Cookham Wood Secure Training Centre

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Tom Brake]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what (a) injuries and (b) injuries requiring external medical treatment were sustained during restraint incidents on girls held in Medway secure training centre in each month since 1998.

[Official Report, 14 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 983-984W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 14 September 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Blunt]

The YJB has collected data since April 2007 showing the number of injuries in each category, but this data is not broken down by gender.

The definitions for these categories are:

Minor injury requiring medical treatment

This includes cuts, scratches, grazes, blood noses, concussion, serious bruising and sprains where medical treatment is given by a member of staff or a nurse. Treatment could include cleaning and dressing wounds, providing pain relief, and monitoring symptoms by a health professional (e.g. in relation to concussion). This includes first aid administered by a staff member.

Serious injury requiring hospital treatment

This includes serious cuts, fractures, loss of consciousness and damage to internal organs. Where 24-hour health care is available the young person may remain onsite. At other establishments, the young person will be taken to a local hospital. Treatment will reflect the more serious nature of the injuries sustained and may include stitches, re-setting bones, operations and providing overnight observation.

It is currently a contractual requirement for any young person within an STC who has been restrained to be visited by a registered nurse within thirty minutes following the use of restraint.

The latest data available is for 2008-09 and is provided in the table as follows. The data from 2009-10 will be available following the publication of the 2009-10 annual YJB Workload statistics.

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time.

[Mr Blunt]

The YJB has collected data since April 2007 showing the number of injuries in each category, but this data is not broken down by gender.

The definitions for these categories are:

Minor injury requiring medical treatment

This includes cuts, scratches, grazes, blood noses, concussion, serious bruising and sprains where medical treatment is given by a member of staff or a nurse. Treatment could include cleaning and dressing wounds, providing pain relief, and monitoring symptoms by a health professional (e.g. in relation to concussion). This includes first aid administered by a staff member.

Serious injury requiring hospital treatment

This includes serious cuts, fractures, loss of consciousness and damage to internal organs. Where 24-hour health care is available the young person may remain onsite. At other establishments, the young person will be taken to a local hospital. Treatment will reflect the more serious nature of the injuries sustained and may include stitches, re-setting bones, operations and providing overnight observation.

It is currently a contractual requirement for any young person within an STC who has been restrained to be visited by a registered nurse within thirty minutes following the use of restraint.

The latest data available is for 2008-09 and is provided in the table as follows. The data from 2009-10 will be available following the publication of the 2009-10 annual YJB Workload statistics.

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time.

Cutting Crime (Justice Reinvestment)

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Llwyd]

According to a Ministry of Justice letter leaked last Friday, 14,000 MOJ jobs will be lost, 11,000 of them from the front line. If we are to believe the letter, 60% of those reductions must be made within the next two years. The cost of the redundancy drive will reportedly reach £230 million. Although 85% of that reduction is estimated to be voluntary, it will no doubt be as voluntary as walking the plank.

Meanwhile, 50% of the redundancies are expected to be achieved through natural wastage. Where exactly do we expect those workers to go? The National Offender Management Service will lose 9,940 jobs: 760 from its headquarters and the rest, presumably, from the prison and probation services. Delivery of restorative justice seems like pie in the sky when we consider the bleak road ahead. By March 2014, the justice budget will be cut by 23%, which seems to undermine once again the opportunity for justice reinvestment.

We hear that in the face of those cuts, the Ministry of Justice also wants to cut prison places. The Ministry’s aim is to reduce receptions into custody by 18,000 a year by 2014—indeed, the package of cuts is predicated on a reduction in the number of prisoners—but how can that be achieved? I am afraid that it is more likely that the cuts will lead to an increase in the number of prisoners, especially when slashes in staff numbers are combined with cuts to courts, prosecutors and clerks. The same number of prisoners will be held on remand, but probably for longer.

The premise of the cuts is therefore flawed, and the cuts may well undermine the worthy and proper notion of justice reinvestment. Equally, there are logistical problems with the time scale, as the cuts are expected to come into play by 2014. I spoke yesterday to Mr Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers; I see a wry smile on the Minister’s face. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Justice expects that the new infrastructure will be put in place by 2014, but NAPO’s opinion is that it will take at least five years to be anywhere near ready. However, that is a matter of debate. The time scale for the cuts is not practicable and risks undermining and damaging our justice system.

We also hear that a large proportion of rehabilitation work will be outsourced to voluntary and private organisations on the basis of payment by results. Where exactly are those volunteers meant to come from? Magistrates courts committees have complained that court orders cannot be made out to private companies. I think that that is true. What would happen in the event of conflicts of interest? On Tuesday, I met Mr John Thornhill and other representatives of the Magistrates Association. If short-term prison sentences are to be avoided, they are concerned that personnel will not be found to oversee defendants.

Although I agree that the Lord Chancellor is right to attempt to avoid the overuse of short prison sentences, that cannot be done without a substantial direct investment in the probation service. When I first qualified as a lawyer in the early 1970s, the local town of Dolgellau had three probation officers. We now have one for half the county. Need I say more? Furthermore, as I said to the Lord Chancellor in a recent sitting of the Justice Committee, the private concerns that receive payment by results will inevitably be profit-driven. They will not want the awkward recidivist cases, that is for sure. That is where I believe probation officers’ skills should come into play.

I understand that many departmental settlements were finalised only a few hours before the announcement of the spending review yesterday. How can we discuss justice reinvestment properly, even in theory, when community reinvestment is being cut? We are expected to set up a private system that we do not agree with, which will take years, while cutting back on probation staff. I am afraid that those drastic cuts have not been properly thought through. As was said earlier, this might be an opportunity missed.

In its report, the Justice Committee presented the case for various essential reforms, which now seem further away than ever. The report tasked the Government with committing to a significant reduction in the prison population by 2015. That is the reduction on which the cuts are predicated, yet ironically, the cuts render such a reduction less practicable. Following on from the Corston report in 2007, the Committee report also tasked the Government with implementing Baroness Corston’s recommendations on reducing the number of female prisoners. A reduction in the number of prisoners whose crimes were driven by mental illness is also overdue. The CSR mentioned those goals, notably in pledging to introduce proposals to invest in mental health liaison services at police stations and courts in order to intervene at an early stage and divert those suffering from a mental illness into treatment. That is welcome, but will the Minister expand on it? Will related pledges to target the causes of female incarceration be honoured?

The Committee report warned that spending more on rehabilitation will not work while the prison estate is overcrowded. How timely that warning now seems. We cannot expect the criminal justice system simply to work out its problems by itself. Time and investment are needed to reform how the sector functions. As I have said, we cannot merely expect the number of prisoners to decrease as if by magic while cutting staff numbers across the piece.

The report noted that a coherent strategy must be developed by the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and other Departments to target the allocation of resources and reduce crime. I agree, of course. Targeting the causes of crime is essential to reducing the number of people in prison. We must build on and improve the community sentencing structures already in place and seek the advice of probation staff who know the area thoroughly and professionally.

For too long, probation officers have been undermined and marginalised in the NOMS set-up. Instead of making cuts and outsourcing to voluntary organisations, we should focus on improving the probation service that we know and respect by reducing the paperwork that probation officers must do and increasing the time that they spend with offenders. Currently, probation officers spend an average of eight minutes a week speaking to people under their orders. That is ridiculous. What can be done in eight minutes a week? I have no idea.

I have a suggestion. It might be radical, but I have seen it in practice. A few weeks ago, I went to Buffalo, New York, which has a veterans court. Veterans who have offended are referred to the court and come under the watchful eye of Judge Russell. Typically, they have committed high-grade misdemeanours or low-grade felonies and are facing perhaps 18 months in prison. They are given the opportunity to attend the veterans court. If they take it, they are assigned a probation officer and, crucially, an ex-service mentor. For 18 months or less—it is sometimes 15 months or in very rare cases 12 months—they are expected to go to court every three weeks to explain how they are getting on. They are drug tested every fortnight and if they are clean and sober—to use the words they use in the States—at the completion of the course, they graduate. They are given a glowing character reference and any reference to the offences is scrapped. If they are not already in work, they are given work, and they are treated with respect for how they have handled themselves during those months.

I was absolutely struck by the whole thing. I went to the States thinking, as a lawyer, that everyone should be equal before the law and questioning why veterans should have a different course of action—although I have been campaigning for them and will continue to do so for those veterans who unfortunately are in prison, often for reasons beyond their control. The scheme is predicated on having a volunteer mentor who is an ex-serviceperson and a probation officer—or the American version of that—who can put in the necessary time to deal with the offender.

I have just mentioned the result of that scheme to hon. Members. May I tell them what the reoffending rate is? Courts at the federal level are looking at that district court because of its success. For the past three years, the reoffending rate has been 0%. If that is not something to consider, I do not know what is. I submit that the scheme could be adapted to what we are talking about today. It does not have to be a veterans court; it could be any other form of court. The scheme is labour intensive, but if we weigh up the savings to society, the taxpayer and everyone—and indeed to the individual who has his or her life turned around and is back in the mainstream—it is remarkable and worthy of study.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the work of Alan Lilly of the Cheshire probation service? I saw him last week in Cheshire—he is a friend of mine and we served together—as I am interested in the work he is doing there on a veterans scheme. I am particularly interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the American experience. We will try to draw those two experiences together.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am grateful to the Minister for that very positive response. I shall send him a booklet—if one exists—about the scheme. I know Mr Lilly; I serve on a committee with him. Indeed, under the auspices of the Howard League for Penal Reform, I went to the States as a member of a panel and am due to report to the Government. I am happy to send the evidence to the Minister, because it is remarkable and worthy of thorough investigation.

[Mr Blunt]

I would be grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s reflections as a lawyer on treating people differently in the criminal justice system. If he has any suggestions about how one might address that issue, I would be grateful to hear them.

[Mr Llwyd]

As I said, I went to the States with a preconception that I would not approve of the veterans court. However, other courts refer to that court as a means of disposal. Other courts deal with ex-service people who have committed such offences, and if they think that the person concerned would benefit from Judge Russell’s assistance, they are referred for disposal to the veterans court. In effect, it is not a twin-track system for any class of society, but it is a different disposal. The scheme is well worthy of examination.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) who is sitting opposite me. We have followed a similar path from our respective Whips Offices to Front-Bench responsibility, and I congratulate her on becoming a shadow Justice Minister. I notice that she did not spend an enormous amount of time defending the record of the previous Administration, which was probably wise.

In recounting the record, she commented on the number of courses that people have completed, and the expenditure on programmes. I want to draw attention to one way in which things are changing by saying that those are inputs. We are not going to measure inputs; we are going to measure outputs and what is achieved by the system. We will give those who operate the criminal justice system and in whose charge offenders are placed, as much professional freedom as we can to enable them to exercise their best professional judgment and effect the rehabilitation revolution that we so badly need.

[Alun Michael]

The Minister makes an interesting point by suggesting that he will measure things by outcomes. That is a sensible way to proceed but he must tell us how he will manage it without the inputs.

[Mr Blunt]

I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a passage in his contribution where he talked about methodology. I was trying to write his remarks down, but he went through that part of his speech rather too quickly. He said words such as “the requirement of that methodology”, “centrally driven”, “clinically measured”, “setting targets” and “evaluated annually.” I recommend that he go back and look at such passages in his speech, and imagine what that language is like for someone who is on the receiving end of the methodology and targets that flow from it. That is the system we have inherited.

I have talked to professionals in the field, particularly the youth offending teams who are overseen by the Youth Justice Board. The leaders of the youth offending teams spend far too much of their time looking upwards to respond to the oversight that they receive from the Youth Justice Board, rather than looking downwards to deliver their services. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, that is an example of where we have got the balance wrong and where changes are needed. It is the same for the probation service and the performance measurements and targets that are imposed on it. We must move to a system that gives professionals more freedom to exercise their judgment in the best interests of the people in their care.

[Alun Michael]

rose—

[Mr Blunt]

I will give way for the last time, otherwise I will not get a chance to reply to the debate.

[Alun Michael]

I am grateful to the Minister for generously admitting that he was not keeping up with my explanation. It had nothing to do with the work of the Youth Justice Board; I was pointing out that the simple methodology of partnership working by local people in a local area who work together to identify the problems and produce solutions, has worked through the crime and disorder reduction partnerships over the past 12 or 13 years. The problem with the youth offending teams is not that of looking upwards or at centrally-set targets. The issue is about whether the professionalism exists in the Minister’s Department and the Home Office to support that sort of work. I suggest that it does not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

Elements of the functions of the Youth Justice Board will be brought into the Ministry of Justice. It is not as though all the people who work for the Youth Justice Board will suddenly disappear in their entirety and we will do without them altogether. That is a highly incorrect caricature of the position. I do not want to get drawn into that argument; in introducing my reply to the debate, I was making a general point about the approach that will differentiate this Administration from their predecessor. Evidence will be used to pursue policies that will focus on what is achieved and what outputs are delivered, rather than a policy that mandates inputs and targets and oversees professionals in the way that we have seen over the past 13 years. In the end, that has enervated people’s professionalism and detracted from the important task that we give them in offender management.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked about prison places. She seemed to be under the impression that we had announced the construction of 10,000 fewer prison places. That is not the case. The only announcement that we made was the deferring of the first of the prisons in the new prisons programme, which was to produce a net increase of only about 2,000 places. It is a new-for-old programme. It would have created five 1,500 place prisons—that is 7,500 places—and would have seen the removal from the estate of 5,500 of the older and less efficient places elsewhere in the system, so the figure is not 10,000; it is 2,000. That decision has simply been deferred, and in any event those prison places would have been highly unlikely to come on-stream during this spending review period. As they were proper privately financed schemes, they will continue to be assessed and there may well continue to be an economic case for them. However, given the other changes that we shall now have to examine in prison capacity, we are looking at closures of other prisons to arrive at a position whereby we can accommodate, in our estimate, about 82,000 prisoners at the end of this Parliament.

We need to remember that we inherited in May a position in which it was anticipated that there would be 96,000 prisoners by the end of the Parliament. There have been some changes to the number of people now being sent to prison. We are trying to identify why the trend has not been rising as steeply as one would have expected through the summer and autumn months. That may have something to do with the change of climate that has come with the end of the political arms race on this issue.

At this point, I should like to draw attention to the Select Committee’s report, which stated:

“If we are to avoid a continuation of the ‘arms race’ on being ‘tough on crime’, which dates back to the early 1990s, means must be found for encouraging and informing sensible, thoughtful and rational public debate and policy development on the appropriate balance and focus of resources.”

I think that we would accept that the Lord Chancellor has led that change of view, and both he and I now enjoy the warm appreciation of certain sections of the media for having done so, but what is welcome is that the bipartisanship between the two coalition parties now seems to have extended to the principal Opposition party with the election of the new Leader of the Opposition, who specifically endorsed the criminal justice policies of the new Administration in dissing the inheritance of his own period in government as implicitly the wrong approach.

[Alun Michael]

That is enough spin.

[Mr Blunt]

Well, I am grateful to receive support, wherever it comes from. I welcome the repentance of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Now that we are having a more rational political debate about criminal justice policy, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do what they can—we will certainly do what we can—to encourage a more rational debate in some sections of the media. We found when we talked to people in other countries, including Germany and Finland, that the media in those countries did not present the arguments about crime in the way in which they are presented in some sections of the media here, where the argument is always that the sentence should have been longer. In other countries, the issue is debated much more responsibly.

