Prison Officers: Pension Age

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson]

I will just give my second reason, which is that allowing private companies to make a profit out of the incarceration of human beings is simply immoral.

[David Hanson (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Lady’s intervention, I remind hon. Members that the debate is tightly focused on the pension age of prison officers, and I hope that interventions and contributions will focus just on that.

[Jo Stevens]

Thank you, Mr Hanson; I will do a quick swerve. On the point about private prisons and the influence of private companies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that privatising probation—the state’s care for people on probation—was the wrong thing to do?

Ministry of Justice Spending

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

May I welcome this debate, as well as the introductory remarks from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—in this case, he is my hon. Friend—who spoke on behalf of the Justice Committee? Like him, I pay tribute to staff who work throughout the justice system. Today’s estimates pay their wages, provide their conditions of work and give them the tools to do the job that I know they are committed to. Therefore, while exploring these estimates, I hope we can focus on some of the real challenges faced by those staff.

I welcome the Minister to his new job. It is 10 years since I was Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice—a long time ago. When I was Minister—this is one of the challenges we face—there was 40% more expenditure on justice matters than is proposed today. Although changes were made by the Government in August this year—we will touch on that—there has been a 40% reduction in the amount of resource going into the Ministry of Justice over that time. Those provisions were volunteered by Ministers, some of whom not even members of the Conservative party these days.

The Ministry of Justice budget fell from £10.6 billion in 2010 to £7.9 billion in 2020. Let no one be mistaken: those reductions have had a consequence on the services delivered by the Ministry of Justice, on the performance of staff under pressure and on the safety of staff in prisons across the estate for which the MOJ is responsible. They have also had a consequence on the MOJ’s ability to improve reoffending rates and reduce crime and to provide a service to consumers and constituents of mine and every Member of the House regarding work on legal aid, access to justice, fighting for employment rights through the tribunal system and a range of other matters. That 40% reduction has made a real difference, and I wish to explore with the Minister the proposals for the revised sums he has brought forward.

Let us take this year’s figures. In many prisons, the safety of staff and those sentenced to prison is at higher risk than it was 12 months ago. We must address that issue to ensure a solid performance across the prison estate and achieve the reoffending rates that I know the Minister would want. Over the past 12 months, there has been a 24% rise in incidents of self-harm, to a record high of 57,968. The number of assaults has also risen to a record high of 34,425 in the past 12 months—an 11% increase on the previous year. In the 12 months to March this year, there were 10,300 assaults—11% of which were serious assaults—on staff and those doing their job to try to turn around those offenders in our prisons. That figure is up by 15% on the previous year.

The funding settlement needs to address ways to recruit more staff and to retain existing staff and support them in the workplace. We must try to professionalise and support staff on the front line. We know about the situation in prisons and about issues such as drugs entering prison, new psychoactive substances, increasingly violent prisoners being placed in prison and a range of people with mental health problems that cause aggressive behaviour. Those are real challenges, and the reduction in funding to date has meant they have been exacerbated by having a smaller number of staff, by the loss of experienced staff and by not allowing people out of cells to achieve some of the rehabilitation work, drug training courses or educational work that they need to turn their lives around. This settlement—the expansion in resource that the Government propose—needs to focus first and foremost on safety in prisons. Without safe prisons, we cannot have rehabilitation on the scale of our ambitions.

In August, the Government made a series of additional spending announcements. They announced additional police officers—I have also been the Police Minister—with 20,000 more officers to replace the 20,000 who have been cut. The Government announced the recruitment of police officers and prison officers: some would say that it is about recruitment of votes, rather than staff. The key point for the Minister to explain today is how he will address the issues. The policy announcements that have been made to date include 10,000 additional prison places, including investment in prison security—undoubtedly welcome—and an additional prison building programme. But we have no detail yet on how, when, where and at what stage those prison officers are to be recruited. We have no detail about the period over which those new prison places are to be built and whether they will replace new prisons or are genuinely new and additional prison places.

At the same time, a review has been announced by the Prime Minister of sentencing in England and Wales. It will not look at increasing community sentences or tackling short-term sentences, which the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) wanted to look at. Instead, it will look at how we can put longer prison sentences in place. How will that all fit together? There were no policy details in the budget announcement in August about the condition of the prison estate, despite the fact that the prison estate is key to improving the rehabilitation of prisoners. The MOJ estimates a current backlog of some £900 million of repairs that need to be done in our prisons. There was nothing in the announcement in August that I could see about how much money will be put towards the maintenance work needed to ensure that we have safe cells. Fixing draughty cells, dangerously fitted cells, old cells and cells that people cannot leave to undertake education and training is material to improving reoffending rates.

