Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

We are trying to give the notion of prison clusters much greater prominence. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the OLASS—Offender Learning and Skills Service—review presages a situation in which prison clusters would procure education and skills training, and that should reflect the prisoner journey. We want to have a prison estate that is not under the enormous pressure it is under now—due to the terrible situation we inherited—so that we can get prisoner journeys from local prisons through to resettlement prisons, while both getting support from offender management and delivering programmes.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Justice Ministers give every impression of treating their Department as a policy adventure playground in which constant experiments in rhetoric lead to predictable U-turns and confusion. The probation service supervises some of the most dangerous individuals in our community and uncertainty now grows in this service, too, as the Minister decides whether to privatise all probation functions or just some of them. Does he consider any probation service functions, such as court reports, to be unsuitable for privatisation?

[Mr Blunt]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to contain her impatience until we make a comprehensive statement—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) intervenes from a sedentary position, but a proper statement will be made to this House early in the new year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the work of organisations such as KeepOut that provide exactly the type of mentoring service I was talking about, helping those who are or have been prisoners to dissuade young offenders from pursuing a life of crime.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I have listened to the Minister’s answers. We were promised a rehabilitation revolution, but unfortunately the chief inspector of prisons can find no evidence of it. In the interests of looking at outcomes, can the Minister let us know when we can expect to see this decline in reoffending and by exactly how much it will decline?

[Nick Herbert]

I think that the whole House agrees that reoffending rates are too high. They have been persistently high, and we need to tackle that issue. That is why the rehabilitation revolution is important, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not appear to support it. We have particular proposals on payment by results, and we are now seeing them extended throughout public sector and private sector prisons, where we will ensure that we pay for what works and incentivise providers to reduce reoffending. We are determined to reduce reoffending by using innovative means, not the familiar means that Labour always proposes, which involve simply spending more public money.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Exceptionally, to deal with new clauses and amendments not dealt with by Mr Slaughter earlier, I call Jenny Chapman.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I speak in support of amendment 116, which would delete clause 12 from the Bill. It is with regret that I will keep my comments extremely brief. Some of the matters discussed today should really have been discussed on Monday. This regret is most keenly felt because the parents of Jane Clough are in the Gallery and had hoped to see us debate changes to bail.

Clause 12, which would allow the Government, based on either a means test or a an interest of justice test, to choose not to provide an arrested person with an independent legal adviser. The powers that the Government seek to gain were not subject to consultation and have generated significant controversy. It is not just Labour that opposes this clause. Members of all parties oppose it. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) spoke eloquently against it in Committee and again today. Others who have spoken against it include my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), and the right hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Some Tory Back Benchers have told us that they, too, oppose it. The Liberal Democrats have signed the amendment, for which we are grateful.

On this issue, however, the Minister appears to be against the clause. He said to the legal action group conference:

“I am pleased to say we have no intention to take legal help away from the police station.”

It appears, however, that the Secretary of State for Justice is embarrassed by that. He tried to blame it on Labour, saying that it was one of our proposals. A few weeks later, after the bemused Labour Front-Bench team checked with the House of Commons Library, the Secretary of State’s spokesman issued the following statement:

“The remark was made in error by the Justice Secretary during the Second Reading debate. The provisions in clause 12(3)(a) and (b) are new and, so far as I know, there have not been similar provisions in any previous Bills that did not pass into legislation.”

What a shambles—but there is more!

In the Public Bill Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) subsequently said:

“My opinion is that as things stand, the practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and costs could be significant.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 437.]

This might well be the first time a Minister has argued against his own legislation while seeking to enact it.

There was a time when people did not have access to a lawyer on arrest. Injustice after injustice propelled Parliament into action. It was, in fact, the previous Conservative Government—one who included the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—who enacted the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which for the first time provided a suspect in police custody with a statutory right to legal advice. A textbook on police law explains:

“By section 58 of PACE, a person arrested and held in police custody is entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time.”

I am deeply concerned. In Committee, the Minister—whose conflicts of opinion match his alleged conflicts of interest—changed his mind again. Having said earlier

“I am pleased to say we have no intention to take away legal help from the police station”,

he said in Committee:

“I am not asking the Committee’s permission to implement means-testing. I am asking for permission to introduce flexibility into the Bill, so that at a later stage it could be considered, subject to full consultation.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 436.]

