and will be provided with all the information they need to make an informed decision about whether to use it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 36, page 35, line 6, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The person is convicted of the offence by virtue of—
(a) accepting the automatic online conviction; and
(b) not revoking this acceptance during the period of 14 days following, but not including the day of, acceptance.”
This amendment would enable a person convicted of an offence and who accepts the automatic online conviction to revoke that decision within a period of 14 days.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
This pair of amendments relates to the theme of safeguards, which the Opposition are attempting to push throughout the Bill’s passage.
Amendment 101 would enable a person convicted of an offence who accepts the automatic online conviction to revoke that decision within a period of 14 days. Amendment 102 would insert a provision to ensure that individuals are made aware of their rights before they accept an online conviction.
In the evidence we have had, stakeholders have expressed concerns about the creation of a new automatic online conviction process where a defendant who pleads guilty and agrees to be dealt with under the process would be convicted automatically and sentenced automatically. The Bar Council referred to concerns about a lack of provisions for ensuring the defendant’s knowledge of their right to legal advice; the range of offences in the scope of this scheme; and the Secretary of State’s power to put new offences in scope.
Under clause 36, the online conviction would be applicable to summary-only, non-imprisonable offences specified in a positive statutory instrument by the Secretary of State that would need to be approved by both Houses. Fines, compensation, costs, surcharges and, where relevant, driving endorsements could be included. Those would be fixed by order of different classes of offence and, potentially, different circumstances for the same offence. They would be specified in a statutory instrument under the negative resolution procedure.
Clause 36 inserts six new sections into the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. It is clear that the definition of offences in the “Transforming our Justice System” consultation has been shortened to summary, non-imprisonable offences. The definition no longer excludes offences where there is an identifiable victim, which removes an important safeguard for victims and should be remedied.
Adequate safeguards are also lacking to ensure that defendants are aware of the consequences of entering an online plea. That is vital if an offence results in a criminal record, which can have serious and long-term implications, such as restrictions on employment, travel and the ability to obtain insurance. The Opposition say that offences under the scope of the clause should be restricted to non-recordable offences only.
Of course, individuals may mistakenly plead guilty through lack of adequate or any legal advice, which is a concern. We therefore say that defendants must be made explicitly aware of their right to seek legal advice and of the implications of pleading guilty. Not providing such information could have very serious consequences for the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the quality of justice that they receive. For example, many defendants will not know that an offence such as fare evasion, which we believe will be under the scope of the online process, is significantly more serious than a minor motoring offence because of the intention to evade payment.
We are also concerned that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the authority to specify that any summary offence not punishable by imprisonment can be eligible for online conviction. That leaves the door open for an alarming expansion of the scope of offences included without proper scrutiny. Any extension of the range of offences beyond those that attract fixed penalty notices should be made the subject of consultation, at which stage a full evaluation of the existing scheme should be provided. Further concerns have also been raised by stakeholders—including Liberty, for example—that the clause would transfer to the Government the power to sentence individuals convicted, as opposed to the independent judiciary. Looking at the clause in the round, I suggest that the amendments are sensible safeguards.
Sir Oliver Heald
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s objective to protect defendants who may choose the new procedure as a way of dealing with their case. The amendments raise important issues, but they are issues that I am satisfied we are conscious of and will be addressing in the design of the process and the system.
Amendment 101 seeks to provide that the person to be convicted must accept the online conviction, and it then provides for a cooling-off period. The prospect of being able to accept a conviction and its associated penalty, and then undoing it two weeks later, undermines an element of certainty in the judicial process. However, I believe I can point to protections that the hon. Gentleman will find compelling. Amendment 102 proposes to make it a qualifying condition of an automatic online conviction that the accused has been made aware of their right to seek legal advice. In our view, that is not necessary; it may help if I set out the process a bit more fully.