[Mr Blunt]

If my right hon. Friend can find a way of pulling off that piece of alchemy, it would be extremely welcome. It would certainly be a very welcome development in intelligent policy making. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said, this is a question not just of the Government changing the rhetoric but of Parliament addressing the issue, and now we are in a position to do so because in essence all three main parties are in the same place on going for evidence-based policy making. That is a welcome change from policy-based evidence making.

[Tony Baldry]

One of the glories of the coalition is that some of our colleagues are wondrously optimistic. The reality is that certain sections of the press never report this issue fairly. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that what we collectively have to do is to accept that as a given and press on regardless? The proof will come at the end of the day when we have reduced reoffending rates and, as a consequence, reduced the amount of money that we have to spend on prisons. However, the idea that the Poujadist press will suddenly wake up and see that that is good news is away with the fairies.

[Mr Blunt]

That realism probably reflects my own assessment of the situation. We have to do what my hon. Friend describes. It is our responsibility and duty as parliamentarians to say and do what is right.

[Alun Michael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Blunt]

Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not? Otherwise, I simply will not get through my remarks.

[Alun Michael]

I will be brief.

[Mr Blunt]

Well, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts that I will not finish my remarks, I will give way to him.

[Alun Michael]

I counsel the Minister that now is the time, when there is still something of a honeymoon going on, for him to build bridges across the Chamber as well. Contributions that are a little less partisan and some recognition of the considerable achievements of the last Government would help to create the consensus across the Chamber that will be very important for Ministers in future, as well as for good practice in Parliament.

[Mr Blunt]

I can well understand, given the quality of the inheritance that we received, why the right hon. Gentleman would be anxious for me to pursue that line.

Let me comment on some of the other contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) made the point that we can be either smart or stupid about our attitude to crime. He spoke about the need for confidence in community sentences, to which I want to return.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) was kind enough to take interventions from me in relation to his experience of a veterans court in the United States. I re-emphasise that I shall want to consider the evidence that he provides to me in that area. I just caution him to be slightly careful, in terms of commenting on leaks, numbers of job losses and everything else, about taking the opinion of some trade unions in this area too directly. Their record of accuracy is not highly precise. The National Association of Probation Officers over-estimated the number of veterans in the justice system by about a factor of three.

[Mr Llwyd]

No.

[Mr Blunt]

Yes.

[Mr Llwyd]

With respect, I can answer that straight away. NAPO estimated that about 8,500 service veterans—9%—were in prison. The Government scoping exercise excluded those under 21, reservists, of whom there are many in Afghanistan as we speak, women and those who served in Northern Ireland. If we process them back in, the figure is 9%.

[Mr Blunt]

I fear not. A very careful study by the Defence Analytical Services Agency assessed the number at 3.5%, but let us not be diverted by that. I was making a wider point about the reliability of the people whom the hon. Gentleman was adducing in evidence. I think that as the position becomes clear with regard to the consequences of the spending review, the probation service will realise that the Lord Chancellor has batted for it in a particularly effective way. If we are to address issues and change the balance in relation to short sentences—we do not expect any savings in terms of the prison system if there are changes in patterns and fewer people being given short sentences—the first thing to say is that we will not end the capacity of the magistracy and the judiciary to use short prison sentences if they feel that that is necessary, but we would obviously hope that their use would be reduced. That means either community sentences or longer sentences. Those are the two alternatives that arise from it, so it would be unwise to assume any reduction in the overall number of prison places required, as a result of a change in policy in that area, because some of the changes will involve people going to prison for longer so that they can be effectively rehabilitated within the safety of custody.

The other point that I want to make to the hon. Gentleman is that the public sector is not the only source of money. I commend to him the social investment model that has begun at Peterborough; it is a model that we will wish to widen. If we can get external investors to invest, so that savings can be made—that is much at the centre of the principle of the justice reinvestment report—it frankly does not matter where that extra capacity comes from.

In the end, this is not about just money; there is an enormous capacity in the community. In the voluntary sector, the charitable community and the private sector there are people who want to give their services, in whatever form, to the Ministry of Justice and to the state, to help us with the task of rehabilitating offenders. At the moment, our system is not very good at making it easy for those people to give their services, or to sell them to us, on a not-for-profit or indeed a for-profit basis, to grow this country’s capacity to deliver rehabilitation. The responsibility that sits on me now, in terms of designing the policies—on rehabilitation in particular—that we will present in the Green Paper, is to create a system that will make it that much easier for us to draw on the capacity that is sitting out there in the country; to ensure that in co-ordination with the existing state services, in probation and elsewhere, we can deliver a much more effective rehabilitation package than we do today. This is not about replacing those services but about adding to them.

The other half of that process is to ensure that all the existing state services, particularly those delivered at a local level, are co-ordinated that much more effectively, to deliver the interventions that are needed to address the multifaceted problems that normally afflict most people who are on a cycle of reoffending and who need particular help to break free from that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and to the very good report that he oversaw as chairman of the Commission for Social Justice. Early intervention is not about just the criminal justice system but about what I have described as the entire life cycle of the offender and the potential offender, and that is why I have a place on the Social Justice Cabinet Committee, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend, precisely to start making interventions earlier and earlier in the process. It is about trying to keep children out of care. It is about looking at the whole business of family intervention programmes for when the indicators start arriving, such as when children are excluded from school and are sent to pupil referral units. Good work was done by the previous Administration, and I happily acknowledge that, but we have to encourage a culture in which we invest early to prevent problems later. At the same time, we are of course left with the responsibility of dealing with the problems that we have now, which is why it is essential to create extra capacity, in whatever form we can.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who I think will make a welcome contribution to the work of the Justice Committee, acknowledged that the previous Administration were perhaps not as tough on the causes of crime as they might have been. When the then Leader of the Opposition coined the slogan, “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime,” that slogan was empty, as is now clear in his own diaries and in his account. The policies to deliver on that had not been developed when the slogan was coined in 1994, and that is one of the dangers of dealing in rhetoric without there being the reality underlying it and—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is chuntering. The policies began to be developed from that point on, but at that point they did not exist. One has to be careful about the catchphrase that sounds great but does not have the policies—

[Alun Michael]

That is very petty; that is not true.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to intervene from a sedentary position.

[Mr Blunt]

There is, however, much in the Committee’s impressive report that resonates with this Government’s plans for overhauling our approach to the rehabilitation of offenders. We share the concern that the size of the prison population is not just a numbers game, and we want to target investment where it is most needed. Most important, we know that we need to place successful rehabilitation at the heart of the criminal justice system, so that we can prevent people from becoming the victims of tomorrow. The forthcoming Green Paper on rehabilitation and sentencing will set out our plans for bringing about real and enduring changes in our approach to reducing reoffending. It will also bring much-needed clarity to the sentencing framework. I hope that members of the new Justice Committee and the right hon. and hon. Members here this afternoon will find much in the Green Paper that reflects and addresses the concerns raised in this debate.

We face huge challenges, and we will clearly work closely with other Departments. I have been asked on more than one occasion about our relationship with the Department of Health on the issues of mental health and addiction, and I am very pleased to be able to report that the Ministry of Justice is getting great commitment and interest from the Ministers and the senior officials in the Department. I am extremely hopeful that we will be able to build significantly on the position that we inherit.

The excellent report that we have debated this afternoon has already informed the thinking of the new Administration, and I suppose that that is hardly surprising. The report is consistent with the direction of travel in criminal justice, and we will present our views in the Green Paper. But again, it is a Green Paper, and we look forward to my right hon. Friend and the members of his Committee making a contribution in response. There is no monopoly on wisdom in this area, and we are open to listening to evidence as it comes in and to trying to find ways of ensuring that successful approaches to widening rehabilitation can be adopted by the whole criminal justice system. If the new Justice Committee is as well informed and authoritative as the report of the previous Committee, I am quite sure that it will do a signal service to our country during this Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on drug addiction services in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I have had discussions with Ministers in a number of Departments, including the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office. Those discussions have covered a range of drugs-related topics, including reforming drug addiction services in prisons.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that many prisoners struggle with choosing abstinence over methadone when they want to kick their drug habits, so what action will the Government take to encourage prisoners to take an abstinence-based regimen instead of methadone?

[Mr Blunt]

Our policy is that we should move towards abstinence from maintenance, but it is not the practice that we have inherited. The main programme, the integrated drug treatment system, is relatively new and based around National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse models of care, but the effect in practice is much more about maintaining addicts safely than leading them to abstinence. However, there are very good abstinence-based programmes in prison, such as RAPt, and our goal is to challenge offenders to take responsibility for the harm that they have caused and to accept help to come off drugs. We will therefore reshape existing drug services in prisons to establish drug recovery wings that are based on abstinence, free from drugs, motivate change, support rehabilitation and, on release, link offenders into community services that can continue the progress made in prison.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

It sounds as if the Minister is going to be pretty rigid in pursuing a policy that, in some cases, will work and be wholly appropriate. In other cases, however, people will fail, and when they do so they will be a problem not just to themselves but to our communities. They will feed organised crime and return to their habits. Surely he accepts and recognises that.

[Mr Blunt]

Of course I accept and recognise that. That is the reality of the current position. All too many short-sentence offenders are going into prison, and occasionally they do not have a drug habit but acquire one while they are there. We are failing to rehabilitate drug addicts effectively and, indeed, to address properly alcoholics, in the community and in prison, who are under the sentence of the courts. That is why we will move to a much more output-based system, measuring people by what they achieve rather than simply measuring inputs. Of course, that is a very difficult area, and many people need more than one go—indeed, several goes—at effecting successful rehabilitation from drugs, and of course this Administration acknowledge that.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

2. What proportion of young offenders reoffended within one year of being released from custody in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

16. What proportion of young offenders reoffended within (a) one and (b) two years of being released from custody in the latest period for which figures are available.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The latest reoffending rate for young people, those aged between 10 and 17, released from custody in England and Wales in the first quarter of 2008 is 74.3%. Reoffending rates for young people are based on whether an offender has been convicted at court or has received an out-of-court disposal for an offence in the year following release from custody.

[Laura Sandys]

Does the Minister agree that young offenders, when released from prison, need a more demanding and challenging set of programmes? In my constituency, the Kent Film Foundation runs a programme teaching film skills, and it has an 85% success rate in getting young offenders into work or further education, at a cost of £5,000 per course.

[Mr Blunt]

There are many isolated examples of really good practice all over the country, and our challenge is to systemise it so that people can learn from what works, experience the flexibility and the opportunity to implement it and deliver the output, which then effectively turns those young people away from crime.

[Mark Reckless]

Given the abject failure of the Youth Justice Board to reduce reoffending among our young people, what plans does the Minister have to replace it, and in particular what role does he envisage for the private and voluntary sectors in that area?

[Mr Blunt]

The functions of the Youth Justice Board will be taken into the Ministry of Justice, but I am not sure that I would be quite as condemnatory as my hon. Friend is about the board’s record. It has achieved success in getting youth offending teams effectively embedded within a local delivery framework, and it is now up to the Ministry of Justice and myself, as the Minister for Youth Justice, to take that work forward and take responsibility for it.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Precisely how much money will the Minister save by the abolition of the Youth Justice Board? Will he ensure that that money is reinvested in front-line services to support youth offending teams? How precisely does he expect to organise youth offending teams without the oversight of the Youth Justice Board?

[Mr Blunt]

There will be some savings to be taken, but they will not be taken at the outset because the delivery functions of the Youth Justice Board, principally in purchasing custody for young people sent into custody by the courts, will obviously remain. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman remembered the system that he had, whereby one-on-one policy advice came from the Youth Justice Board and from his own policy officials in the Department. That sort of duplication will be taken away by bringing the functions of the Youth Justice Board within the Ministry of Justice.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to rubbish the Youth Justice Board, because the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), heaped praise on it in abolishing it last week. Having praised and buried the Youth Justice Board, what does the Minister suggest takes its place? He knows that 25% falls in youth reoffending rates occurred over its first eight years. What is his strategy for continuing the excellent record of the previous Labour Government in reducing youth reoffending?

[Mr Blunt]

I am not entirely sure that I would be that sanctimonious about presenting the record of the last Labour Government, when we had not only the awful reoffending rates out of custody but, in relation to community penalties, 67.6% of young people reoffending within one year. That is not a record to be wildly proud of. We need to continue to embed youth offending teams in their local authority areas and ensure that there is a proper, effective delivery of local services to young people, including from the education departments of local authorities, for example, to ensure that we properly co-ordinate the effective delivery of services to young offenders within the gift of the state to ensure that they do not reoffend.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

3. If he will take steps to improve co-operation between judicial systems in the UK and in Greece.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to provide relationship skills programmes for prisoners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Currently, commissioning services for offenders is devolved to directors of offender management in the regions and Wales. They are responsible for deciding what services they wish to commission to meet the needs of prisoners in their area. We are examining how reforms to the justice system could enable delivery of more programmes from a broader range of local providers of greater relevance to the many rehabilitation needs of offenders.

[Andrew Selous]

Given that there is a mass of academic evidence from the UK, the US and the Netherlands that strong family relationships reduce reoffending and, therefore, cost to the Minister’s Department, can I ask him to stress that in the Green Paper and when he and his colleagues speak to prison governors?

[Mr Blunt]

I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. We have to get to a position in which those people who are charged with the rehabilitation of offenders have a much freer hand to deliver the interventions that will be effective for the offender who is in their care. If we over-prescribe exactly what has to be done from the centre, we will have a much less effective system. That process will be central to the rehabilitation revolution of delegating responsibility and authority for these decisions to a local level.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

While I would not go as far as the Minister’s party in terms of rehabilitation for prisoners, is it not better to have resources going into rehabilitation so that we save money in the long run? When I spoke to those who work at Nottingham prison in my constituency, they were very concerned that the cuts that will be implemented tomorrow could mean that prisoners will be locked up for much longer periods with no rehabilitation services.

[Mr Blunt]

I detected a degree of contradiction in how the hon. Gentleman presented his question. He does not want to go as far as we would on the rehabilitation of offenders, but then asks us to go the distance. That is exactly what we will do. It would be wholly short-sighted to cut our capacity to deliver rehabilitation of offenders, and that is why we will enable a system that gets the whole country—including the voluntary, not-for-profit and the private sectors, as well as the existing state services—to work together to deliver effective rehabilitation of offenders and effect a step change in the delivery of what is a critical public service.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the provision of training for prison service staff on the management of offenders with mental health conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

14. If he will establish how many foreign national prisoners held in UK prisons wish to serve out custodial sentences in their country of origin rather than in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Since 1 January this year, 97 applications for transfer have been received from prisoners wishing to serve their custodial sentence in their country of origin. The Prison Service has in place procedures—principally on induction—to ensure that prisoners are aware of the possibility of transfer and of how to submit an application. In addition, prisoners are advised, during interviews with immigration staff, of the possibility of being repatriated. Relevant prisoners are advised in writing of any new prisoner transfer agreement that comes into effect.

[Mr Hollobone]

May I urge my hon. Friend to place in the Library the details of the countries to which those 97 prisoners wished to return? I also urge him and his ministerial colleagues to do far more to encourage foreign national prisoners to go back to where they came from, because taxpayers in this country are fed up with paying for their board and lodging.