Reoffending costs us £18 billion a year, which is far more than the Ministry of Justice’s budget for investment in prisons and probation. Reoffending, especially by prisoners with short-term sentences, is extremely high. We had a lot of rhetoric six to nine months ago about tackling short-term prison sentences. I have seen nothing in the estimates about a change to super-charge community-based sentences as an alternative to short-term prison sentences of under six months, particularly for women offenders, many of whom are in prison on a short-term basis that will not secure their long-term rehabilitation back into society.

I will discount the 40% cut for now, even though it has been significant over the past nine and a half years. Instead, I ask what steps will be taken, under the current budget settlement, to make the prison estate a place of safety for staff and prisoners. What steps are being taken to ensure that we recruit and retain professional staff? What steps are being undertaken to super-charge the effort to reduce reoffending? What steps are being taken to ensure that people on short-term sentences see a real and effective shift in the time they are in prison? What steps are being taken to reduce the female prison population as a matter of urgency?

There are real arguments for reviewing short-term sentences, supporting alternative sentencing for women and looking again at the rehabilitation and employment links that require money. The emphasis on a capital building programme is wrong. We should look at investing in and improving the existing estate, retaining and improving the quality of staff and making prisons safe. I welcome the debate, because there are some serious discussions to be had. I wish the Minister well in what is a tough old job for him and his team, but real dividends can be achieved and real changes can be made. It will require political drive, but that drive seems to have shifted back towards longer term prison sentences and away from community-based rehabilitation in the statements made since the Prime Minister took office.

Female Offender Strategy: One Year On

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Ms Ryan. In the short time that I have, I want to place on the record my support for the female offender strategy. It builds strongly on the work of the Corston report, which I had the honour of receiving as Minister in the then Labour Government in 2007-08.

We accepted 40 of the 43 recommendations. We appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) as the champion to see the issue through, but then we ran into the blockage of democracy: the Government were removed from office in 2010. I fully support the efforts of the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) to bring together a strategy to reduce the number of women in custody where possible. I take on board the comments of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—that some crimes demand custody—but, where possible, we should reduce the number of women in custody, look at early interventions to support women in avoiding custody in the first place, and tackle some of the causes of offending with drug and alcohol services.

Only last week, I mentioned that the number of drug and alcohol treatment orders in the community has been halved in the past four years by the Government.

[Ellie Reeves]

Some 62% of women in prison are serving short sentences. My right hon. Friend talks about drug and alcohol programmes and early interventions. Does he agree with me that it would be better to invest in early intervention and community sentencing, and introduce a presumption against short sentences to make sure that women get the support that they need, rather than custodial sentences?

[David Hanson]

It is very important that we try to support women who have committed offences. Sometimes they have committed them because forces have driven them to it. We need to find an appropriate way to remove them from prison because prison has an impact on family life as well as on them. I welcome the efforts of the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) on short prison sentences, and I hope the policy will continue with any new Minister in due course.

If I may focus on my own area of north Wales, there were 37 women on any given day last year in Styal Prison—40 miles from the border, and perhaps 100 miles from the north-west of Wales. I was asked last year by the Welsh Assembly Government to do an inquiry into the treatment of prisoners with regard to education and other services. It is important to note that in the female offender strategy, only four of the 179 paragraphs deal with Wales. It establishes a need for a blueprint. A female offender blueprint is being published by the Welsh Government, and it has very good aspirations. I would welcome an update on progress from the Minister, either in writing or when he responds at the end of the debate.

For example, in the work that I did last year in Wales, I found that there was limited access to Welsh language education for women whose first language was Welsh. There was limited understanding in the Welsh Government of how many female offenders would return to Wales, how many were linked into the labour market of Wales, and how many dependents people had. There was limited understanding of how much would be needed in the way of ongoing support requirements, to reintegrate women back from custody into the community in due course.

My hon. Friends have demanded a women’s centre, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) will reiterate that. Wales is one country, but north and south Wales are two regions, where there are different demands on people. We need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, to look at what provision there is for a women’s centre in Wales. Those 37 women need to return to the community in due course.