We know what the Government’s consultations are like. There were 5,000 responses to their consultation on legal aid, and they ignored them all.

At present, police station advice is provided free to anyone who is arrested. What takes place in the police station often determines how the case will proceed, and whether or not the police decide to lay charges.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech so far. Does she agree that the Government are being penny wise and pound foolish? Their proposals present the prospect of many miscarriages of justice, which could ultimately prove very costly for them to sort out.

[Mrs Chapman]

I could not have put it better myself.

It is essential for people who are detained in police custody to have access to free, independent legal advice, not only because they are at their most vulnerable and because evidence obtained from people in custody may be inadmissible if they have not had access to independent legal advice, but because the presence of a solicitor makes a significant difference to the fairness of the investigation and the subsequent smooth progress of the case. It would therefore be utterly inappropriate to introduce a merit test that goes beyond the fact of arrest.

As for a means test, it would in practice deprive many people who failed it of their right to a lawyer, as they would not feel able to afford to pay privately. However, that is not the only reason for not introducing such a test. Applying it would inevitably introduce delay in the process and prevent the police from proceeding as quickly as they would wish. Clients who are in police custody will not have access to documents with which to verify their entitlements, and clients who do not pass the means test are in no position to instruct the solicitor of their choice on a private basis, because they cannot pick and choose and cannot argue about terms and conditions. In short, they will be completely disfranchised, and in the most terrifying position in which the average citizen can find himself.

It should be clear by now that we oppose the new clause. It is no good hoping and praying, as the Liberal Democrats keep doing, that it will be repealed in another place. I urge all Members to join us in the Lobby when we press it to a vote—unless, of course, the Minister has the sense to withdraw it.

[Mr Djanogly]

I welcome the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) on the occasion of her first outing at the Dispatch Box.

Most of what was said by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) concerned the scope of civil legal aid, and was therefore not directly covered by the new clauses and amendments. It would have been good if he had discussed all the amendments that he had tabled, but he could not even do that. However, he certainly showed us once again that he knows how to spend taxpayers’ money, but not how to save it. He mentioned only one saving, when he said that he would have proceeded with criminal contract competition to save money rather than cutting social welfare law. Criminal competition in line with Labour’s model would have secured a very small reduction in the £180 million spent on police station advice—a reduction of only about 10%—which is not really enough. The hon. Gentleman will have to say where else he would make cuts. When Labour tried to address contracting, it failed, and it had to pull its contracting proposals in 2009.

Amendment 123, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith spoke, is intended to alter the provisions in relation to the independence of the director of legal aid casework. That subject was debated substantially in Committee, but having heard the hon. Gentleman speak about it again, I still fail to understand the rationale behind the amendment, and, as I will explain, I consider it unnecessary. Let me briefly explain the role and key functions of the director, and also explain why I believe that independence is important and why it is already enshrined in the Bill.

Under the provisions, the Lord Chancellor is obliged to appoint a civil servant as a statutory office holder who will be responsible for making funding decisions in individual cases, as well as funding decisions in relation to exceptional case applications under the Bill. The statutory office holder is to be known as the director of legal aid casework. The Lord Chancellor is also obliged to provide civil servants to assist the director in carrying out their functions.

Under the new structural arrangements, clause 4 is potentially the most important provision. It ensures that the director has independence in making funding decisions, and is free from any political interference in making those decisions. That independence is enshrined specifically by subsection (4), which the hon. Member for Hammersmith wishes to delete, and which prohibits the Lord Chancellor from giving guidance or directions in individual cases. There are provisions in the clause that oblige the director to comply with directions given by the Lord Chancellor and to have regard to guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor, but crucially they cannot relate to individual cases.

The protection of the director against interference in individual cases is an important safeguard. The Bill already establishes the director in a way that maintains and protects the director’s independence of decision making. The director is a separate office from the Lord Chancellor created by statute. I therefore believe that the Bill already establishes a proper role for the director, free from any political interference in individual cases. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be substantial benefits from bringing this policy to scale, which I am optimistic we can do. There will be benefits to victims from the resources generated by the work that prisoners do; to the taxpayer from relieving the cost of the regime; and to the stability of the prison regime, as she mentioned. However, there will also be a substantial rehabilitative benefit to prisoners who will leave prison with a CV that includes skills training in the work in which they have been involved as well as experience in the work itself.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

We all agree that prison industry is good for rehabilitation, but how many additional prison officers does the Minister think will be needed to supervise movement around the estate and to ensure that prison industries are secure and properly delivered?