[Mr Blunt]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to keep a spur to the Ministry of Justice’s side to ensure that we do not slack in our responsibility to get these foreign national prisoners home if at all possible. I am pleased to be able to tell him that when I spoke recently to the annual conference of the Independent Monitoring Boards, I asked them to help us with this, to ensure that we have our procedures in place, and to identify any cases of delay involving prisoners wishing to return under a prisoner transfer agreement. I am determined to ensure that all those who are willing to go home should be encouraged to do so at the earliest opportunity.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

15. What recent representations he has received on his review of parental responsibility in sentencing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

As part of our informal consultations for the Green Paper, we have received clear support for greater engagement of parents and families in the youth justice system. There is strong international evidence and promising emerging evidence from the UK of the effectiveness of supportive parenting interventions in reducing offending by young people.

[Jason McCartney]

I welcome the Minister’s statement that international evidence shows the effectiveness of parenting in reducing offending. Will my hon. Friend do everything he can to increase the role of parenting in sentencing in the youth justice system?

[Mr Blunt]

What we want to do is to move towards a restorative approach to the youth justice system, and particularly to examine whether we can transfer the lessons from the experience of the youth system in Northern Ireland. Youth justice conferencing was very successful there, which involves, of course, the parents of offenders as well as the offenders themselves having to face up to the consequences of their actions. I hope that that gives a pretty unqualified yes to my hon. Friend.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[Paul Maynard]

I recently received a letter from a constituent who in 2000 received a three-year custodial sentence for a non-violent crime. Despite successful rehabilitation and gainful employment, he now discovers that his conviction can never be legally spent—with a dreadful impact on the future lives of both himself and his family. Given the Lord Chancellor’s enthusiasm for rehabilitation, and also the inflation in sentencing over the past 10 years, will he commit to look again at the threshold at which convictions can be legally spent?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

My hon. Friend has pointed out some of the problems with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it operates in today’s climate. I can confirm that this will be covered by our review of sentencing and rehabilitation.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Will the Lord Chancellor confirm that in the forthcoming review of the Human Rights Act, its abolition has been ruled out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that prisoners held within the prison estate are still allowed to smoke tobacco. Does the Secretary of State agree that that presents a huge health risk to Prison Service employees, and are the Government considering the matter?

[Mr Blunt]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the prisoner’s cell is regarded as his home for the purposes of the smoking legislation, and that is what gives them their rights in that regard.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T8. My right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary will be aware of the considerable disquiet felt about the Judicial Appointments Commission both by those within the ranks of the judiciary and by those seeking preferment to it. According to the Library, the cost of the JAC to his Department is in the order of £10 million annually. That is for the discharge of functions formerly performed by the Lord Chancellor’s Department for an amount that I have little doubt was one twentieth of that. We saw the axe taken to a number of quangos this week; when can the House expect the JAC to join them?

Rights of Victims and Families

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) on securing this debate. I am well aware of the valuable work that she has done on the rights of the families of victims of crime. The matter is complex and difficult to cover in debate, and my hon. Friend was extremely generous in giving way. Some interesting points were raised during those interventions, and I shall pick up on those before coming to the substance of my reply.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) made an interesting point about the families of victims in youth courts. We are looking for a much more restorative system, and it would seem rather peculiar if we were to exclude victims from the resulting court process. We shall certainly want to consider that idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) spoke about victim impact statements and I shall return to that point in the main part of my remarks. I note the sensible suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) about a requirement for two post-mortems immediately. It is certainly one that we will ask to be examined.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made considerable time available to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West and Families Fighting for Justice, the support group from her constituency to which she referred. Mrs Jean Taylor followed up that meeting in a letter to my right hon. Friend, which covered personal suggestions from members of that group. I do not have time to refer to all those letters, but I shall read an extract from a letter from A. Williams, who said:

“What would the government think of prisoners of murder or manslaughter paying compensation to the victims families from the wages that they earn in prison…The victims human rights were taken away the day that they were killed and the families certainly do not get justice, we live a life sentence until we go to our graves, (not just for the term of a prison sentence), it breaks up families, it makes us ill and won’t let us out of the dark place that we live in. Instead of us working and paying taxes to feed the prisoners and giving them privileges would it not be better if they worked to give us, the victims families something back. It works in other countries, why not here?”

In that suggestion, there are some important principles about restoration from offenders to victims—ones that my hon. Friend will have heard in the Justice Secretary’s speech at the Conservative party conference. We are actively exploring them, which I hope will bring some comfort to the members of Families Fighting for Justice.

Crime can have a devastating impact, not only on the victim but on the victim’s family and loved ones. Support is given to the families when the crime has been extremely serious—when a victim has died, or when the victim is young or vulnerable. I give my deepest sympathies to those who have suffered such a bereavement, or who have been through the trauma of caring for a vulnerable victim of crime. It is in such terrible cases that the families play their largest role in the criminal justice system, and it is in precisely those cases that guidance, participation, and practical and emotional support are most vital.

The Government are committed to placing victims and their families at the front and at the centre of the criminal justice system. We are committed to ensuring that criminal justice agencies work to help families through the process; we are committed to providing families with a voice in the criminal justice system; and we are committed to providing them with the support and help that they need to deal with the consequences of crime.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Blunt]

I shall not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, as I am short of time.

To those who have never had dealings with it, the criminal justice system can seem daunting. That is especially true for victims and their families, as they are already suffering the emotional distress of crime. Dealing with the various agencies—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and probation—can seem confusing, but we have been working hard to ensure that the system provides the families of victims with the support that they need. A number of schemes have been designed to help guide victims and their families through the process, from the pre-charge and police investigation stage, through sentencing to the parole and release of the offender. Considerable support is available from witness care units, family liaison officers and the victim liaison scheme.

Witness care units are the result of collaboration between the police and the CPS. They provide dedicated teams in each area, and their function is to keep victims and witnesses—and in serious cases, their families—updated on the criminal proceedings. They are staffed by police and CPS officials, and work closely with both agencies. Witness care units serve as a single point of contact from the charging of the suspect to the conclusion of the trial. They are responsible for ensuring that victims know whether they must attend court; they inform victims if there are any changes in proceedings; and they are the first port of call for victims and their families if they have specific questions. Witness care units deal with the vast majority of cases that progress past the decision to charge.

In more serious cases, such as homicide or sexual violence, or if the victim is under 18, the police will often assign a specialist family liaison officer. That person is a specially trained police officer, who acts as a single point of contact for bereaved families. That officer will be on call to answer questions, to explain the process and to support the family until the trial, providing dedicated, one-to-one support.

We are well aware, however, that the needs of victims and their families do not disappear the moment that a judge hands down a sentence. Families of homicide victims or vulnerable victims often want to be kept updated with the progress of the offender’s sentence. They want to know whether the person who has caused such distress is awaiting parole, or being released on licence. The victim liaison service provides victims with a means of being kept informed as the offender's sentence progresses, and of opportunities to make representations on issues relating to their safety in the event of the prisoner being released.

The victim liaison service is the responsibility of local probation trusts, which have a statutory duty to identify and contact the victims of offenders convicted of violent or sexual offences who are sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months or more, and the victims of certain mentally disordered offenders. Victims who want to be part of the scheme are allocated a dedicated, specially trained victim liaison officer. That officer listens to victims’ concerns, and may be able to provide information on other local services. If victims take up the service, they will be told about the offender’s sentence and what it means, and updated on key developments in the sentence such as if an offender is moved to an open prison or released. When an offender is coming to the end of the sentence, the victim or the victim’s family can raise any concerns about the release; they can also request licence conditions, such as those forbidding the offender to contact them or enter the area where they live.

On giving the families a voice, it is important not only to help families through the process and keep them informed but to give them the opportunity to become involved if they wish. This country has a system of common law that pits the accused against the state. Unlike in some civil law systems, in ours victims and their families are not automatically a party to a criminal trial. Here, the state brings the charges, the state prosecutes the accused and the state ensures that the sentence is carried out. However, it does not mean a victim or the family should be excluded from the process. We should operate a system under which we do things with victims, not to them.

When courts are considering sentencing, victims and their families should be heard, and the often terrible consequences of the crime upon families should be considered. To that end, families are able to make a victim personal statement. That statement was first piloted in 1996, and has since been implemented nationally. It works like a witness statement, and is usually collected by the police. It provides the victims or, in the case of homicide, the victim’s family, with an opportunity to describe to the court the impact of the crime upon their lives. Seriousness has two components—harm and culpability—and if the personal statement shows that significant harm was caused to the victim, the sentencer can decide on a higher level of seriousness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that it is not my review of the criminal justice system but the Minister’s.

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful, Mrs Main, for that clarification. My hon. Friend is aware that because of her generosity in taking interventions I shall not be able to finish my prepared remarks. However, I shall consider carefully what she has said. Indeed, she has repeated here the points that she made directly to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, so they are already included in the process and are being considered.

I was going to speak about Victim Support’s homicide service, an important development that began in April this year. We hope that it will provide a high-quality service that reflects the wishes and needs of the bereaved. We are reviewing the services currently available to witnesses, victims and their families in the criminal justice system. As part of our commitment to restorative justice, and to the big society, we want to ensure that victims are a focus not an afterthought.

Interpretation and Translation Services (Justice Sector)

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The Government are proposing to make changes to the provision of interpretation and translation services across the justice sector. We need to reduce waste and cut costs but we shall do so in a way that safeguards quality.

Articles 5 and 6 of the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms (ECHR) give the right to interpretation for those who are arrested and who face criminal court proceedings. In addition, we expect the European Union to adopt a directive in the autumn intended to ensure that the rights enshrined in the ECHR are implemented consistently across all member states.

Currently, the non-binding National Agreement on Arrangements for the Use of Interpreters, Translators and Language Service Professionals in Investigations and Proceedings within the Criminal Justice System sets out how criminal justice organisations are expected to source interpreters and translators in England and Wales. The National Agreement gives the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) as the first source for foreign language interpreters and translators and the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People Directory (now called the National Register of Communication Professionals working with Deaf and Deafblind People (NRCPD)) for British Sign Language and other language services for deaf and deafblind people. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice C and H also require that whenever possible the police should use interpreters from these registers when interviewing suspects.

Members of staff in justice organisations identify interpreters using the registers and then contact them directly. Once the assignment is complete, invoices are processed individually. This is an inefficient, labour-intensive process.

The Ministry of Justice is engaging with the market to explore how interpretation and translation can be delivered more efficiently. The exercise is a “competitive dialogue”, which allows us to explore with potential providers the best way for them to meet our requirements. Although we are not able to be certain what the result of this exercise will be, we are anticipating a “framework agreement” with a number of preferred suppliers. This will set out a template or “call-off” contract. Justice organisations will then easily be able to use the “call-off” contract to meet their specific requirements. The quality of interpretation will be ensured through the terms of the contracts.

At this stage, we expect most police forces, Her Majesty’s Courts Service, the Tribunal Service, the National Offender Management Service and the Crown Prosecution Service to use the framework. We expect the framework agreement to be signed in early 2011.

A move to contracts will eventually render the National Agreement redundant and we expect to withdraw it in due course. We aim however to retain elements of the agreement as good practice guidance and many of its fundamental principles will form the basis of the agreements with suppliers.

Potential suppliers were invited to lodge an expression of interest in a letter issued on 10 August. A notice was issued in the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 August. The procurement “pre-qualification questionnaire” was made available on 24 August. The deadline for return of the questionnaire was 13 September. The competitive dialogue process with short-listed tenderers will start in October.

The Government are clear that there is scope for greater efficiency in this area of their business and it is important that savings are made. But in taking this work forward it will ensure that the quality of interpretation and translation in police stations, in the courts and elsewhere is maintained.

Fresh Produce Procurement (Prisons)

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to him for providing me with the opportunity to examine our strategy in this area and to see whether it should change when the contracts come up for renewal next May. There is a significant attraction in my hon. Friend’s arguments. Anyone arguing for a politician to be popular is likely to be on pretty strong ground. He helpfully outlined his arguments to the Ministry of Justice, which has enabled me to provide a comprehensive answer to him.

Before I focus in depth on my hon. Friend’s remarks, I should like to respond to the point he raised in a letter to me in September concerning Brambledown (Kent) Ltd. He kindly told us in private that we appeared to have missed that company off the list of contracted suppliers, which gave me the opportunity to examine the position without public embarrassment to the Ministry if we got our answer wrong. He was correct to say that Brambledown did not appear on the list of contracted food suppliers. The reason for our response, which did not mention Brambledown, is that it was not a contracted supplier to the National Offender Management Service, but it continued to supply the Sheppey cluster of prisons under existing local ad hoc arrangements. That continued until an electronic ordering system was introduced in 2007-08, which brought the transitional arrangements to an end.

Contracted suppliers are those who are awarded contracts to provide goods to prisons following a fairly contested tender process, which ensures that they meet minimum criteria and are capable of meeting the Department’s requirements. The response listed 18 fresh produce suppliers who were contracted to supply prison sites.

Despite the charm and skills with which my hon. Friend made his case, there is a strong argument for the existing method of supply. Food supply contracts that are awarded by the Ministry of Justice, particularly those for prisons, are not just a straightforward matter of whether the supplier operates on a national or local basis. There are many key factors in deciding the best approach and I should like to share a few of them with the Chamber.

Operational concerns are very much at the forefront of our decision making. It is worth remembering that discontent about the quality of food, changes to menus, and failure to deliver what was previously promised have been known to be the catalyst for serious disturbances. As well as being a key issue in control, food demonstrably contributes to prisoners’ overall well-being. A high proportion of prisoners are from socially excluded sections of the community, with lifestyles that are more likely to put them at risk of ill health than the rest of the population. Many have never registered with a doctor or a dentist, have drug habits and/or mental illness and live chaotic lives without a stable home. Prison gives an opportunity to improve the health and lifestyle of prisoners to the benefit of all, and diet is a major component of a healthy lifestyle.

Prisons aim to provide food that is nutritious, well prepared and served, reasonably varied and sufficient in quantity and that also meets a range of religious and cultural needs. Inadequate portion sizes, lack of variety and poorly cooked food can contribute to serious complaints and dissention. Providing prisoners with the opportunity to choose a healthy, nutritionally balanced diet, with enough knowledge to make informed choices, is important because prisoners can be in custody for long periods and are largely dependent on prison food.

Then there are the commercial and supply chain considerations. In the 2009-10 financial year, the Department spent around £60 million on food for prisoners. Although that is a big sum in itself, it amounts to an average cost of just £2.22 per prisoner per day for all food and beverages. Given that contaminated food can have disastrous consequences among a closed prison population, those costs have been achieved against a background of tight regulation and control.

I could go on with the list of factors that require consideration, and I have not even begun to touch on the environmental footprint of the vehicles that deliver food. The point is that any contractor appointed to supply food to prisons must meet all of those stringent criteria. Typically, smaller suppliers do not have the organisational infrastructure and resilience to meet the requirements day in, day out, which results in a higher proportion of contracts being awarded to larger suppliers.

Before moving on, I should also point out that the choice of a supplier that operates nationally as opposed to just locally does not mean that the produce is not sourced locally. That is an issue for our supplier—in this case it is 3663. National operators draw heavily on domestically produced food and will obviously use it when it makes commercial sense to do so. It is also not the case that our arrangements cause unnecessary mileage in delivery. National operators often have regional depots and use them to keep their mileage and costs to a minimum. Because those depots can carry the full range of products required by a prison, they are able to send just one vehicle to that prison, whereas several vehicles would be used by a number of locally based suppliers to fulfil the same overall requirement.

I will now turn to the specifics of the current food supply arrangements serving prisons. The Department uses two contractors to fulfil its requirement for food. The first of these, 3663 First for Foodservice, provides groceries, fresh produce, chilled and frozen food. The other supplier, Hovis, provides fresh bread and morning goods. Contracts with those suppliers have operated since 2007 and they offer 1,500 products for prisons to create meals with.