I welcome the document overall, but I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity about a one-year update to the female offending blueprint, and a six-month update to the implementation plan being worked on by the Welsh Assembly Government in conjunction with his Department.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

As we survey the decaying embers of a dying regime reaching its inevitable conclusion, it is good to see the shadow Secretary of State showing that he is waving and not drowning, as he desperately tries to draw attention to the fact he is full of vim and vigour. As he will know, we are currently reviewing legal aid thresholds and exceptional case funding. We are bringing special guardianship orders back within the scope of legal aid, and we are looking at legal support action plans.

I am unclear, the more I listen to Labour Front Benchers, about why they assume that the only way to provide legal support is to fund it through legal aid. We will shortly have a question on law centres and, for me, there have to be a number of ways to provide legal support. [Interruption.] “And for us,” I hear the hon. Gentleman say from a sedentary position, and I am pleased to hear that.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress he has made on probation reform.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

I am pleased to have announced plans to streamline probation delivery, through the National Probation Service, to build on the role of the private and voluntary sectors in driving innovation and to better support skilled probation officers. These changes will allow the public, private and voluntary sectors to play to their strengths and ensure stronger supervision and support for offenders. We are now developing the commercial and operational frameworks that will underlie the future system, and we are planning for the transition. We are undertaking a full programme of market engagement to inform our plans, in addition to engagement with probation staff and trade unions.

[David Hanson]

By any stretch of the imagination, the changes to the probation service have been a shambles, fragmenting the system and increasing risk to the community at large. A simple “sorry” may also help the Minister’s answer, but will he give an indication of the cost of cancelling the current contracts next year? What will be the replacement costs for the state or other providers in taking over those services?

[Mr Gauke]

First, “Transforming Rehabilitation” introduced bold reforms, and steps have been taken to ensure there is more innovation within our system, but I recognise that significant elements of it are not working as needed, which is why we have made the changes.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about costs, it is worth bearing in mind that we originally expected to spend £3.1 billion on community rehabilitation companies over a seven-year period, and we now expect to spend £2.7 billion over the same period. In other words, over the lifetime of the contracts, we now expect to spend £405 million less on CRCs than originally forecast.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

This is one of the rare occasions when I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend. For prolific offenders of minor crimes, it is my view that a non-custodial approach is the right one, but we need to ensure that that works effectively. That is why I have announced reforms to probation. One problem we have at the moment is that such offenders get a short custodial sentence, which only disrupts lives but does not allow any opportunity to do any work on rehabilitation.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T3. I agree with the Secretary of State’s last point, but in order to achieve that he will need to reverse the trend that has seen a fall in drug and alcohol rehabilitation requirement orders from 170,000 five years ago to 120,000 this year. Will he look at that point?

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly will. We have recently announced an extension of the community sentence treatment requirement pilots. That is the direction that we need to be going in to address some of the substance abuse and mental health issues that often lie behind these prolific offenders who do cause great difficulties for society. If we want to reduce reoffending, we need to focus on that group and take effective, evidence-led measures.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for his contribution in opening this debate.

I want to say something at the very beginning that I hope Members will regard as helpful. All those in prison under an IPP sentence are there because at some point they committed a crime and hurt a victim. We should not forget that in this debate, because there are many people in prison for serious offences that have caused a great harm to people in the community. The question we are considering today is: how do we achieve a balance between punishment of those individuals for their offences and providing a helpful pathway to rehabilitation?

When it was introduced originally, the IPP sentence gave a minimum term, but also set out a series of conditions by which the risk that an individual who has committed an offence poses to society has to be assessed, in order for them to reach a standard that would allow them to be released back into the community.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has zoned in on what should be the two central pillars of our justice system. Does he agree that wider society needs to see rehabilitation—the second pillar that he talked about—as one way to help to reduce the risk of reoffending, so that people can have more confidence in the justice system?

[David Hanson]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman—or my hon. Friend, as I will still call him in this case—makes a key point.

The key issue that I want to raise is this. Many IPP prisoners have passed the minimum tariffs—we have heard today the figure of 2,400 prisoners currently serving over-tariff IPP sentences and now, because of where we are in the timeline, many are serving severely over-tariff IPP sentences. There are many individuals for whom we need to find a pathway, to give them clarity and to enable them to reach a conclusion after they have served their minimum term and paid back to society, but we also need clarity about their rehabilitation and ultimate release.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with his characteristic eloquence. Kevin Willis, a constituent of mine, has served 13 years in custody, which is the equivalent of a 26-year determinate sentence, after being sentenced to an IPP with a four-year tariff. As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, Kevin Willis committed a serious crime and deserved to go to prison. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this kind of legal limbo, whereby Kevin has no idea when or even if he will be released, is unconscionable? Also, members of the public will find it hard to understand why some people serve only half the sentence that is announced on the steps of a court, while others seem to serve many multiples of their sentence. That is another problem that affects faith in the justice system.