[Mr Blunt]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If we are to change prisons from being simply places of security and of warehousing people, where work is wedged in when possible, there will be additional costs to the prison regime. The businesses that go into prisons will have to generate the resources to support that.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, but I shall follow the Whip’s advice and be as brief as possible as I know that many other Members wish to contribute.

My interest in the penal system began when I was 19, when I did work experience—or what might now be called an internship—at HMP Frankland, a category A prison with every one of its inmates serving a sentence of more than four years. I worked there for six months, and later in my career I worked at YOI Deerbolt, followed by a stretch at Dartmoor before returning to Frankland. I have therefore seen a bit of life inside.

I commend the Secretary of State on his ambition and on the headline of “rehabilitation revolution”, because that is undoubtedly what is needed. The problem, however, is that despite the headline, the story he is attempting to tell is full of unfinished or unwritten chapters. When the Bill reaches Committee, I hope that Committee members will seek to find the answers to the outstanding questions, because there are a lot of holes in the information that we have been given so far.

I am at odds with some of my party colleagues in that I am a fan of imprisonment for public protection. When I was working at Frankland—a dispersal prison—in the early ’90s, which was a pre-indeterminate sentences era, some category A inmates who had served life sentences and had not been recommended for de-categorisation through the prison system were set free, even though their probation report, psychology report, education report and personal officer report said, “This inmate will reoffend. He is a danger.” That did not happen very often, but it did happen. Some such inmates were released, and there was nothing we could do about it. The courts could do nothing about it; that was the system at the time. It is good that we no longer have that, but I hope that when the IPP system is reviewed the Secretary of State will take great care to ensure that public protection is at the forefront of his mind, rather than reducing the number of IPP inmates.

I know there are strong calls from inmates and their families for the system to be reformed, but the essence of these sentences must remain in place. There is a place for indeterminate sentencing in our system. When an inmate says to me, “Miss, I’m on an IPP, what can I do about it?” I say, “Sort yourself out. First, admit your guilt.” It is amazing how many people fail to do that, and until someone has confronted their own internal offending behaviour, there is absolutely no point whatever in sending them on any course—any anger management, drugs rehabilitation or social skills course—because it will not succeed until they have confronted their offending behaviour.

The thing that upsets me most about the Bill is the lack of concern for victims. The fandango that we went through on 50% reductions and discounts in sentences was an insult to victims. The recent treatment in court of Milly Dowler’s parents lacked any trace of humanity whatever. It is appropriate for the Secretary of State to say, “This is not acceptable. I will look at this and do something about it.” In any case, we need more than words. We need clear actions to put a stop to that kind of behaviour in court. It damages not only individuals but future witnesses, and victims will be less likely or willing to put themselves in that position—I do not blame them.

Opposition Members are frequently asked, “What should happen?” As someone who has worked in prisons, I have some very strong views on that. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with the Prison Officers Association. I disagree with the POA on private prisons—I believe that there is a role for them—but we need more openness. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) has said that she would welcome the increased use of private prisons. She might have a point, but I would not welcome that until we can find out, using the freedom of information method, what they do on rehabilitation, what their outcomes are, how they treat their staff and what medical provision they offer. At the moment, we cannot do that.

Prison officers have no idea when an inmate has gone on to reoffend, unless the inmate goes back on to their wing. Closing that feedback loop of information to include sentencers, prison officers and probation officers is essential if the Secretary of State is to get anywhere near to a rehabilitation revolution. I can tell him that with his current proposals, he will get nowhere near that. He should cut the rhetoric and the hubris, and he should get down to some real policies that will make a difference.

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The honesty in sentencing issue concerns the fact that it is not currently explained to people that sentences are likely to involve so much time in prison and a further amount outside on licence but subject to recall. We will see whether we can address that and make people understand more clearly what sentences actually imply. It was the previous Government, not us, who moved the amount of sentences being served from two thirds to half—a move that we intend to reverse in the cases of the most serious sexual offenders and violent criminals when we move away from imprisonment for public protection sentences to a more sensible system of determinate sentences.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I welcome this latest and expertly executed U-turn from the Government. Cannot the Justice Secretary see that this whole row, as well as the cuts to probation, the cuts to youth offending teams, the banned people being allowed to volunteer in classrooms and the failure to close all the loopholes on the monitoring of sex offenders together create a very ugly picture of the Government’s attitude to victims of crime?