The delivery of products is only the beginning of the meals service. The 128 public sector prisons in England and Wales employ about 1,050 catering staff and 3,500 prisoners to prepare the food for more than 75,000 prisoners each day of the year, which amounts to more than 82 million meals a year, all served at predetermined times through 900 service points. That service is particularly challenging, given the tight financial constraints that prison kitchens must operate under.

Prisoners are provided with three meals a day, choosing from a multi-choice, pre-select menu system that is compiled to cover a minimum of four weeks. That menu format takes account of seasonal variations and prisoners’ preferences, and it is capable of meeting differing dietary requirements, such as vegetarian, vegan and religious meals.

Prison governors bear the ultimate responsibility for prisoners’ diets. They are required to approve food as being fit for service to prisoners and to approve local food budgets. The prison kitchens are run by catering managers, who are responsible for implementation of standards, training of staff and control of the food budget.

[Gordon Henderson]

I hear everything that my hon. Friend has said and it is quite logical. He says that it is the governors’ responsibility to ensure that inmates receive proper food. However, why is it that the governors themselves would prefer to revert to using local suppliers?

[Mr Blunt]

I heard what my hon. Friend said about that issue. I confess that, in the visits to 20 or so prisons that I have already made, I have not discussed the issue of food supply with governors. Food supply has not been raised with me directly as an issue of concern for the governors. Following this debate, however, I will make my own inquiries on my future visits to prisons as to whether there is an issue about food supply. I am looking at all the services that are provided in prison, to see whether nationally provided services are better than locally provided services or not.

I will quite happily share my prejudice that I would prefer it if things were locally managed and locally resourced. As far as I am concerned, there needs to be a pretty high test to move to a nationally provided system. As my hon. Friend will have gathered from the tenor of my remarks, on the basis of what I have seen so far the argument that I am making is that I actually think the national food service supply chain that we have at the moment is meeting that test. However, as I get to the end of my remarks I may give him a little glimmer of hope.

More than 20,000 items of food are ordered each week across all temperature ranges. That means that the total cost of the delivery of food per day tops £230,000. To put that into perspective, it is equivalent to visiting a cash and carry warehouse to empty the shelves each day. Even if such visits were practical, there could be no guarantee of the consistency or the completeness that the prison environment demands.

The supply chain infrastructure to support this volume of food is significant and yet it also manages to deal with a wide variety of prison locations. Those locations range from Victorian prisons, which have small entry gates, low arches and limited turning space, to prisons in city centres and prisons in rural areas, which are accessed by small country lanes that vehicles have to negotiate. Few prison buildings are conducive to the delivery of the volume of food that is required and yet deliveries must be made each day, without fail, to ensure the continued running of the prison.

As I mentioned previously, food deliveries are made from a number of regional supplier depots. The deliveries are consolidated as far as possible, given the constraints that I have just outlined, so that the number of gate openings and associated security risks are minimised. Each delivery can take up to two hours to complete, depending on the security and regime of the prison. For that reason, deliveries are centrally co-ordinated to an exacting timetable. That maximises the efficiency of deliveries and minimises their impact on the prison operation.

Hovis and 3663 have introduced consistent working practices in their depots for their contracts with us. That means that each depot is easily able to support other regions in the event of a supply chain interruption. The two suppliers that are in place have been rigorously tested through open and fair competition, to ensure that they are capable of managing deliveries into prisons and can support those deliveries with robust contract management. There is little as challenging in this field as procuring food for the 82 million meals that are served in prison each year, given the limited facilities offered by prison kitchens and the tight financial constraints that they have to operate under.

The food suppliers comply with central specifications, to ensure that all food that is delivered is of good quality, safe and free from any contamination. Products are tested, where appropriate, to ensure that quality and quantity standards are met.

Reliable management information gives prisons the assurance of safety, traceability, provenance and quality that they need for the prison regime to operate with confidence. Central to that relationship between prisons and suppliers is the confidence that the suppliers can provide consistency. An undersize apple handed out at the servery will create issues of order and control, so we use suppliers that are sensitive to that need and that use their sourcing ability to maintain consistency from their supply base.

I apologise to my hon. Friend, who is a representative of the garden of England, that I used the example of an apple just now. [Laughter.]

[Gordon Henderson]

Will my hon. Friend say whether he feels that a Braeburn apple from Upchurch in my constituency will upset prisoners more than a French Golden Delicious apple?

[Mr Blunt]

Happily, the effect of this existing contract is that that is not a matter for me; it is a matter for our supplier, which is 3663. It is its responsibility to procure apples for us. I do not know the details of its apple procurement contract and I am delighted that I do not have to know them. As I say, that is a matter for 3663.

It is very proper for my hon. Friend to pursue that point with 3663 on behalf of his local orchards—to ask, “Why not? Why are these local orchards unable to compete in that way?” Like him, I have a prejudice in favour of domestically produced food and as long as the interests of the taxpayer are protected, of course we should be buying British.

Both suppliers—3663 and Hovis—are large national organisations. That is appropriate to the needs of the Ministry of Justice in terms of volume, spend and complexity. An arrangement such as the existing one exploits the capabilities of large suppliers in terms of volume leverage, sourcing capability and relationships with brand manufacturers. It provides more product choice, given that large suppliers have access to wider product ranges and have a strong capability in procuring from specialist subcontractors, hopefully including suppliers of Braeburn apples.

There are some other factors to consider in the type of supplier tiering that is being promulgated. The EU procurement directives preclude the Ministry of Justice from negotiating with suppliers on prices, but the main contractors can negotiate with subcontractors on prices and pass on the benefits. In addition, small and medium-sized enterprises are spared the costs of having to conform to onerous public procurement processes and the costs of having to interface with Government e-procurement systems, because the main contractor does it for them.

Furthermore, the supply chain risks rest with the main contractor, which allows prison caterers and governors to focus on the day-to-day operation of their prisons. The unit prices currently paid by each prison reflect that. Consequently, they are homogeneous and fully inclusive of all risks. Unit prices also cover charges for keeping vehicles waiting and they do not vary according to the actual cost of delivery or indeed the number of deliveries.

Any attempt to base prices on local circumstances would introduce complications into budget allocation. In other words, prisons that could benefit from low delivery charges would have to release part of their budget to those prisons that would have to pay more because of their remote location.

Prices are carefully managed and are determined by the price of the raw commodity, the costs of processing and packaging, transportation and distribution costs, overheads and an element of profit, which is around 1%. The cost to serve the contract is spread across the total range of products, keeping administrative and management costs to a minimum. The cost to provide meals varies from prison to prison. That is due to the differences in the prison populations and the choice of products ordered, which vary depending on the age, sex and cultural mix in the prison.

I know that my hon. Friend regards value for money as being extremely important. Value for money is tested and secured throughout the life of each contract. Prices are examined through open-book reviews and by reference to commodity indices. The Ministry of Justice undertakes monthly product reviews to determine the optimum spend profile for each product area. Each opportunity to improve on efficiency or to save money, without detriment to the quality of the product, is thoroughly explored.

I am advised that overall this national contract, which is being maintained in an era of high food price inflation—10.5% in 2009 and 4.1% for the current year so far—will deliver £5.1 million of cash savings during the period of the contract, between 2007 and 2011. When inflation is factored in, the real savings to the National Offender Management Service run to tens of millions of pounds.

However, product price is not the only driver behind contracts. Underpinning them all is the need to support prisoners and rehabilitate them back into society. When 3663 recently opened a new depot in Kent, it sought prisoners on release to form part of its new team. Subsequently, 11 ex-offenders were employed in depot operations, benefiting the supply base, the community and the Ministry of Justice.

Social sustainability is only one element of the total cost to the Department. A false choice is often posited between value for money or efficiency and sustainability. Unsustainable procurement is not good stewardship of taxpayers’ money. The Ministry of Justice is committed to reducing its impact on the environment by continuously improving the environmental performance of its operations and estate. For example, 3663 delivers virgin cooking oil to prisons. After use, the waste vegetable oil is collected by a national oil collection company and sent to a third-party operator for recycling and conversion into biodiesel, which is then returned to the 3663 depots, where it is used to fuel trucks loaded with supplies for delivery to prisons, thus completing the circle and reducing distribution costs for the Department.

The supply of food is of significant benefit in reducing risk and contributing to the overall objectives of the Ministry of Justice. Nevertheless, given the importance of food in prisons, we will re-examine how it is delivered and consider every option. If my hon. Friend, who has listened to my arguments in this debate as I have listened to his, can identify further proposals, I invite him to continue this conversation. It need not take place formally on the Floor of the House, but I am happy to listen to any further submissions that he wishes to make.

The timing of this debate is ideal, given that the current generation of contracts is due to expire in May 2011 and that planning is already under way. In considering every option, I want not just to look at the obvious but to challenge thinking on the issue. For example, most of what used to be a large network of farms and market gardens operating in prisons were closed in the past decade. There is certainly merit in revisiting the idea in order to make prisons more self-sufficient, lower costs, and get more prisoners working. About 425 prisoners already assemble some 100,000 breakfast packs every day as part of a supply chain developed with our current suppliers.

To conclude, this has been an excellent opportunity to discuss a subject that might seem uninspiring and that risks being considered simplistically. As I have outlined today, it is complex and of great importance, so I will be paying close attention to the development of policies and procurement strategies in the area. I welcome the attention that my hon. Friend has given it and the constructive contribution that he has made with this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

3. What plans he has for the future of community service sentences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Our plans are to ensure that community sentences are tough, effective and rigorously enforced, and that they punish offenders, but steer them off drugs and alcohol and into employment. We are conducting a full assessment of sentencing policy, including asking judges and magistrates for their views on which community sentences are the most effective.

[Angie Bray]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Many of my constituents hold to the old-fashioned notion that justice should not just be done, but be seen to be done, and they do not have much faith that community service sentences will deliver on that. How can he reassure my constituents that community service sentences will be robust and not a soft option?

[Mr Blunt]

We believe that making community sentences tougher in delivering punishment—especially looking at the operation of community payback—and more effective in delivering rehabilitation, restoration and the protection of the public, will help to show that people can have increasing confidence in such sentences. Achieving those objectives will be an important element of our assessment of sentencing policy.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

If the Minister is to increase the number of community sentences as the Justice Secretary wishes to do, can he give the House an indication of how much money he intends to transfer to the probation budget, given that it has an in-year cut this year of £20 million? Can he also tell us which sentences of under six-months he thinks are inappropriate, given that at present they are available for offences such as assault on a police officer, domestic violence, child abuse and firearms offences? Indeed, three quarters of people sentenced to under six months have committed seven or more offences.

[Mr Blunt]

On the latter point, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the sentencing review when we will bring forward our detailed proposals, which—I am sure—will hang together in a properly co-ordinated manner. He must also appreciate that the economic inheritance that this Government received—[Interruption.] There is no point hon. Members groaning. It is a fact of life that an increase in budgets in the environment that we inherited is simply not going to happen.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

With regards to the sentencing review, will the Minister consider the use of more judicial discretion—unfortunately removed by the previous Government—thereby trusting our judiciary?

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend has alighted on a principle that the Justice Secretary has already enunciated.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The original objective of the National Offender Management Service was more effectively to deliver prison and probation services in a co-ordinated way. The current structure has not worked as well as predicted and will not best serve the objectives of coalition policy towards the rehabilitation of offenders and the involvement of social investors, and the private and voluntary sectors in this work. Therefore, the structure of the National Offender Management Service is being considered not only as part of the Department’s overall contribution to the spending review, but to ensure the effective delivery of prison and probation services in the light of this autumn’s Green Paper on the new approaches to rehabilitation and the review of sentencing policy. That work will also reflect the three strands of the big society agenda, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced yesterday: social action, public service and community empowerment.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Can he assist by saying what opportunities will exist for probation trusts when we consider our rehabilitation reforms?

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Today’s probation trusts possess the nation’s professional expertise on offender management. We want to release all our capacity—public, private and voluntary—to effect a revolution in how we provide for rehabilitation of offenders. No organisations are better placed to deliver that than today’s probation trusts. I hope that they seize this chance, which is why I have asked the Probation Association and the Probation Chiefs Association to work urgently with my officials to help shape our Green Paper proposals. I am confident about what probation trusts will be able to achieve.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I recommend the Minister deal with the point that I believe the hon. Lady was raising. In Nottinghamshire, there is certainly a strong case for a probation trust, but irrespective of whether we have a particular type of structure on offender management, do not the cuts to the prison budget—and, indeed, as we have heard today, the cuts to the probation service—show that the big society to which he referred is actually a euphemism for allowing prisoners to roam free within the community at large?

[Mr Blunt]

No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman and all his right hon. and hon. Friends are going to have to get used to the fact that we are going to do things rather differently. We are going to pay for outputs, not direct inputs or have targets or over-control our public services by instructing them precisely how to achieve their objectives. One way in which we are going to increase our capacity for offender management is, I hope, to enable probation trusts to be able to affect the involvement of the whole community—including the private, the voluntary and charitable sectors—to increase our nation’s capacity to deal with offenders and to rehabilitate them effectively.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. If he will conduct a public consultation on whether to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

As I told the House in the full-day debate of 8 July, the Government are minded to strengthen anonymity before charge. We want to hear the views of those who may have any new evidence to assist our deliberations, and we will bring our conclusions to Parliament in the autumn. However, since the principal points of judgment around the issue are clear and very narrow—not least in the light of our excellent debate 12 days ago—the Government do not propose to manage a full, formal public consultation.

[Meg Munn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer. Has he considered the fact that, under his current proposals for anonymity up until charge, somebody arrested on suspicion of rape but then charged with sexual assault would enjoy anonymity, whereas somebody arrested on suspicion of sexual assault but then charged with rape would not enjoy anonymity under the coalition’s proposals?

[Mr Blunt]

We are now dealing with quite a narrow point because it was agreed in 2003—[Interruption.] It is quite a narrow point; it was agreed on both sides of the House when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 went through Parliament that all people charged with offences ought to have their identity protected until the point of charge. That is the guidance that the Press Complaints Commission put into effect in 2004. There is an issue around the strength of that guidance and, as I said in the debate 12 days ago, we are not satisfied that it is strong enough. We want in the first instance to try to find a non-statutory solution, and given that we had 21 Criminal Justice Acts passed over the 13 years of the last Administration, I am sure that Labour Members will understand why we are loth to find even more statutes to put on the statute book.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) is one reason why this idea—it was tried before between 1976 and 1988—was abolished by a previous Conservative Government? It did not work. Given that this idea was in neither the hon. Gentleman’s manifesto nor that of the Liberal Democrats, what possible reason can he have for failing to provide a proper consultation before changing the law in the ridiculous way he proposes to do?

[Mr Blunt]

First, when it was ended in 1988, it was not because it did not work. The hon. Lady should have paid rather more attention to the points put forward by the noble Lord Ackner in the 2003 debates when he spoke to his amendments on this subject. She should also note that the nature of rape changed, by definition, in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. All that means that the situation has changed since 1988.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

10. What recent representations he has received on his Department’s policies to reduce the rate at which young people enter the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

11. What the reoffending rate was for prisoners who had served custodial sentences of over 10 years in the latest period for which figures are available.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Of the 125 adult offenders released from a custodial sentence of over 10 years in the first quarter of 2008, 6.4% committed at least one further offence in the one-year follow-up period. In contrast, among those serving custodial sentences of 12 months or less in 2008, the reconviction rate was 61.1%.