[David Hanson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, in the sense that we have to assess the risk that an individual potentially presents to society. We have a minimum term; people have passed that minimum term; we now have an element of indeterminate sentencing, whereby risk is assessed and release happens when that risk is deemed to be sufficiently low for the prisoner to be released back into society.

I want to know from the Minister what assessment is being made of the current potential risk from the 2,400 prisoners serving IPP sentences, including 43 women. The reason they are still in prison is either that they have been moved from prison to prison and not been tracked effectively, or the courses to help with their rehabilitation have not been made available, or they pose a risk because of the deterioration of their mental health while in prison or because of other issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said. What assessment has the Minister made of those prisoners, and how can he prove that there are pathways for each of those individuals? That is the key thing that I want to know from the Minister in this debate.

It seems to me that there are three clear pathways left for individuals with IPP sentences. Either we have a rehabilitation pathway that says, “These individuals need to complete these courses in order to reach a stage where the Parole Board can assess them to be a low risk to society and therefore eligible for release,” or, if there is not a rehabilitation pathway, we might need to consider resentencing, so that there is a definitive end-date to their sentences, or the crime is such that, whatever current pathways are operational through rehabilitation, the end-date, which might be some years hence, needs to be reassessed and might take into account time already served. What we need for each of those 2,400 individuals is clarity about what their sentences will ultimately mean.

In the Justice Committee, we produced a report that indicates that we want to see that clarity, and we have said that we would like to see legislative solutions for both release and recall of indeterminate-sentence prisoners, to ensure sentencing certainty on this issue. Helpfully, the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), has this week published his response to our report, as has been mentioned. I want to complete my brief remarks by asking a couple of questions about the Government response.

In their response, the Government have said:

“We are committed to providing long-term prisoners with opportunities for rehabilitation, so they can demonstrate they can be released safely back into the community and we welcome the Committee’s acknowledgement of our efforts to improve the progression prospects of IPP prisoners”.

How many assessments have been made of those prisoners and what is the pathway for them? The Minister also said in his response that the Government

“are continuing to prioritise post-tariff prisoners in accessing rehabilitative interventions, including Psychology Services-led reviews, and enhanced case management for those prisoners with a complex set of risks and needs. We have also developed Progression Regimes at four prisons across the country”.

How many prisoners currently on that list of 2,400 does that cover? The Minister has also said that the Government are

“progressing indeterminate prisoners struggling to achieve release via the usual routes.”

With all the things that the Minister says he is doing in response to the Justice Committee’s report, at what date does he estimate that the current number of 2,400 over-tariff IPP prisoners will be in a position to be forwarded to the Parole Board for assessment? [Interruption.]

The Minister looks quizzical, but that is a question that he needs to answer, because if he has an end-date, he needs a programme to get to it. He needs to assess those 2,400 individuals, see what courses they need to undertake, establish the elements of risk in those cases and determine whether those 2,400 individuals will reach a threshold for release. We accepted in our report that there are those within that 2,400 who might never be released because they may still pose a threat to society. Nevertheless, that is still a time-pathway conclusion that the Minister and his Department can reach on an individual.

My simple plea is this: when and how? If resentencing is required to provide clarity, when will that happen? Ultimately, the key thing that I want from this debate is clarity, and that might mean a long time further in prison or a course to help to release somebody in due course, but clarity is needed.

Finally, I go back to where I started. We should not forget the victim of the original crime, and there should be some discussion and some conclusion as part of these pathways about victim management for those against whom the original crimes were committed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I agree that in the appellant procedure there will often be that check and balance, but this is slightly different. This would be a change in the law and legal framework to alter the position from the one that applied when the offender was sentenced, to the position now. Whether we like it or not that is a departure, and we must be careful to avoid setting inadvertent precedents.