[Mr Clarke]

I have done many U-turns in my time. They should be done with purpose and panache when we have to do them, but I do not think this is a U-turn at all—[Laughter.] No, I do not. Let me explain—[Laughter.]

Sentencing

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on her wonderful, thought-provoking speech. I have not heard the case for women prisoners articulated so well since I came to the House.

There is a gaping hole at the heart of the Government’s Green Paper on sentencing: it is the voice of the victim. Rehabilitation is important to victims. They want to know that their experience has not been in vain. They are anxious to prevent other people from becoming victims, and they want to know that their ordeal—traumatic, distressing and damaging though it was—can produce a change that will help others. For that reason, victims want certainty in sentencing. Rehabilitation is often valued by victims, but punishment and reparation must come first.

Why should victims believe that rehabilitation will work when their own experience of the criminal justice system is so lacking? The Government assure us, sometimes with the best of intentions, that rehabilitation will succeed, at the same time as proposing that sentences should be cut and fewer people should be incarcerated. Our criminal justice system involves a deal between the citizen and the state. We do not personally catch and punish others who have wronged us; we stand back and trust professionals to take care of justice on our behalf. We are entitled, however, to expect transparency in return. That is the deal.

Rehabilitation acts both ways. We can all understand why the rehabilitation of offenders is important, but what about the rehabilitation of victims? Victims often feel that they serve a longer sentence than the perpetrator, yet they are entitled to less. There is not enough trauma care for those who are suddenly bereaved. There is inadequate counselling on offer for children, and counselling is sometimes delayed until after a trial, for fear that it might contaminate the evidence. That irresponsible and unnecessary practice must stop.

[Bob Stewart]

I gave evidence for the prosecution in a murder trial in 1986. In the middle of my evidence, the plea was changed. The people sitting behind me were seriously grateful that they no longer had to go into the witness box. Sometimes, victims such as those are grateful for any method that allows them to avoid having to go through their experience again in court. I make that point only because I think that it is valid.

[Mrs Chapman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I accept that what he says is true. My point is that increasing the discount to 50% will not in any way improve the experience of victims.

It is true that victims benefit from efficiency in the criminal justice system. Unnecessary and costly administration helps no one, but the attempt to make savings by cutting sentences by up to 50% in return for a guilty plea is not a fair way of going about this. Justice is at the heart of the system, and it must not become its casualty.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s ideas in the Green Paper on work in prisons. It is important and beneficial to victims that the system should turn out people who are able to lead law-abiding lives, and I am pleased that he has suggested that wages earned by prisoners should be used to compensate victims. He needs to ensure that that happens. A fund needs to be established in which the money can be collected centrally for redistribution to victims, because they generally do not want the ongoing regular direct relationship with an offender that a monthly direct debit can entail. A centrally co-ordinated victims fund to assist with reparation would help in that regard.

No one seems to believe that community sentences are real punishment. They are seen as second best, the soft option or the cheapest option. Sadly, that is all too often true. Community sentences should be highly visible, and that includes making the offenders themselves highly visible. The public must be responsible for nominating work schemes, and the probation service needs to see tough punishment as part of its brief. Community sentences should be tough, physical, intensive and of direct benefit to the community that has suffered. Breaches should be rigorously enforced.

Of greatest concern, however, are the Government’s proposals to alter indeterminate sentences for public protection. No offender convicted of rape, sexual assault or child abuse should be released without an assessment of their risk to the public. The Green Paper assumes that non-dangerous IPP inmates are serving longer than they need to. I know that inmates and their families are arguing for this. Where, however, is the voice of the victim? Could it be that parole boards are making the right call in keeping us safe from some of the most predatory offenders in the system? We should let them continue to do so.