[Mrs Grant]

What are the Minister’s views on short sentences for women? Does he agree that community sentences may be more effective in reducing the rate of reoffending by women?

[Mr Blunt]

Short sentences for men have proved pretty ineffective, and I think that short sentences for women are even more ineffective and deleterious. We support the conclusions of the Corston report, we are conducting an analysis of the effectiveness of different sentences as part of the current sentencing review, we are committed to reducing the number of women in prison, and a network of women-only community provision is being developed to support robust community sentences.

Perhaps at this point I should throw a bouquet to my predecessor, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), in recognition of her work in this regard. We propose to build on it.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a serious risk of reoffending rates increasing in the next five to 10 years if the prison budget cuts result in less education and rehabilitation of prisoners?

[Mr Blunt]

The hon. Lady identifies the challenge we face. We as a nation have to increase our capacity to deliver education and all the other services that are required to assist in rehabilitating offenders. That is why we are going to effect a rehabilitation revolution which will involve that great army of people out there who want to help us and who have so far found our current structures very difficult to engage with. Moving to output-based measures will enable us to use the capacity of all those people who want to help us in the incredibly important work of rehabilitating offenders much more effectively than we have done to date.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

12. What recent discussions he has had with (a) the UK Border Agency and (b) foreign Governments on the compulsory transfer of foreign national prisoners to detention in their country of origin.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

There are already a number of schemes to encourage foreign national prisoners to go home and serve their sentences there. As I said in the last Justice questions, we will have to work very hard in this respect. I have noted the comment of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee about the fact that some 700 people in the UKBA are working on it, which gives some idea of the priority that it has. I assure my hon. Friend and all hon. and right hon. Members that that level of priority will continue. We need to save the money that we should not be spending on imprisoning foreigners in our jails.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Following the revelations at the weekend that some quite shocking restraint methods are authorised in the “Physical Control in Care” manual for use by staff in secure training centres for children, will the Secretary of State introduce an explicit ban on corporal punishment in secure training centres and other youth offender institutions? Will he establish a public inquiry, chaired by a member of the judiciary, to establish the compatibility of practices in secure training centres with article 3 of the European convention on human rights?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

T7. All members of the European Union have signed the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, yet we still have 3,100 EU nationals in our jails. The Secretary of State and I share an enthusiasm for the European Union, so will he co-operate with the EU and repatriate those prisoners?

[Mr Blunt]

Unfortunately for my hon. Friend, I am afraid that that agreement does not come into force until December 2011. I note that the Irish apparently have an opt-out on it and that it will take five years for the Poles to make it fully applicable, but with those exceptions aside, I assure him that we will implement that agreement absolutely as soon as it comes into force.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the retiring chief inspector of prisons Dame Anne Owers that a reason for the reduction in young people coming into the criminal justice system is the effect of Sure Start? If he does agree with her, will he speak to colleagues across the Government about investing in Sure Start, rather than in youth jails, because it is cheaper and works better?

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T8. Will the Minister pay tribute to Winston Churchill, who, exactly 100 years ago today, as Home Secretary, commented:“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.”?

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, it is a delight to offer a tribute to the greatest parliamentarian of the 20th century. Right hon. and hon. Members should note that today is precisely the 100th anniversary of one of the great speeches on prison reform, given by Winston Churchill while he was in his Liberal phase. I am delighted that I will mark that anniversary by speaking to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you will allow me to use the final phrase of that speech 100 years ago, when Churchill said:

“an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man—these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.”—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1354.]

Those are measures that we will live up to.

[Mr Speaker]

We are very grateful, but I think that it sounded a bit better from Churchill.

Defendant Anonymity

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of defendant anonymity.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject for a second time. On this occasion, I am a little less inhibited by time pressure, but I am conscious of the number of people seeking to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not delay the House too much. Since I last addressed the House, in the 7 June Adjournment debate, the Government have reviewed the arguments more fully and our thinking has advanced, and I look forward to the opportunity to explain where matters now stand. I also look forward to dispelling some common myths and misconceptions about our policy.

I emphasise again that the question of anonymity for rape defendants is wholly consistent with our fundamental commitment to supporting victims of crime. Violence against women, girls and vulnerable people is totally unacceptable, whatever the context or circumstances. We know that victims of sexual violence often find it very difficult to report a rape to the police, and of course for those who have felt able to come forward, going through the criminal justice process can be an incredibly difficult and painful experience. Our focus is on the rights and welfare of the victim, and we are committed to ensuring that every victim of rape has access to appropriate support. In particular, we are looking at putting funding for rape crisis services on a more sustainable basis and at establishing new rape crisis centres where there are gaps in provision.

The Government Equalities Office is currently carrying out a consultation on a strategic action plan, including Government action on working with a more sustainable violence-against-women voluntary sector, based on cash, commissioning and capacity building. It closes on 23 July. The action plan suggests a capacity-building project to be carried out in partnership with the relevant umbrella bodies, to support their ability to represent Members and work together to influence the Government. The Home Secretary will be chairing a meeting of Ministers across government later this month to discuss how we tackle violence against women more widely.

We will not conflate myths and stereotypes about false allegations with our detailed work on the proposals for defendant anonymity. This debate is not about doubting victims’ reports or repeating uninformed arguments about false allegations. Baroness Stern has stated in her independent and impressive review that this is an area on which we need further research, and the Government are looking into this. I want to make it clear that Baroness Stern’s review of the evidence found that only a very few rape allegations are false:

“It is not possible to establish an exact figure and the research that is available gives a wide range of suggested percentages. Some research suggests that a figure of eight to ten per cent of reported rapes could well be false reports. However, those we spoke to in the system felt that there were very few.”

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady, but I would like to get through the bulk of my remarks, and make clear the Government’s position and the explanation for it. I will then be happy to take further interventions. At this stage, however, I am happy to give way to her.

[Caroline Flint]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has just put it on the record that, based on the available evidence, there is little evidence of a high rate of false allegations. In that context, will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who did not help the debate when he said, having been questioned about falsely accused rape defendants:

“We know that a lot of people are falsely accused”?—[Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 328.]

[Mr Blunt]

I think that the right hon. Lady will appreciate what I am about to put on the record regarding the detail of evidence in this area. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that the Government will make a full response to Baroness Stern’s recommendations in due course. I want to make it clear that the issue of false allegations is not one of the reasons for considering changes to our policy on rape defendants. It would be were there strong evidence that a significantly greater number of false allegations are associated with rape than with other offences, but the Government do not believe that to be the case.

On that question, I remind the House again, as I did in the earlier Adjournment debate, that there are in fact two anonymity commitments in our coalition agreement. One relates to rape, the other—referring to no particular offence—to teachers. The House will wish to note that there is a specific reference in our coalition agreement to protecting teachers from false allegations, but no such linkage over rape complainants. It is therefore important that we distinguish between these two commitments. The criminal justice Departments will therefore need to carry out further work in conjunction with the Department for Education before we are in a position to provide a clear statement of how we intend to proceed on the teacher aspect.

The remainder of my remarks, therefore, are addressed to the issue that has caused the most controversy and interest in the House—the issue around rape defendants. However, we will listen carefully to any contributions today on teacher anonymity, which will help to inform our discussions with other Departments.

We are committed to supporting victims and improving the investigation and prosecution of rape.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify in more detail the proposals on teacher anonymity? Is he suggesting anonymity in respect of abuse, sexual abuse or rape, or have the Government not yet clarified in their own mind in precisely what circumstances teachers will be granted anonymity? Furthermore, will it extend to teaching assistants and other staff in schools, such as caretakers?

[Mr Blunt]

I am surprised by that intervention because the Government made their position clear yesterday in a written ministerial statement by the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb). It bears repeating:

“Finally, we will give teachers the strongest possible protection from false accusations. We will give anonymity to teachers facing accusations from pupils. This Government want to put an end to rumours and malicious gossip about innocent teachers which can ruin careers and even lives.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 12WS.]

As I said, we will now hold discussions with the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Law Officers about how to proceed. Right now, however, I do not want to say anything further about that, as I have a significant amount to report to the House on the Government’s position on rape defendants. I want to focus on that now.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Blunt]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I would like to set out the Government’s analysis and position, and then I will be happy to take further interventions.

We are committed to supporting victims and improving the investigation and prosecution of rape. It will be useful to the House if I share our best understanding of what happens to rape complaints made to the police. In 2008, 13,093 complaints of rape were made to the police. Based on a Metropolitan police survey in 2007, we would expect that one third of these were no-crimed and that 30% of this third—about 10% overall—were false allegations, which I believe to be reasonably consistent with false allegations around other offences. That is why the number of false allegations is not part of the reason for changing our position on this issue. Police identified 80% of suspects, and 73% of these were arrested, but only 44% of those arrests resulted in a charge by the Crown Prosecution Service, perhaps due to withdrawal of evidence by the victim, which could be caused by fear of reprisals, the court process or the lack of emotional strength to continue.

What we know about case disposals in 2008 is as follows. Some 2,395 cases were proceeded with at a magistrates court, of which 1,822 were sent to the Crown court, with 24% of cases not proceeded with for various reasons, including the charges being dropped, although in some cases the defendant will have been convicted of other offences at the magistrates court. Of the 1,822 cases that proceeded to the Crown court, 24 were not tried for a variety of reasons. However, 1,798 men went on trial accused of rape in 2008, 51% of whom were convicted of rape, with 77% convicted either of rape or another offence. Of those who went on trial, 406 pleaded guilty and 1,392 pleaded not guilty. Of those pleading not guilty, 36% were convicted of rape, while 885 of those pleading not guilty were acquitted of rape or attempted rape. I estimate from the information made available to me that about half those will have been convicted of another offence, but it is not yet possible to be precise about that from the data examination that I have been able to undertake before today’s debate.

We need to empower police officers to improve rape investigations. We are all aware, as the recent Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation into Kirk Reid has again demonstrated, of the terrible consequences that investigative failures can have. To demonstrate our commitment to improving the criminal justice response to rape, the Home Office will continue to fund the rape support programme this year, providing additional targeted support to forces to improve their approach and practice on rape investigation. We will also consider carefully how we can support agencies’ joint work on sharing intelligence and good practice.

The anonymity debate has been characterised by a number of myths and misconceptions, which have unfortunately served to obscure rather than clarify matters. For example, it is alleged that anonymity for defendants would deter victims in general from coming forward. One can easily understand the argument that depriving complainants of anonymity would indeed have that effect. Their cross-examination about painful personal matters would be exposed to the public gaze, which is bound to have a deterrent effect on the willingness of others to come forward. Parliament has long recognised that reality. However, it is difficult to understand how the anonymity of a defendant could possibly have such an effect. There is an argument that reducing publicity around rape investigations and trial should make it easier for complainants. That would be an effect of protecting the defendant’s identity. The strength of that effect before and during any trial will be a matter of judgment.

[Maria Eagle]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that one of the reasons why people fear that introducing anonymity for defendants just in rape cases will deter reporting by victims is that he would be singling out that one crime for such treatment? Extending anonymity to defendants in all cases might not have the same impact, but by singling out one particular offence, the hon. Gentleman is in danger of sending a clear signal to victims that they will not be believed.

[Mr Blunt]

I understand that that is one of the counter-arguments, but in the end it comes down to a matter of judgment and balance among a number of competing arguments. I am quite happy to concede that the argument that the hon. Lady has set out has some weight, but other arguments have to be weighed in the balance too. Let me therefore put those arguments before the House.

To turn to our proposals, we have now had the opportunity to consider both the arguments and the background in further detail. The last time the subject was debated at any length in Parliament was during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Reference to those debates is highly instructive, and I would like, if I may, to dwell for a while on that subject. Anonymity for defendants was first raised in another place not by a Government or Opposition Member, but by a Cross Bencher, Lord Ackner, the late former Law Lord, who had tabled an amendment to the Bill. Lord Ackner’s view was as follows:

“For 12 years this anonymity”—

that is, defendant anonymity—

“was enjoyed. I have heard nothing to suggest that during those 12 years there were occasions when it worked to the disadvantage of justice. I have not limited my request to pre-trial because pre-trial is only part of the issue.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. 1095.]

Their lordships narrowly accepted Lord Ackner’s amendment, so that when the Bill passed to this House it contained provision for defendant anonymity. The then Government decided to resist that in its entirety. In Committee, the Opposition tabled alternative, probing amendments that would have granted anonymity either all the way to conviction or, as the case may be, up to the point of charge. Only the latter amendment was pressed to a Division. A similar Opposition amendment was tabled on Report and was also pressed to a Division. Interestingly, the Government of the day indicated that they accepted the desirability of pre-charge anonymity in principle, but preferred a non-legislative solution. Some scepticism was expressed by a number of speakers in both Houses about whether the non-legislative approach was realistic. However, there was also some support for the suggestion that a non-legislative solution would be ideal.

When the Bill returned to the other place for consideration of this House’s amendments, Lord Ackner moved an amendment similar to his earlier one, but on that occasion it was defeated. However, the coalition partners joined together to support a narrower amendment, tabled by Lord Thomas of Gresford, that would have provided statutory anonymity at the pre-charge stage. That amendment was duly passed. When the Bill returned once again to this House, the then Government maintained their previous position and the Lords amendment was again deleted from the Bill. The matter was once again pressed to a vote. That was followed by yet another round of debate in the other place. Ultimately, no further Opposition amendments were pressed, for fear that the whole Bill would fall as a result.

In the latter stages of the Bill, Ministers indicated that discussions had been held with the Association of Chief Police Officers and with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. As a result of the latter discussions, the press was looking at its code of conduct, to see how it could be strengthened to ensure that those suspected of offences—but not yet charged with them—were not named in the media. The burning question prompted by this saga is: what happened next? The answer is that the Press Complaints Commission issued a note in 2004 that specifically addressed the reporting of people accused of crime by reference to the relevant sections of the editors’ code of conduct.

It appears to be widely assumed that there is a self-regulation scheme in place that clearly prohibits the reporting of anybody accused of a crime but not yet charged with it. On close examination, however, the 2004 interpretative note does not provide complete reassurance. Nowhere does it contain an outright general prohibition on the reporting of pre-charge allegations. In fact, in the main, no mention is made of the distinction between pre and post-charge reporting at all. For that reason, anybody affronted—for example, by the reporting of an allegation that was not followed by charge—and who wanted to complain to the PCC about the matter might well find that they had no grounds to do so under the interpretative note or code.

A further point, which soon became apparent from the exhaustive examination of the issue undertaken in this House and another place during the passage of the 2003 Act, is that both the then Government and the then Opposition parties settled on a position of agreement—in principle at least—to non-reporting up to the point of charge and normal reporting procedures thereafter.

Much has been made in the past of the importance of open justice and the free reporting of criminal trials as key elements of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. We support that view. There is, however, another important reason of principle for distinguishing between the reporting of trials and the reporting of allegations before the point of charge. In the case of the latter, we are dealing with allegations that have not been subject to a full range of investigation.

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Blunt]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to set out where the Government are on this issue, and then I shall be happy to take further interventions.

When there is an allegation before the point of charge, there may have been some degree of investigation into the allegation, but there will have been no formal assertion on the part of the state that anybody has a case to answer. Those points provide grounds to inhibit reporting that are not present at the trial stage. Therefore, having carefully reviewed the extensive background, having taken account of the fact that nobody should be appearing in a criminal trial unless the prosecuting authorities have assessed all the available evidence including any exculpatory unused material, and prosecutors having applied the other provisions of the code for Crown prosecutors and decided to bring criminal charges, the Government are minded to strengthen anonymity up to the point of charge. This is consistent with the findings of the Home Affairs Select Committee—on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister served—in 2003, and also with the reply that he gave to the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s questions last month.