We must be able fully to reflect on the assessment of risk that was made by the learned judge at the time of sentencing. In other words, how does a court properly assess the length of a determinate sentence—that, presumably, is the aim of right hon. and hon. Members—and decide whether or not to take the further step of imposing a life sentence, which might be appropriate in some very serious cases? I do not pretend that these issues are easy, but neither is it a matter that the Government should do nothing about. Other measures we are taking are already yielding significant results, not just in reducing the number of prisoners held under this regime, but by ensuring that more eligible prisoners can be considered as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), Chair of the Justice Committee, mentioned the remarks of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who spoke not just about changing the statutory provision, but about changing the test for release, which is important. I think he would concede that the test for the release of prisoners held under this sort of regime must be as consistent as possible, bearing in mind the different classes of prisoners who are held in custody either on minimum terms or subject to parole.

We must take great care not to create too many different tests that could mean that one group of prisoners could be treated in a different or more favourable way than another group. I do not say that the argument has no merit, but there are difficulties in creating potential inconsistencies. It is beholden on me, both as a lawyer and now in this position of great responsibility, to ensure that the unforeseen consequences that occurred with this policy making do not repeat themselves thanks to any change we may make.

Let me develop the point about the ways we can best support prisoners to show that they can safely be released—that is the solution that stares us in the face regarding so many people in that position. As the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) laid out well, ensuring public protection from violent and sexual crime must be paramount, and our continuing efforts to rehabilitate prisoners subject to this regime are bearing fruit. We have seen a dramatic fall in the IPP prison population over the past years, and the figures cited by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), and others, are correct. It is a dramatic fall, although I accept that there is still a significant cohort, and we must also not forget that a number of IPP prisoners have been recalled—I will come to that in a moment. However, progress is being made in the right direction.

In January 2016, more than three years ago, a joint HM Prison and Probation Service and Parole Board action plan was drawn up to deal with IPPs. Initially it was primarily focused on improving the efficiency of the parole process, because at that time there was a significant backlog in listing oral hearings for IPP and life-sentence prisoners. As a result of receiving additional resources and changing some of its processes, the Parole Board and the public protection casework section of the Ministry of Justice made progress, and their combined effect was to eliminate that backlog. Simply having a more efficient system resulted in a significant improvement to the pace with which IPP prisoners were released. Following those improvements, the plan was expanded to include a greater focus on those prisoners who, even with a much more efficient parole system, needed additional support to reduce their own risk and secure a release decision from the board.

What was done? A central case file review, by senior psychologists, of IPP prisoners who had not made the anticipated progress achieved considerable success. Out of 1,365 completed reviews, 233 prisoners in these most challenging cases achieved release, with a further 401 achieving a progressive move to open conditions. We have put in place enhanced case management for the most complex cases, so that a multidisciplinary team can work together to remove barriers to progression.

The joint IPP action plan has also overseen further improvements to the process and, perhaps most significantly, we have opened three new progression regimes, building on the success and the outstanding reputation of the first such regime, which was established at Warren Hill. Those sites operate a staged regime of increasing freedom and responsibility, allowing evidence to build on offenders’ ability to manage their own risks. The rate of release from a progression regime is higher than the average release rate across all Parole Board hearings, which is something that, I think, all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome.

As comprehensive as the plan and the opportunities it provides to IPP prisoners is, the decision actively to engage with efforts that promote rehabilitation, and so demonstrate that there can be safe release back into the community, must ultimately be for each individual prisoner. In my view, that is why Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service change programme, in delivering a new offender management model, is fundamental, not only for IPP prisoners but for all offenders. With increased staffing, and the introduction of the key worker role in all prisons, staff will be better equipped, and given more time, to work with individuals who may not be engaging in the way they need to do to reduce their risk.

We are aware that some prisoners may well have become demoralised, with no fixed date of release and the prospect of a further parole hearing currently not holding much hope for them. Here, the key worker will need to get alongside the prisoner and build hope from the foundation of a strong relationship, encouraging them to grasp the opportunities that are available.

[David Hanson]

It is not unreasonable to ask at what stage that process will be completed for prisoners currently serving IPP sentences.

[Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman asks that question again, and I take it fairly and squarely. The answer must be that it will be on a case-by-case basis, because each prisoner has an individual story and set of needs, and that does not merit a one-size-fits-all approach. Frankly, the cohort we are now dealing with will probably be the tougher end of the spectrum. I think that the right hon. Gentleman conceded quite properly that there will be a cohort of IPP prisoners who may never be released because of the seriousness of the offences and the risk they still pose—I know he accepts that. Therefore, I cannot give him a figure or a timescale, but I can say that the work that is going on has shown a vast increase in the pace with which we have achieved release and resolution. The model we are now adopting will, I believe, lead to even greater engagement.