Reduced sentences for guilty pleas have been thoroughly debated in recent days, but the Government need to find other ways to ease the experience of the criminal justice system for victims. An offender who pleads guilty late in the process should be penalised, not rewarded, for an early plea. How an offender pleads has nothing to do with the seriousness of the crime—crime should be punished, rather than the ability to play the system be rewarded. The Government’s proposals will not encourage more people to plead guilty early. Such decisions are based on the likely outcome and the strength of evidence, not on the discount offered. All the current proposal does is alienate victims; it is wrong.

The Government need to make the light by which the needs of victims can be seen. So far, this is missing from their proposal. Reoffending rates improved in the last decade, but it will be a long time before rehabilitation will be good enough for it to be seen as more important in sentencing than reparation or punishment. The Government will be judged on who they prioritise in criminal justice—and this must be the victim.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

No, I cannot. [Interruption.] The system requires considerable transformation. We intend to introduce as widely as possible a system in which it is normal for prisoners to have a working day doing proper work, getting into work habits and acquiring skills. We have some—comparatively few—outstanding examples of workshops run by outside companies and we are attracting wide interest from companies in how we can do that. Prison Industries will have to be addressed and we will probably have to put it on a different and more commercial footing. We are looking for work that can properly be done in prison without jeopardising legitimate small businesses outside. A moment ago I was accused of rushing everything. The great thing about such reforms, which will transform the prison system, is that there is no point in delivering straight away experiments that have not been thought through. I intend to change the atmosphere of prisons very substantially once we have got down to practical ways of doing so.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

The introduction of work-based regimes more widely will be warmly welcomed by people who know about rehabilitation, but victims are concerned about reparation. Will the Secretary of State make sure that any wages earned as part of a work-based regime go directly to benefit victims or the communities that have been victims of crime?

[Mr Clarke]

Yes. I am glad the hon. Lady agrees on that sensible approach. That, too, is an important innovation that we must make.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I want to reassure my hon. Friend that we certainly do not wish the smaller charities to be excluded from the rehabilitation revolution. The organisations that she mentions are not in the pilot scheme that we are running in Peterborough, where the social impact bond involves two key voluntary organisations, and we want that to continue in the other pilots that we are pursuing.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

We obviously welcome the rehabilitation revolution, but is the Minister aware that there is concern among prison governors about the increased amount of time that inmates will be required to spend in their cells, thereby being unable to partake in any rehabilitation, because of the cuts to the prison budget? What assurances can he give prison governors that they will not have to increase the amount of time for which prisoners are just banged up?

[Nick Herbert]

I am afraid that prisoners were also spending too much time in their cells and not pursuing purposeful activity under the previous Government, when there were increases in spending, year on year. So this problem is not simply linked to spending. We are determined that prisons should be places of work and purposeful activity, so that we can focus on reducing reoffending.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I fear that I will not be able to explain the whole network without irritating you, Mr Speaker, but the Ministry of Justice has funded 44 separate projects in conjunction with the Corston independent funders. I have already answered the question about what will happen to the funding after March. We will continue a degree of funding—not on the scale that has happened before, but we are identifying the projects that are working best, which we will wish to continue to support.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of the effects on public protection of releasing those with indeterminate prison sentences who have completed their minimum tariff.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Prisoners serving indeterminate sentences who have completed their minimum tariff are released from custody only if the independent Parole Board is satisfied that the risk of harm that they pose to the public is such that it may reasonably be managed in the community.

[Mrs Chapman]

The Secretary of State will be aware that inmates serving indeterminate public protection sentences will have committed some of the most severe offences. Often, the reason they are not released after their minimum tariff is that they still pose a great risk or have not been able to complete the rehabilitative courses that are available. Will he either spend more money on rehabilitation inside prisons or change the method by which risk is assessed?

[Mr Clarke]

We addressed this problem in the Green Paper, on which we are consulting. It is quite obvious that the IPP system has never worked as either the previous Government or Parliament intended. Indeed, the previous Government made one attempt to revise it to stop the unexpectedly large numbers of people who were going into the system. IPP prisoners are almost all high-risk, and they should be released only once they have been assessed by the Parole Board, but of course it is extremely difficult to form judgments about the risks that they pose when they are in prison and sometimes unable to access rehabilitation courses. We published our proposals in the Green Paper and are now consulting on them, but we have no intention whatever of putting the public at more risk by releasing people without some assessment by the Parole Board. However, it has to be a sensible assessment that can sensibly be made.