[Maria Eagle]

Is the Minister saying that the Government are going to do this only in respect of the crime of rape, or are they planning to do it in respect of any criminal charge?

[Mr Blunt]

This is about the crime of rape.

[Ms Bagshawe]

Will my hon. Friend expand on this a little? Does he understand the concern that is felt on both sides of the House that, by singling out rape in this way, he is sending out a negative signal about women and about those who accuse men of rape?

[Mr Blunt]

I do understand that, but we also have to take into account the arguments that sit on the other side of the equation. We are dealing with the environment in which these allegations are handled by the media. This is the position that the Government think strikes the right balance. It happens to be the position that was thought to strike the right balance by the previous Government and by the previous Opposition, when the matter was considered in 2003. It is also the position that was thought to strike the right balance by the Home Affairs Select Committee when it considered the matter in 2003. Therefore, unsurprisingly, this is the conclusion that the Government have come to.

[Meg Munn]

I am extremely puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has set out a very defensible position on why someone’s name should not be in the public domain before they are charged, but why is that desirable only in relation to rape and not to any other offence? Surely the same should apply to anyone who felt that they had been wrongly accused of theft or burglary or any other offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

The strongest argument is around the balance of harms. The complainant in a rape trial has anonymity, and everyone who has considered this issue in the past has come to a balanced judgment that it is therefore appropriate to give the defendant a degree of anonymity. Because of the way in which rape is reported, these will have been the considerations that have guided previous Governments and Oppositions, and previous parliamentarians, in their consideration of this issue.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister has correctly described the views of the Select Committee, of which the Prime Minister was a member, in 2003. I was not serving on the Committee at that stage. He has set out the Government’s views very clearly today. Does this proposal exclude the possibility of the further research into false allegations that the Stern inquiry suggested? Is he dismissing the idea of further research altogether?

[Mr Blunt]

No, it does not. I am delighted to say that the right hon. Gentleman has provided me with a cue to begin the next part of my speech, which deals with that issue.

In taking our position forward, we will examine the question of section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which I understand has never been implemented. That section grants anonymity at the pre-charge stage to persons under 18 years old who are involved in criminal investigations, including suspects. It already provides a statutory equivalent for children and young persons to the measures that we have in mind for adults, and as such is linked to the present debate.

Now, for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and other hon. Members, I should add a final note on the question of research. As hon. Members will be aware, the director of analytical services in the Ministry of Justice has been asked to produce an independent assessment of the current research and statistics on defendant anonymity in rape cases. We are aiming to publish this report before the summer recess, in the week commencing 26 July. It will cover all the available research and statistics on the subject and is intended to inform the debate.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify whether the published research—which will be immensely helpful—will include an analysis of media coverage, including, for example, statistics on coverage suggesting that the victim was in some way to blame? Or is media coverage to be excluded from the analysis?

[Mr Blunt]

I will direct the attention of the director to the hon. Lady’s remarks, to see whether it is possible to achieve that objective. If we were able to come to intelligent conclusions that would assist the debate, I am sure that that would be useful. We shall have to see whether this will be possible; we will examine the matter and try.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am glad that the Government are listening and proceeding slowly, but there are other wide-ranging issues that I hope are also under consideration. Can the Minister tell us whether anonymity is being considered in the context of all sexual offences, as one category— [Interruption.] I am asking the Minister. Is it also being considered in the context of all offences of violence, which is the other big category? Having single solutions for single types of offence, however important the offence is, would be the wrong way to go. Looking at this in the broader context is the right way to proceed.

[Mr Blunt]

The Government have come to a view on where we want to strengthen the position, and it is around the offence of rape. There are arguments about whether this should apply more widely, and we have given careful consideration to them. Setting aside the issue of teachers—that is seen as discrete and should be carried forward separately—it is the Government’s view that we should limit this to the particular offence of rape.

Our current thinking is that the available evidence does not absolutely dispose of some of the questions that have arisen in relation to anonymity, even at the pre-charge stage. There is an important outstanding question of the extent to which anonymity might frustrate further police inquiries into an offence. We are looking at what further research might be required to fill in any gaps. This will enable us to take a view on any exceptions that it might be necessary to build into a general anonymity rule.

Finally, I would like to explain how we intend to take matters forward over the summer. I want to stress that we have been treating this issue as a priority, and we will continue to do so. We recognise that the subject is of considerable interest to many people inside and outside the House, and in another place. In the circumstances, it would be undesirable to allow it to slip.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

It is important to put on record that the previous Government’s position was not the position that the Minister has described—namely, that rape defendants should have additional separate protection in terms of anonymity. I also want to ask him to say a little more about this issue, as it concerns the House greatly. It would be helpful if he could give us a further explanation of why the Government think that rape defendants should be treated differently from every other kind of defendant.

[Mr Blunt]

I think I have already answered that question—[Hon. Members: “No, you haven’t!”] I am quite happy to accept that I might not have answered it to the satisfaction of the right hon. Lady and other Opposition Members.

Our aim is to set out our detailed position at an early date. We envisage making a further announcement in the autumn, as soon as possible after the summer recess. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate those areas that still require further thought. I have already discussed the read-across to our commitment regarding teachers, and the scope of the provisions will clearly form a central element of that further work. Over the same period, we also intend to investigate the extent to which research might be required to fill in any gaps. The one area I have highlighted is whether anonymity might frustrate investigations. On the face of it, that is the most that is required, but we will reflect carefully. We will also use the intervening period between now and the autumn to engage the media, which has a key interest in the subject. I know the media would like to be consulted at the earliest available opportunity, and we will take steps to ensure that this happens. In these days of multiple media, we recognise the wisdom of discussing our proposals with broadcasters, as well as with the more traditional paper-based news industries, and we will do that.

We will also have discussions with other relevant organisations. At this time, we have not decided exactly who is relevant for this purpose, but I am aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers has been mentioned a number a times in connection with this subject, and we will certainly take note of its views in developing our scheme further. We will speak to specialist voluntary sector organisations, the education sector and the children’s work force with a view to gaining a better idea of the detailed impact on suspects and victims, and we will work up practical options for implementation.

We see no case, however, for a formal consultation—[Hon. Members: “What?”]. The detailed arguments in this area are already well known, and we are not convinced that a formal consultation exercise would add value. It is capable of obscuring the real issues, and would certainly delay matters considerably. That cannot be in anybody’s interests.

Let me conclude by saying that it is a pleasure to be able to report real progress on this subject. As I have said, we look forward to being to announce further developments after the summer recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I was not aware of that, but my right hon. Friend has put a lot of effort into dealing with the issue, and has raised it most consistently and effectively from the beginning of this Parliament.

It is important to clarify precisely what the Government’s policy is. According to the Minister’s statement today, the policy is to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases up to charge. However, that has not been entirely evident from what Ministers have said. We have had answers from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary, the Leader of the House, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Equalities and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate, which have all been different in substance and tone. When pressed, the Prime Minister said that he was in favour of extending anonymity only to charge. The Deputy Prime Minister, when pressed, retreated into immediate and wholesale abandonment of the policy, suggesting that the Government had merely “proposed the idea”, as if he were running an academic seminar rather than a legislative programme. He added:

“If our idea does not withstand sincere scrutiny, we will of course be prepared to change it.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 50.]

I hope that that, at least, still holds.

The Under-Secretary of State, until today, has made it clear that he wants anonymity up to conviction. Last month he said that

“it could go wider. There are reasons why it might also be applied to other offences.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 155.]

The Minister for Equalities has also supported anonymity up to conviction, blogging that

“a perpetrator would only be named if convicted.”

That seems to have changed today.

Meanwhile, the Justice Secretary, who appeared to be fed up with being asked the same question more than once, said in exasperation that it was all the Liberal Democrats’ fault anyway because it was their policy. The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats had better get used to being blamed for everything by his so-called partners in Government. The Justice Secretary went on to say that it was not going to happen quickly, although that is not what we have been told by his Under-Secretary of State in the House today.

The Justice Secretary said that he favoured a free vote, or a “fairly free vote”, as he put it. I must remember to ask the Opposition Chief Whip exactly what a fairly free vote is—or perhaps I should ask the Government Chief Whip.

Compounding an already complicated and confusing picture, a number of Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State today, have said that they will “bring forward options” or are “attracted by the arguments”. They have said, “We will debate it”, or have called for evidence. Perhaps I am missing something about the new politics that we are told we now have, but I had always thought that Governments did those things before deciding on policy, not afterwards. This Government appear to be indulging in prejudice-based rather than evidence-based policy-making.

[Mr Blunt]

The hon. Lady certainly ought to give way at this point, having been part of a Government who indulged in policy-based evidence-making rather than evidence-based policy-making. She is entitled to her fun, but she should recognise that what I have said today is clearly consistent with the coalition’s programme. The coalition has listened to the contributions that have been made, including the questions to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and the debate led by her right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. We have reached a view on the appropriateness of the scope, and how the law should be applied. We are also still asking for evidence relating to the issue that was raised earlier. The hon. Lady will have to get used to the fact that ours is a Government who will actually listen, and take account of evidence that is promoted.

[Maria Eagle]

That was a very long intervention, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be as good as his word, and will listen. I hope that his travelling on the issue has not been completed. He has obviously changed his mind: until recently, he was saying that he wanted anonymity up to conviction, and that it “could go wider” in respect of other offences. Even after his speech, it is still not entirely clear to us precisely where the Government are. The Justice Secretary made it plain that this was not a priority, that it would be kicked into the long grass, and that when it did come up there would be a “fairly free vote”. That is not what we have been told today.

[Mr Blunt]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the Under-Secretary of State in a moment.

To reach a conclusion without any consultation—to decide the policy first and consult afterwards, when the effectiveness of the policy and the likelihood of its success are such an issue—is not a sensible way of proceeding.

I shall leave aside the difficult task of pinpointing precisely what the policy is. The position has changed today, but it is still not absolutely clear. What is absolutely clear is that no one was consulted. There seem to be no ideas and no evidence about the impact of what I believe to be a retrograde and deeply troubling policy. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed in written answers that no written evidence was considered before the policy was presented. Ministers have met no victims’ organisations, rape crisis organisations or members of the judiciary.

Given that the Under-Secretary said today that there would be no consultation, it is clear that Ministers do not intend to meet and properly consider the views of those who know most about the issue and have most to say about it. That is a disgrace. Only now, after the policy has been decided, are Ministers analysing options and implications and asking for evidence, and they keep changing their minds about exactly what the policy is. Only now, after the policy has been decided, are they asking MOJ statisticians to pull together the existing evidence base. Should not the Under-Secretary have done all that before? Of course he should.

I hope that I can help a little. I believe, and the Opposition believe, that it is not in the public interest to abandon the principle of open justice when it comes to such serious offences as rape. Singling out rape as an offence for which, uniquely, the defendant is granted a right to anonymity clearly suggests that false accusations are widespread, and that victims should be disbelieved by the criminal justice system, by investigators and by juries. That will deter people from reporting rape, which the Under-Secretary says he does not wish to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is an enormous pleasure for me to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), which I thought was excellent. I first met the hon. Gentleman on his first day on the House and I did what every old Member does to every young Member—no, not that! I asked him when he was going to give his maiden speech, and I kept asking him week after week. He said that he was going to save it for a really important debate and he was right to do so. He spoke with great eloquence and enormous passion about his constituency. He cleverly named all three local newspapers, the leader and deputy leader of his council and his local football team, and he becomes, of course, the most famous graduate of Chatham grammar school for girls. That kind of story is almost new Labour.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a huge contribution to this House. We on the Opposition Benches and, I am sure, Members on his side look forward to his eloquence in future debates. I wish him well in what I am sure will be a long parliamentary career. He was right to mention Paul Clark. Paul—or Mr Clark, or whatever we call former Members of the House—had a very small majority. We would have been delighted if Paul had won again, but the hon. Gentleman has turned the majority into five figures. We wish Paul Clark well in his career; he was a very popular Member and was admired and liked on both sides of the House.

This debate, like all debates in the House, is very important. I am speaking only because the Home Affairs Committee has been mentioned on numerous occasions. The Prime Minister has mentioned the deliberations of the Select Committee in 2003, when he was a member, and Members on both sides of the House have referred to that, so I felt it appropriate to inform the House of what the Select Committee decided when it conducted an investigation into this important matter seven years ago.

The Prime Minister was a member of the Committee at that stage, but I did not know until my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned it in her intervention that he was not present when the evidence was taken. However, as a former member, she will know that it is not vital to be there when evidence is taken so long as one is part of deliberations on the proceedings. I say that in the presence of one new member of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). We look forward to the Government’s tabling the order to set up the Select Committee so that we can meet and start to discuss these matters—I know that the Minister is no longer a Whip, so he has no control over these matters. This is certainly one of the issues that we will want to consider.

The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham came up with the crucial point that was perhaps missing from the Minister’s speech. Why is it necessary to extend anonymity just for those who have been accused of rape up until the time of charge? That is what the Select Committee said and I will read verbatim from our recommendations in the course of my speech. It is necessary for those cases in which people feel that they are falsely accused and turn out to be falsely accused, and the huge level of publicity that occurs as a result of such cases. In a sense, we should include the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and the shadow Minister in these discussions, because what concerns Members of this House who are worried about the issue is the fact that people can make false accusations and as a result whole lives can be destroyed—not just the lives of the people who have been falsely accused but those of their families, too.

As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), said in what I thought was the finest speech that she has given in this House on any subject, these are important issues that need to be discussed and explored properly. That is why I think that the Government should pause, having stated their position clearly, as the Minister has. There is a need to pause, because this decision has implications not just for rape cases but for the whole criminal justice system.

I would probably be described as a conservative with a small c, because I believe passionately that those who are falsely accused are also victims. I do not mean those who are acquitted because there is not sufficient evidence, but those who are maliciously—I think that this point was made—falsely accused of rape or any other crime or misdemeanour. It is a terrible thing to be falsely accused when those accusations are not put to the relevant person and they are not given a chance properly to respond. Unfortunately, that is how the criminal justice system works at the moment.

We need to think very carefully before we make any extension. I am not saying that the Government have not made their case, because, as I shall show when I read out the Select Committee’s recommendations, it is entirely in accordance with what the Committee recommended in 2003. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, who has read the transcripts will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the decision was unanimous. Given the personalities who have sat on the Home Affairs Committee in the past 10 years, including our most distinguished former member, the Prime Minister, it is quite difficult to get unanimity, especially on issues of this kind, so we should not dismiss absolutely what the Committee said in 2003. Indeed, we should use it as the basis for a period of wider consultation.

[Mr Blunt]

Perhaps I should be clear about the consultative process. We will not be having a period of formal consultation with all that that entails, but we will have a process whereby people will be able to contribute and listen. When we put out our research analysis, there will be another opportunity for that. If we need to go down the statutory route, there will not, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, be an immediate opportunity to do so.

[Keith Vaz]

That is most helpful. I am not sure whether the Minister has given us a timetable for the consultation period, but perhaps his colleague, the other Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), will do so when he winds up. The Minister has given a timetable for the independent study into research that he is conducting, although I am not sure how independent that research will be if it is done by a director at the Ministry of Justice. If it is to be called an independent inquiry, it might be appropriate for it to be done by a former High Court judge or a serving judge rather than a civil servant—not that I cast any aspersions on the officials in my former Department, who were all fine people. They have all the minutes from previous Ministers’ meetings, so we must never cast aspersions on our former civil servants. The inquiry probably will not be as independent as one would hope, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider that issue.