As the months go by, the right hon. Gentleman can, of course, hold me to account, and if there is no progress he will rightly ask me the questions and I, independently, will ask civil servants why the initial progress has not been maintained. As a member of the Justice Committee, he will hold me to account for that.

I want to deal with more of the figures we were looking at. We have rightly heard about the overall unreleased IPP population. About 200 of that cohort of 2,400 have yet to serve their minimum tariff. As I said, we have made progress in reducing that population. In 2017-18, the Parole Board progressed to open conditions or released about three out of every four IPP prisoners who appeared before it.

As I was saying, the cohort becomes increasingly challenging, which will require increasingly intensive rehabilitation. Rehabilitating, and assessing the risk presented by, these prisoners, many of whom, sadly, have committed serious sexual offences against children, is particularly challenging. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) opened his remarks by referring to that sort of horrendous offence and the need for public protection. It should be acknowledged that some IPP prisoners may never be released because the risk they pose is just too great for safe management in the community.

We are working to reduce the incidence of self-harm among IPP prisoners as part of our prison safety programme and here, again, the key worker will perform a vital role. Additionally, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is improving the process for people at risk of suicide or self-harm. We have improved prevention training for nearly 25,000 prison staff and have refreshed our partnership with Samaritans for three years, with £1.5 million in funding to support the excellent listeners scheme, through which prisoners are trained to provide support to their fellow prisoners—peer-to-peer support that we all know works in so many settings.

Working to address broader mental health issues in the IPP population remains important. Since last April, we have a new national partnership agreement for prison health. Mental health services are available in all prisons. Turning for a moment to the issue of women IPP prisoners, I am glad to say that they have a dedicated senior psychologist providing a specific progression pathway, and support from a multidisciplinary team to deal with some of the mental health challenges they face.

The commissioning of mental health services by NHS partners is based on a local assessment of health needs, and the services are provided to prisoners on the basis of individual need, which, when we think about it, has to be right. The one-size-fits-all approach does not work, as we know, when it comes to mental health. Independent professionally trained clinicians carry out assessments, and no one is refused access where there is an assessed need. We are well aware that many of those serving IPP sentences experience mental health difficulties, and part of the action plan aims to ensure access to appropriate treatment. An example that I mentioned earlier is the case file reviews carried out by senior psychologists. Alongside those who have been released or moved to open conditions, 54 of those reviewed have been transferred to secure hospitals, where they can receive the best treatment for their needs.

The issue of recall has properly been raised. With regard to the test of recall, it is important to reiterate that it is stringent when it comes to IPP offenders. They can be recalled only when their behaviour and the nature of the licence breach indicate a causal link to their original offending and that the public are at risk of further serious, violent or sexual offending. That is a different, and more stringent, test for recall than that which exists elsewhere in the system.

Work is being done to ensure that recall is properly focused only where it is necessary to protect the public, and efforts are being made to keep offenders on licence in the community wherever possible. Those efforts include the creation of new guidance for probation officers on licence variations of alternatives to recall, and on best practice in the management of offenders on licence, to improve their compliance and prevent the risk from escalating.

A new power to release IPP prisoners on the papers is being used for those on recall. The Parole Board has introduced a quicker, 48-hour turnaround time to consider licence variation requests from probation, to support continued management on licence in the community. We are investigating the rise in the number of IPP prisoners on recall, to see how that rate can safely be reduced and, citing the hon. Member for Ashfield, to get the balance right between the need to protect the public and the need to rehabilitate offenders.

A number of cases were raised with me. I agree that that of Wayne Bell is concerning and I understand that he is now receiving treatment for his mental health issues in an appropriate setting, which is welcome. The troubling case of Tommy Nicol was properly raised. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), met with Donna Mooney, Mr Nicol’s sister, earlier this year. We remain in contact with her at an official and, I very much hope—although I am a new Minister—a ministerial level. We have another meeting with her planned for the autumn. It is a particularly tragic case, but I assure right hon. and hon. Members that we will continue to work with her to address the concerns that she raises with such dignity and clarity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who sadly has been called away, asked about the work led by the University of Southampton. We are very much aware of the work of Professor Harry Annison, who works in partnership with the Prison Reform Trust and has already given us an important insight into the impact on families of their loved ones serving IPP sentences. I am looking forward to seeing the conclusions of the next stage of his work, which is currently being supported by IPP and family leads from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. With regard to the entire IPP population and the action plan, although I am not able specifically to indicate the number currently subject to that action plan, I assure the House that it is having a wide-ranging effect and will continue to be implemented.