A defendant charged with an offence that may proceed either by way of the single justice procedure—where a magistrate deals with a case on the basis of a guilty plea—or the automatic online conviction procedure will be sent a notice that formally commences proceedings and sets out the procedures available for dealing with their charge. That notice will advise defendants that they have a set period of time to respond to the charge; we expect something like 21 days, as it is with the single justice procedure notice. That notice will advise defendants, as requested by the hon. Gentleman, to use that time to obtain legal advice should they wish to—again, as the current single justice procedure notice does. The details of the timing and what is contained in the notice will be set out in criminal procedure rules.
Amendment 102 also seeks to make it a qualifying condition of an automatic online conviction that the consequences have been clearly explained to the defendant. For the sake of clarity, I note that it is not only a guilty plea that will lead to a conviction, but that plea combined with an agreement to be convicted and penalised in accordance with proposed new sections 16H and 16I to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Defendants will be presented with all the information that they will need to make an informed decision, and they will also be given details of the range of sentences available to the court. That will all be set out in clear and simple terms. They will be able to opt out of the procedure at any time, up until the point that they accept the conviction. I mentioned the other protections.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Again, the amendments relate to the safeguards that we are pressing upon the Minister.
Amendment 100 would ensure that the automatic online conviction option includes only offences that are non-recordable offences for which there is no identifiable victim, which would provide an important safeguard for victims. Amendment 103 would require the Secretary of State to consult and seek independent advice prior to extending the range of offences for which the automatic online conviction option may be offered.
Those two safeguards are important. Amendment 100 is very important in terms of how we treat victims in our criminal justice system. Amendment 103 would deal with the concern about mission creep and the idea that the range of offences will keep being extended. The requirement to consult and seek independent advice would provide reassurance to many who are worried about that aspect of the Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald
Amendment 100 seeks to define differently the features of offences in scope of the new procedure. As hon. Members will know, we propose to test this procedure with just three offences. Those are non-recordable and will be in the initial phase of introduction. This procedure will be used to prosecute, in any event, only the most straightforward summary offences in our criminal justice system.
We have stipulated that the offences for which the automatic online conviction procedure can be offered will only be summary-only, non-imprisonable offences. That means automatic online conviction can never apply to indictable either way offences, and a sentence of imprisonment will never be imposed by this procedure. Those are important safeguards.
To address the hon. Gentleman’s particular request that the Bill exclude offences where there is no identifiable victim, I should say that we have taken a policy decision that cases involving identifiable victims will not be specified for prosecution by way of the automatic online conviction procedure, just as such offences are not prosecuted by way of the single justice procedure. We are referring here to individual victims, rather than corporate victims.
Likewise, on the matter of non-recordable offences, the majority of offences intended to be in scope are non-recordable, including the first three that I mentioned—failing to produce a ticket for travel on a train, failing to produce a ticket for travel on a tram and fishing with an unlicensed rod and line.
Amendment 103 would commit the Government to commission an independent evaluation of any changes to the offences in scope of the procedure and to lay the report before Parliament. We have been clear from the start that we propose to test the automatic online conviction procedure with a small number of offences in the initial phase, so that we can review how well it works. We have already committed to reviewing the procedure 24 months following its implementation. If that initial phase is successful, we will consider widening the scope to other offences. Any decision to extend to other offences would, of course, also be based on the assessment of what impact any changes to the offences and scope would have.
Finally, the Committee will be aware that the clause provides that future offences need to be specified in secondary legislation made by the Secretary of State, which has to be agreed by Parliament through the affirmative procedure. It is the Government’s view that the amendments are not necessary, and on that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 36, page 38, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) Within two years of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of the implementation of the automatic online conviction option made under subsection (1) and shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment ensures the Secretary of State will review automatic online conviction within two years of its implementation.
I will be extremely brief. We will push the amendment to a vote. It concerns an independent review of the automatic online conviction process within two years of the Act coming into effect, on exactly the same principle as we have suggested for other independent reviews: to facilitate good governance and the opportunity to look at how well these new procedures are working.
Sir Oliver Heald
I have just given a commitment to review this 24 months following its implementation. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are in favour of an independent evaluation within two years of the Act coming into effect. I will put the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.