I am with the Minister, however, regarding the fact that someone will be looking at the research that has been conducted or that will be conducted in the next few weeks. That is what the Stern inquiry suggested—proper, appropriate research into the false allegations issue—and that will be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I feel that it might not be too long before she is elevated to the Front Bench. In addressing the debate, she demonstrated what she brings from her experience, as well as her thoughtfulness.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) on making their maiden speeches. They chose an interesting debate in which to do so. May I suggest that the debate could, as they start their apprenticeships in the House, be seen as a master class in how not to develop Government policy? I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) forensically took apart the Minister’s opening statement. As the debate is entitled “Defendant Anonymity”, I had hoped that the opening statement would allow discussions to go in a different direction. I thought that the Minister might say, “We’ve thought about this and we may have been wrong to single out rape defendants, so today gives us scope to talk about this on a wider basis.” Unfortunately, however, the Minister has reaffirmed the determination to focus on anonymity for defendants in rape trials, and that is regrettable.

We have had many debates in the House since the general election, including heated and passionate debates on how to cut the deficit, on electoral reform and on the number of MPs we should have, and only this week we have had the statement about which schools will go ahead in the Building Schools for the Future programme—or not, as the case may be. However, few of those issues have provoked the reaction that greeted the proposal to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases. Little did right hon. Members who are now in government know, all those weeks ago when they were holed up in meetings in the Cabinet Office thrashing out the details of the coalition agreement, the maelstrom that nine words on page 24 would cause. I am afraid that the policy of singling out rape has little evidence to justify it, and that has been confirmed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The policy, in isolation, really does not help the justice system or victims, and Ministers have been saying different things about it from one day to the next.

When the law on giving anonymity to defendants in rape cases last applied, it created a legal quagmire. It was a mess, where those accused of inciting rape were given anonymity but not those who conspired to it. The names of defendants charged with aiding and abetting rape were known, but not the names of those charged with burglary with intent to commit rape. The public knew the names of those who had planned to rape but failed, but did not know the names of those who had succeeded. It is an incredibly complicated area, not only for rape but for other offences, should we go down that route—I have sympathy with the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe on expanding that aspect. Let us be in no doubt, however: any movement on the issue, in any direction, will create a lot of controversy. We must be careful about unforeseen consequences.

No one seems able to explain why we need to give rape suspects anonymity in the first place. As has been said, singling out rape defendants sends a devastating message to the victims of rape—that, uniquely, among all other complainants, they are not to be believed, even when Home Office research shows that false allegation rates are no higher for rape than for any other crime.

The proposal touches on what is meant by false allegation. Philip Rumney, of Sheffield Hallam university, provides the best definition I have come across. He says that

“a false allegation can be defined as the description of an event that the complainant knows never actually occurred”

suggesting

“a conscious or malicious motive on the part of the complainant.”

Those two elements—the fact that the complainant knows that what she or he is alleging never actually happened and the malicious motive—distinguish genuine false allegations from other cases when the complaint is withdrawn rather than retracted, when there is insufficient evidence, or when as we know, sadly, that owing to mental health problems the complainant genuinely believes that they have been attacked.

We have not even talked about other vulnerable victims, who often face cynicism about their complaint. Many people with learning disabilities have not been believed. Elderly people suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia may find it hard to convey what has happened to them and—I am sorry to say—may be dismissed when they come forward or talk to family and friends about what they have experienced.

There is already evidence that too many cases are wrongly classified as false allegation. That is a problem and we need research to make sure that recording is clear, not only for rape but for other crimes too. I think that the police and prosecutors have made huge progress in that area, particularly when they have specialist training, so I do not want the House to misinterpret what I am saying. However, Home Office research in 2005 found that the police displayed

“a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals,”

thereby feeding a damaging culture of scepticism, which deters victims from coming forward to seek justice. The proposal is likely only to harden such attitudes, when we should be challenging them.

The only other possible justification for the proposal is that the damage associated with being accused of rape is of a completely different order to every other crime. Members have cited other crimes when a person who was falsely accused felt justly aggrieved and distressed, and the result was suicide or other action that caused distress to their family. It is not credible to suggest that being accused of rape is uniquely devastating, in a way that being accused of domestic violence, murder, sexually abusing children, or even defrauding a popular charity are not.

We have witnessed the rather bizarre spectacle of Ministers coming to the House, or writing to Members, asking them to provide evidence to support the Government’s policies. I know that times are hard and Departments are facing cuts of up to 40%, but if the Government are not able to find evidence to support their own policies, it is not our job to do so. Indeed, a month ago the Minister wrote to me requesting evidence and asked me to provide it within a week. I am pleased to tell the House that I was able to meet his deadline, but I am less pleased to have to inform the House that I have yet to receive a reply. Perhaps I should have insisted on a deadline for comments from the Minister.

In response to my Adjournment debate, the Minister said that the Government would proceed on the evidence, and no one doubts the need for more and better research. Baroness Stern made that point very eloquently in her review earlier this year; but she said that the evidence needed to be looked at before the policy is decided. The coalition has committed itself to granting anonymity to rape defendants before even looking at the evidence. That suggests to me that the Government are proceeding not on the evidence, but on the basis of a misconception.

[Mr Blunt]

If I have not formally thanked the right hon. Lady for the letter, let me put that on the record now. I assure her that I was not anticipating evidence from her in support of the Government’s position; it was really a challenge for her to come forward with evidence, on the basis of the issues that I raised in the Adjournment debate and have repeated today. If there is evidence that would cause us to rethink, let us have it. We are looking for it and we will publish our analysis by 28 July.

[Caroline Flint]

I certainly was not seeking to provide evidence to support the Government’s position. I was providing evidence to explain why the Government’s position was wrong. What I have failed to receive is evidence from the Government as to why they are pursuing this singular policy of anonymity for rape defendants.

In one of Baroness Stern’s 23 recommendations—I hope that the Government will give the other 22 equal time and priority—she asks that there should be research, and

“that the Ministry of Justice commissions and publishes an independent research report to study the frequency of false allegations of rape compared with other offences, and the nature of such allegations.”

She was saying that the matter should be looked at in the round.

As I said earlier, I am sad today that the opportunity was not taken by the Government to knock this coalition proposal on the head and move us into an area where we could find some consensus and agreement across all parts of the House.

Foreign National Prisoners

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate. He raised this issue on numerous occasions during the previous Parliament. He has found two occasions already to raise the subject orally with me, and I am delighted that he is going to hold this Administration to account with the same vigour as he did the previous one. I am grateful to him. This is an area where progress has been stuttering. The issue is bureaucratically complicated and difficult. I am as anxious as he is for progress and will welcome the regular spur that my officials and I will receive from Kettering to keep our focus and that of the bureaucracy—in the best sense of the word—on addressing the issue.

Foreign nationals who come to our country and abuse our hospitality by breaking our laws should face the full force of the law. If appropriate, they should go to prison. I share fully my hon. Friend’s frustration that foreign national prisoners who have no links to the United Kingdom are still not routinely transferred to prisons in their own country. As he said, a significant part of the purpose of prison should be the rehabilitation of the offender. That is not a duty owed by the United Kingdom taxpayer to foreigners in the same way as it is owed to our own citizens.

We currently hold 11,367 foreign national prisoners, of whom 7,824 have been convicted and are serving sentences of imprisonment, and who could be considered for transfer to their own country. In contrast, our posts overseas are aware of about 2,000 British prisoners held, of whom about half are thought to be sentenced prisoners. Yet in 2009, with this large number of foreign national prisoners in our prisons, we managed to transfer 41 back to prisons in their own country and we received 64 British prisoners back. While the proportions are striking, so is the feebleness of the overall number. I have asked my officials to pursue all possible options for increasing that number.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The Minister referred to the numbers of prisoners who are incarcerated abroad; may I draw his attention to an issue at a slight tangent to this debate? A significant number of British citizens are on bail in European countries. They are not in jail, having not served trial. Many are there as a result of the notorious European extradition warrants. They are there for an extraordinary length of time, which is a problem for their families, who face a lot of hardship. Can the Minister work with officials to secure an agreement to allow them to serve bail in their home country?

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend has put that on the record. It is separate from today’s debate. I do not want to pursue that because it will reduce the time I have to reply properly to my hon. Friend who secured the debate.

Transferring prisoners to their own country frees up prison places here and reduces the cost to the British taxpayer, but that is not the only reason for seeking their transfer. The Government want our prisons to rehabilitate prisoners better and enable them to lead productive, law-abiding lives following their release from prison. Just as I want to see British prisoners provided with work, education and training to reduce reoffending in this country, so a foreign national prisoner is more likely to be rehabilitated if he serves his sentence in his own country where he can undertake offender behaviour programmes and pre-release activities most suited to his needs and those of his host community. There are real difficulties associated with imprisonment in a foreign land, including language and cultural barriers and visiting difficulties, which make rehabilitation less effective. A prisoner serving his sentence at home is also more likely to receive help and support from family and friends. Transfer is in the best interests of not only the prisoner but the public in his country of origin.

Since the introduction of automatic deportation in 2008, foreign national prisoners who receive a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more can expect to be removed from the United Kingdom at the end of their sentence. Transferring prisoners during the course of the sentence ensures that the receiving state is aware of the prisoner and his offence, and is better able to protect the public when the prisoner is released. Information on previous offences is plainly helpful and welcomed by overseas jurisdictions.

Although there are sound public policy grounds for transferring prisoners to their own country, I accept that the numbers transferred are pathetically small. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering is aware, the United Kingdom has prisoner transfer arrangements with more than 100 countries, yet we only managed to transfer 41 prisoners from prisons in England and Wales while 64 returned here. It is apparently the first time that we managed to get more imports than exports. I am determined to do everything to ensure that the risible figure for transfers is increased.

There are a number of reasons why the figure has remained stubbornly low, which my hon. Friend probably already appreciates, and which need to be addressed and overcome. The vast majority of the transfer arrangements have been in place for some time and require the consent of the prisoner, without which the prisoners cannot be transferred. Prisoner transfer was initially conceived as a humanitarian measure, and I understand that it is for that reason that Parliament thought it right to make prisoner consent a prerequisite to transfer when passing the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. That remained the case until 2006, when Parliament amended the Act to enable prisoners to be transferred without their consent. I have asked my officials to investigate the scope for renegotiating arrangements on the basis of compulsory transfer. Although we may not be able to achieve compulsory transfer arrangements in all cases, we should do so wherever we can, and there is some limited progress to report.

In November 2009, the UK ratified the additional protocol to the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, which provides for compulsory transfer where a prisoner has been served with a deportation order. My officials are working closely with the UK Border Agency to identify suitable prisoners for transfer under the protocol. As an example, I expect the first prisoners, from Lithuania in this case, to be transferred later this year. No-consent arrangements have also been concluded with Uganda and Rwanda, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, they await ratification.

Work is also ongoing with the Nigerian Government to put in place a no-consent prisoner transfer agreement. My hon. Friend may be aware that legislation to amend Nigeria’s prisoner transfer legislation is currently before its National Assembly. Like the UK law before its amendment, current Nigerian legislation requires prisoners’ consent. I am grateful to the Nigerian Government for their willingness to engage with us on the issue, which I hope to discuss further with their Ministers during a visit by President Jonathan of Nigeria to the UK next week. In the meantime, we continue to pursue the option of voluntary transfers to Nigeria. To date, 22 prisoners have applied for transfer, and the applications are currently being considered by the Nigerian Government.

Although we support the principle of compulsory prisoner transfer, some countries maintain that sentences should be served where they were passed, claiming that rehabilitation can be achieved only if the prisoner wants to transfer. I disagree with that view, but where it is held, it is an obstacle to the compulsory transfer of a significant number of foreign national prisoners. However, we will continue to negotiate compulsory agreements wherever we can.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the European Union has agreed a framework decision governing the transfer of prisoners between member states of the Union, which comes into force next December. The agreement provides for compulsory transfer under certain defined circumstances: where the prisoner is to be transferred to the country of his nationality in which he is ordinarily resident, where the prisoner is to be transferred to the country of his nationality, to which he would otherwise be deported at the end of his sentence, and where the prisoner has fled and a sentence is transferred to his country of nationality for enforcement. Regrettably, the framework decision does not apply to sentences before its implementation, but we expect to see a steady increase in the numbers transferred after December 2011 and consequently a steady decline in the number of EU nationals held in our prisons after that date.

My hon. Friend has already drawn attention to the fact that the largest group of foreign nationals are Jamaican. In 2007, the United Kingdom signed a prisoner transfer agreement with Jamaica. I regret to say that it is a voluntary agreement, which was the limit of what was able to be negotiated at the time, and it has not yet been ratified. Changes to Jamaican legislation are necessary before ratification can proceed. I have asked my officials to investigate how we can work with other Departments here to help and encourage the Jamaican Government to progress with the agreement.

We will continue to press voluntary prisoner transfer arrangements where we cannot negotiate compulsory ones, and we will take action to encourage prisoners who could transfer but do not to apply for a transfer. I have asked my officials to look urgently at how prisoners can best be informed of the options available to them and encouraged to apply.

We are gradually increasing the number of prisoners transferred to countries outside the European Union. In addition to those seeking voluntary transfer to Nigeria, 25 prisoners have sought transfer to prisons in Pakistan. The transfer of the first four of those has been agreed and will take place in the next few weeks. Many foreign nationals in our prisons cannot be transferred to serve their sentence in their home countries, because there is no agreement in place. It is right that we seek to have prisoners who are subject to deportation action, or who have no entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom, removed as soon as possible at the end of their sentence.

We have inherited an overcrowded prison estate that is teetering on the edge of being able to keep pace with the demand created by those sent there by the courts. Moreover, one of the key factors is the large number of foreign nationals in our prisons, many of whom have no right to be in the United Kingdom. I therefore need no reminding of the importance of improving the situation by all appropriate means. At a time when we have been left with no money by the previous Government, we need to look carefully at how our resources are used and what can be done to target them more effectively. Our priority is to protect the public and focus our efforts on reducing reoffending. It is therefore right for us to consider how prison resources can be better focused on prisoners who will be released into the community in the United Kingdom, which will free up prison capacity currently taken by foreign nationals who will be removed from the country anyway. That is one way that we can help achieve our priority.

Provisions are already in place to help ensure that foreign national prisoners can be removed from the United Kingdom as early in their sentence as possible. The early removal scheme has been in operation in England and Wales since 2004 and gives the Secretary of State the power to remove eligible prisoners earlier in their sentence than would otherwise have been possible. Foreign national offenders who are serving a determinate sentence and who are liable to removal from the United Kingdom can be removed from prison and the country up to 270 days, or nine months, before the halfway point of their sentence, when they would normally be released. The period of early removal in each case varies depending on the length of the sentence being served, and the maximum of 270 days applies where the sentence is for at least three years. It will be proportionately less for shorter sentences. Prisoners must serve at least a quarter of their sentence before early removal can take place. In each case, removal is dependent on the UK Border Agency making the necessary arrangements. That can be affected if the prisoner appeals against removal or if there are difficulties in securing the necessary travel documentation.

The scheme does not apply to offenders serving life or other indeterminate sentences. However, all foreign national prisoners serving a determinate sentence who are liable to be deported by UKBA are considered for the scheme by the National Offender Management Service. It is important to remember that those offenders would be subject to deportation by UKBA on their release anyway.