I have lived with the IPP regime for much of my professional and political life. I am profoundly grateful to the hon. Member for Slough for having raised this issue today, allowing us to debate it in a calm and considered way that reflects the genuine concerns of the families of people who are subject to that regime, but also understands the enduring and important function that the justice system plays in protecting the public from serious and violent offences. I believe that the best approach is for us to continue our successful efforts to help those offenders rehabilitate, and redouble those efforts whenever necessary and whenever an offender wishes to engage. That will provide the best chance for those prisoners to become once again law-abiding members of the very communities that we are seeking to protect.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Justice Committee and a barrister of long standing at the criminal Bar. He is absolutely right to talk about the test of relevance. It is not the purport of any inquiry ambit or the function of any inquiry chair to adopt a floodgates approach to the disclosure and use of spent convictions. In the other place, the noble Baroness Barran put it very well when she set out to their lordships a flowchart of the way in which a particular decision about the use of spent convictions would be taken. She said:

“The first question is: does the individual have spent convictions, yes or no? If the answer is yes, are they relevant? Will they be treated anonymously? If they apply for anonymity, will that be agreed to? Further, even if it is not anonymous, is the hearing held in private or in public? If it is held in private, could the information then be published?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2019; Vol. 797, c. 1792.]

I thought that that was a clear exposition of the framework within which a decision maker would carry out their function when it comes to spent convictions. In other words, that is the sort of filter that I think meets the concerns not only of Members in the other place but of Members in this House.

I was talking about future inquiries, and was saying it is likely that other inquiries may need to consider spent criminal records, as these can be key to determining whether authorities have acted reasonably in assessing and responding to risk. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 affords offenders protection from having to disclose their convictions and cautions, once those convictions and cautions have become what is termed “spent” under the Act. That is the point at which the offender has become rehabilitated. The exceptions order to that Act lists activities or categories of jobs where those protections are lifted so that offenders, if asked, need to disclose their spent convictions.

The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs—positions of public trust, for example, or those involving unsupervised work with children—where more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may be appropriate to mitigate risks to public safety. The exceptions order is not limited to employment purposes, although that is its primary use. The amendment proposed here is not employment-related, but related only to the consideration of evidence of spent convictions and cautions in inquiries that are caused to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Justice Committee has produced a report that recommends “banning the box”, to deal with the issue of spent convictions, and the Government gave a very positive response. There may be occasions when there is a crossover between an individual who might apply for a job in the public sector and somebody who is covered by an inquiry. I just want to get the Minister’s take on that particular point.

[Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very proper point, and I can assure him that the work that his Committee has done and the campaign to ban the box are matters that I and my colleagues in the Department are considering very carefully indeed. I will chart the changes that we have already made to the 1974 Act and the direction of travel later in my remarks, but I would say to him for that in the flowchart that I have outlined, the sort of concerns that he properly raises about an individual’s employment prospects could be raised in the inquiry before the Chair, when the Chair decides whether to publish the information or to retain anonymity. So there will be safeguards designed to protect against the sort of mischief that he properly probes me about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I am pleased to hear about that example at Anglia Ruskin University. Our litigants in person strategy is a very important part of what we do. We have been spending £1.5 million a year hitherto. As part of the legal support action plan, we will improve that to £3 million a year and work with judges to ensure that all litigants in person are supported during the court process.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

20. I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to a review of domestic violence and potential damage to children in courts, but can he look particularly at the recommendation of the Children’s Commissioner that no child should go into court without legal support?

[Paul Maynard]

I am sure we were all shocked by the example raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). My first decision was to ensure that the inquiry panel was established, and it will look carefully at what the Children’s Commissioner has to say. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that children should always be at the heart of the decision-making process in the courts, and I will look carefully at what the Children’s Commissioner has said.

Prisons and Probation

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

There is an important debate to be had about the involvement of the private sector and the voluntary sector in our justice system. It is right that we ask ourselves: how do we provide high-quality public services? How do we encourage innovation in order to raise standards? And how do we deliver the best possible value for money for the taxpayer? In answering these questions, there will always be debates about whether the private sector or the voluntary sector does too much or too little: do we make use of these sectors in the right way? Do we have the right incentives? And do we have the right supervision? In reaching a fair-minded conclusion, we should approach the evidence in a fair-minded way, looking at good and bad examples, and acknowledging where things work well and where they do not.