Early removal under the scheme is not pursued for prisoners with outstanding criminal charges or further custodial requirements, such as an offender with an outstanding confiscation order. Such prisoners should not be permitted to avoid their liability by leaving the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction early. I would like to emphasise that foreign national prisoners who are removed or deported under the scheme are flagged on UKBA’s warnings index and can therefore be identified if they attempt to return to the United Kingdom.

UKBA will continue to seek to remove foreign national prisoners who have no right to remain here. Since 2007, some 15,000 foreign national prisoners have been deported. UKBA works closely with NOMS to ensure that prisoners can be removed at the earliest possible moment. In 2009, UKBA embedded immigration teams in nine prisons as part of the rationalisation of the foreign national prison population in the category C prison estate. The two hub and spoke prisons are Canterbury and Bullwood Hall, not Morton Hall, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. This enables UKBA staff to gather nationality and identity information at the earliest opportunity with the aim of reducing the number of prisoners and increasing the removal and deportation of foreign criminals at the end of their sentence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has for the funding of the probation service in 2010-11.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

For 2010-11, the budget for the probation trusts will be £850 million. Budgets for 2011-12 are not yet set, and will be done through the spending review process to take place later this year.

[Hugh Bayley]

Last Sunday, on Sky News, the Justice Secretary said:

“let’s have fewer people in prison”,

and that there are

“some things we can do to stop people re-offending when they come out”.

Did he have the probation service in mind? Will the Minister give me a categorical assurance that there will be no cut in funding for the probation service, because it will be impossible to carry out that policy if there is?

[Mr Blunt]

It would be very nice if the country was in an economic position that allowed me to deliver such a categorical assurance to the hon. Gentleman but, as he knows perfectly well, I am afraid that I cannot do so. He also knows that part of the Ministry of Justice’s contribution to the £6 billion target was a £20 million reduction in the probation service’s budget. However, that budget had been added to by £26 million in mid-year by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is now the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Mary Creagh]

Wakefield is home to two prisons: New Hall young offenders institution and women’s prison, and, of course, Wakefield prison, which houses some of the country’s most dangerous and prolific offenders. West Yorkshire probation service, and Wakefield in particular, do a tremendous job of keeping local people safe and monitoring those who are released from those prisons, who are some of the most difficult individuals in the country. Does the Minister agree that public protection is the No. 1 priority for the probation service and that any future funding arrangements must not put that at risk?

[Mr Blunt]

Of course public protection is an absolute priority. We inherited good MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—from the previous Administration to deal with the sort of offenders who are released from Wakefield. It is right that probation services and all other agencies that are involved in MAPPA are closely engaged in delivering public protection with regard to such offenders.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I have visited the probation service in Milton Keynes and pay tribute to its tremendous work. Under the previous Government, however, the number of staff at headquarters ballooned, while front-line staff numbers remained static or even reduced. Might this Government reverse that trend?

[Mr Blunt]

Yes.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The previous Government refurbished the Ministry of Justice building at a cost of £130 million shortly before they announced redundancies, including to front-line managers, that saved £50 million. Can the Minister and his team say that this Government will have a better and more responsible set of priorities for spending in his Department?

[Mr Blunt]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On the probation service, Minister.

[Mr Blunt]

I can guarantee that the probation service will not be led by the Ministry of Justice on any further refurbishments. I think that we have had enough refurbishments inside the Department for the time being and that we have an office that is perfectly fit for purpose.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his post, which is an excellent job that I am sure he will enjoy. Will he confirm to the House that reoffending rates fell considerably under the Labour Government, not least because of the 70% increase in probation funding over those 13 years? Will he also clarify what I think he said—that the £870 million budget agreed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in October 2009 is now £850 million? What discussions has he held—and will he hold—with probation services about the impact of that £20 million cut?

[Mr Blunt]

As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, I have referred to the £20 million cut. The director of the National Offender Management Service and the regional offender managers will be doing their level best, in agreement with the probation trusts, to ensure that that reduction does not have an impact on services. However, we ought to remember that the budget settlement for the probation trusts that was agreed just more than a year ago was £844 million. That budget was being worked to during the transfer from probation boards to probation trusts, and that transfer was supposed to drive forward many efficiency savings to ensure that front-line services were delivered as efficiently as they should be.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

2. What timetable he has set for the completion of his Department’s review of sentencing policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

We are conducting a comprehensive assessment of sentencing policy with a view to introducing more effective sentencing and rehabilitation policies. We will take the time to get it right, and will consult widely before bringing forward coherent plans for reform. We intend to bring forward proposals on sentencing and the rehabilitation of offenders after the House returns from recess in October.

[Tony Baldry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the punishment, in being sent to prison, is the loss of freedom? Does he also agree that what is important is trying to reduce reoffending rates, and ensuring that when people are in prison, they undertake activities that mean that they are less likely to reoffend when they are released? Alternatively, we might have not so many people going to prison, but if they are to be punished in the community, that punishment should involve activities that help to reduce the chances of reoffending. It is reducing the reoffending rate that is so important.

[Mr Blunt]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have inherited a disaster, in terms of the reoffending rate among short-sentence prisoners. I do not think that anyone would want to defend the reoffending rate in that category, which is somewhere between 60% and 70%. Prisoners in that category do not receive probation supervision, and if we do not engage them with the great army of auxiliaries in the third sector who want to help us with offender management, we will not be able to address offender behaviour in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister undertake to read the excellent report drawn up on a cross-party basis by members of the Select Committee on Justice not long before Dissolution, which proposes a number of ways in which the large amount of resources that go into the criminal justice system could be focused more effectively on reducing reoffending?

[Mr Blunt]

Yes. The report is excellent, and it will inform the proposals that we bring forward when the House returns in October.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it adds insult to injury when a victim of crime, having seen the perpetrator sentenced, finds that the person is released halfway through their sentence? What steps will we take to reintroduce honesty in sentencing?

[Mr Blunt]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because plainly the proposals that were in the Conservative manifesto will inform the outcome of the sentencing review. I am quite sure that he will be satisfied with the outcome, and that we will have a great deal more honesty in sentencing at the end of the process than we have today.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

3. What plans he has for prison capacity and prison construction programmes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

We must provide prison places for those whom the courts judge should receive a custodial sentence. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), we intend to bring forward proposals on rehabilitation and sentencing after the House returns in October. Long-term decisions on prison capacity programmes will be taken in the light of the policy agreed at the end of the process.

[Mr Jones]

On 30 January 2007, when asked whether we needed more prisons, the Prime Minister said, on the Jon Gaunt “talkSPORT” show:

“Yes…no doubt more prisons have got to be built.”

How does that fit with the Justice Secretary’s announcement this week that he would like to see fewer people in prison? Is this an example of Opposition rhetoric catching up with the Prime Minister, or is it yet another example of a policy disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary?

[Mr Blunt]

Absolutely not. I notice that the date to which the hon. Gentleman referred was in 2007, and there certainly has been a significant increase in the prison population between then and today. As far as the prison building programme is concerned, I draw attention to the evidence that the then Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor gave to the Committee referred to by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). He said that the prison building programme, as it now stands, is an opportunity to upgrade and update our prison capacity to make it more fit for the purpose of addressing reoffending behaviour. If we are successful in bringing about a drop in prisoner numbers—I am quite sure that everyone in the House would like to see that—we may be able to release other parts of the estate.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

In the context of capacity and overcrowding, what are the Minister’s views on short sentences, especially for women?

[Mr Blunt]

The evidence is that short custodial sentences are not working. They produce terrible reoffending rates. We do not have the capacity in the probation service to address people on licence, which is one reason why they do not have any supervision when they leave prison, and we are on the most dreadful merry-go-round. It is one of the glaring gaps in the way that we deal with offenders and reoffending behaviour, and the current Administration will do their level best to address the issue.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussion he has had on reform of libel law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

12. What assessment he has made of the balance of expenditure between (a) prison building and (b) community sentences and restorative justice schemes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his unopposed re-election as Chair of the Justice Committee.

As I said in reply to earlier questions, our proposals for implementing the coalition agreement commitments on sentencing and rehabilitation will be presented after the House returns in October. Our future plans for, and the balance of expenditure between, custodial and community provision will need to be considered in the light of that, and restorative justice will feature strongly in that work, as will the work of the Justice Committee in its first report of 2009-10 on the case for justice reinvestment.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I thank the Under-Secretary for his kind words and congratulate him on taking office. Did he notice when he arrived at the Department that he was committed to a prison building programme, inherited from the previous Government, that cost more than £4 billion? It produced the highest incarceration rate in western Europe and pre-empted resources, which, if they were used to prevent crime, would save victims from suffering from crime in the first place.

[Mr Blunt]

My right hon. Friend will be glad to know that it did not entirely escape my attention. However, I draw his attention to the evidence that the then Justice Secretary gave to the Justice Committee in 2008. He pointed out that there was an opportunity to deliver the new prison places more cheaply on a revenue basis than the existing prison estate, and for them to be more fit for purpose in enabling the prison estate to address reoffending behaviour. The prison building programme per se is not, therefore, the problem but the number of offenders whom we have to sustain in custody. We need to examine the policies that drive those numbers.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I add my welcome to the Under-Secretary? I also offer my congratulations to the Justice Secretary and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) on their 40th anniversary this week as Members of the House.

[Mr Straw]

I think my hon. Friend means that it was shortly before the Chancellor was born.

Does the Under-Secretary acknowledge that there has been a sustained fall in crime from 1995 to date, and that the increase in prison places and the fact that more serious and violent offenders are now incarcerated has contributed to that fall?

[Mr Blunt]

Evidence on the effects of incarceration is mixed at best. We must take the political temperature out of the debate. Outbidding each other on how robust we will be in dealing with offenders probably does potential future victims no good. We must have policies that address future offending behaviour and consider the life cycle of potential and actual offenders so that we can support them effectively.

[Mr Straw]

The whole House would agree that the fundamental test of an anti-crime policy is whether crime has fallen. With that in mind, will the Minister now acknowledge that crime fell consistently from 1995 and throughout the 1997 to 2010 Administration?

[Mr Blunt]

No, because the change in trend on crime was achieved by Michael Howard, the then Home Secretary, who delivered a robust policy that effected changes. He was the author of the change in policy, but there is a limit to continuing that process, as there must be to the rate of growth of incarceration. In the end, we cannot lock up everybody who might be a threat to someone, because in that way, the entire population would end up in prison. There is a logical end to that process, and we will do our level best to deliver more effective policies to ensure that there are fewer victims in future.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

13. How many and what proportion of prison inmates are accommodated on a doubled-up basis; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

In 2009-10, the average number of prisoners sharing a cell designed for one was approximately 19,000, and there are more than 1,000 cases in which three prisoners are sharing a cell designed for two. That overcrowding is concentrated in male local prisons, where 47.6% of prisoners are held in overcrowded conditions.

[Claire Perry]

Will the Minister comment on the fact that the previous Government’s mismanagement of the indeterminate public protection sentencing regime in many ways contributed to that overcrowding? That was brought to my attention by a prisoner in HMP Erlestoke in my constituency, who copied me in on a very good letter to Inside Time this month. Will the Minister tell the House what he will do to help to reform the IPP regime?

[Mr Blunt]

I notice that the previous Government had to reform the IPP arrangements in 2008, having introduced them in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We inherit a very serious problem with IPP prisoners. We have 6,000 IPP prisoners, well over 2,500 of whom have exceeded their tariff point. Many cannot get on courses because our prisons are wholly overcrowded and unable to address offending behaviour. That is not a defensible position.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In opposition, Conservative Members thought it was a good idea—in fact, they thought there was an extremely strong case—to build a new prison in north Wales. Is that still their view?

[Mr Blunt]

Yes.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there would be a lot less overcrowding in prisons were we to adopt the very sensible policy of sending back to secure detention in their countries of origin the 13% of our prison population who are foreign nationals?

[Mr Blunt]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do our absolute level best to improve the position.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

14. What recent representations he has received on compensation for people with pleural plaques.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

18. What his policy is on increasing prison capacity; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Durham (Kevan Jones) earlier.

[Mr Evennett]

I thank the Minister for his response earlier and agree with the comments that he made. Does he agree that the successful reduction of reoffending levels requires a long-term focus rather than a series of short-term piecemeal proposals? The Labour Government had short-termism and failed.

[Mr Blunt]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am afraid that we have seen too much focus on the pursuing of political positions and influence by the media. What we have to do now is take advantage of the change in Administration, and the fact that we have a coalition Government, to try to take the political heat out of the issue, and achieve consensus on a long-term strategy to address reoffending.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

The Justice Secretary is reported as saying that millions of pounds could be saved by jailing fewer offenders and slashing sentences. Does the Minister accept that our first duty is the protection of the public and that we must provide prison capacity accordingly?

[Mr Blunt]

Yes, but I do not entirely recognise the hon. Gentleman’s presentation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary’s comments over the weekend. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the first objective is public protection, and if we are to protect the public of tomorrow, so that there are fewer victims, we have to ensure that we have a justice service that will deliver a reduction in reoffending rates and can divert people from offending in the first place.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

19. What steps he is taking to ensure that the interests of victims of crime are effectively represented in the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T7. What plans does the Justice Secretary have to reform drug rehabilitation in our prisons, so that we see fewer offenders languishing on methadone prescriptions than under the previous Government, and more going clean on abstinence-based programmes?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Clinical guidance for the treatment of heroin addicts in prison has been updated to reinforce the expectation that prisoners jailed for more than six months should not be maintained on methadone unless there are exceptional circumstances. We recognise that continuity of management of drug users is a key challenge. The work of Lord Patel’s prison drug treatment strategy review and last year’s review of the drug interventions programme will help us to strengthen arrangements between prisons and the community. However, I absolutely acknowledge my hon. Friend’s great concern about the issue.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

T9. In a recent case, a Salford man had committed a rape and was bailed, but then committed a further rape, and the police believe that there are further victims of this man. Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government have committed in their coalition agreement to extending anonymity to such defendants before all the evidence is heard? Can he also say who will now be consulted for that evidence?[Official Report, 24 June 2010, Vol. 512, c. 1-2MC.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

T8. Given that it is a surprise to some of us that so many drugs enter our prisons every day through a variety of methods, what steps will this exciting new Government take to try to crack down on this abuse of Her Majesty’s prisons?

[Mr Blunt]

Plainly, this issue is not new, and there have already been reviews of how drugs get into prisons. We are going to examine this matter and, as I have said, it will be a priority of mine. I am minded to try to ensure that prisoners have the opportunity to get on to abstinence-based programmes successfully and safely, within the prison estate, and to ensure that they do not get knocked off course by the availability of illegal drugs in our prisons—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt. It is understandable that Ministers should look backwards at those questioning them, but they must face the House.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Seventeen-year-old Ashleigh Hall, who lived in my constituency, was murdered last year by Peter Chapman, who is now serving a life sentence. While in prison, Mr Chapman has been writing to Ashleigh Hall’s parents and family. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable?

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing that to my attention. Perhaps she could write to me with the details of the case. Obviously, on the face of it, it sounds unacceptable, and I would be pleased to look into the matter.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

T10. What is the legal aid funding allocation per head in England and Wales, and how does it compare with legal aid funding in other countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent spectacle of Roy Whiting exploiting British taxpayers to demand a reduction in his sentence is an abuse of justice and an insult to the memory of Sarah Payne?

[Mr Blunt]

The important principle to establish here is judicial independence. I think we should therefore respect the decisions that judges come to on these matters.