I have to say that such a balanced approach was entirely lacking in the speech we have just heard from the shadow Secretary of State. In a fairly lengthy speech, he had time to address this in a proper, balanced way. Instead, what we heard was simplistic, dogmatic and bombastic. The only thing anyone on this side of the House will remember about his speech is his abiding hostility to the private sector. Mind you, at least we will remember something from his speech, which, given his reputation, is more than he will ever do.

On prisons, the hon. Gentleman repeatedly made reference to the difficulties with HMP Birmingham. There is no doubt—I acknowledge this—that Birmingham was a failing prison and the standards at the time of the inspection were unacceptable. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service had been working closely with G4S to try to resolve the issues, but it became increasingly clear that G4S alone was not able to make the improvements that were so badly needed. That is why we took the decision to step in, doing so at no additional cost to the taxpayer. It was right that we did that. The point I want to make is that where we believe it is right to step in and where we believe the private sector is not the right answer, we will step in.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State just tell the House why it took an inspection by the prisons inspector to discover that G4S was failing in Birmingham and why this did not come from his own Department?

[Mr Gauke]

HMPPS did have concerns about how Birmingham was operating and the way it was working, and HMPPS was working closely with G4S to try to address this. It became clear, when the inspection was undertaken, that we were required to go further and that the level of intervention we had previously put in was insufficient. That is why we took the steps we did. We stepped in, putting one of our best prison service governors in charge, alongside a strong senior management team and 30 additional experienced staff. I would like to thank all of them for their hard work since we took that decision to turn around a complex and challenging establishment.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Listening to the Justice Secretary is always a pleasure. He was calm and reflective and is committed to trying to improve services, but he knows that that calmness and reflectiveness hide the shambles of the past six and a half years since his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), took the decision to split the probation service, separating serious offenders and low-level offenders, and to ensure that contracts were given to organisations that evidently—as found by the National Audit Office, HM inspectorate of probation, the Secretary of State’s own Department, the Justice Committee and everybody who has looked at the issue—have not performed to the standards that the Secretary of State would expect or in the way he would expect to protect the public at large.

Let us forget the Secretary of State’s calm demeanour. He knows that his Government have presided over a complete shambles and he will now do his best to make the best of that bad job and to repair the damage.

My points are reflected in what has been said by the National Audit Office and the chief inspector of probation. We know that in 2013 the Ministry of Justice embarked on a reform of probation services and split serious offenders from the national probation service while establishing community rehabilitation companies, which, halfway through their term of office, proved to be costing the taxpayer resources because of their inefficiencies, to be increasing the overall percentage of reoffences per offender by 22%, and to be underperforming. Yes, there was an overall 2.5 percentage point reduction in the proportion of reoffenders compared with 2011; the Government had a target of 3.5%, so the CRCs underperformed against the Government’s own targets.

The National Audit Office has had the opportunity to consider this matter and has said quite clearly that there was “patchy” involvement with the third sector, one of the Government’s major objectives. There was

“limited innovation and a lack of progress transforming probation services”,

another of the Government’s key objectives. There were

“significant increases in the number of people being recalled to prison”,

because supervision in the community was failing them. My constituents and others were being impacted by that through higher offences in their area. The NAO found

“ineffective Through the Gate…services to support transition from prison to the community”.

That was a key element for the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who should really be answering the debate today to be held accountable for the position in which he has put the Justice Secretary. The objectives set by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell have not been met.

My colleagues from the Justice Committee—including my friend the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and others—are in the Chamber today. We did a full report on the state of affairs with CRCs and probation, and we—not Labour Members of Parliament, not former Ministers such as me, but a cross-party Committee—have come to the conclusion that it was a mistake to introduce the transforming rehabilitation reforms without a pilot. We agree that there was a significant overestimation of the ability of CRCs to reduce their costs to match any fall in income when the contracts were agreed. We agreed fully that we were unconvinced that splitting offenders by risk was the right way to split the probation system. We agreed on a cross-party basis that the transforming rehabilitation changes weakened local partnership and local accountability, so there was less joined-up working and collaboration at a local level. These things all matter because it is about preventing crime. It is about turning people’s lives around when they have been in prison and need support in the community.

The Government have not yet accounted for the cost of that failure or for their performance, and they have not explained why bad decisions were made by Ministers, who rushed through proposals without due consideration. The Secretary of State can by all means do a calm, professional job—I tip my professional Member of Parliament hat to him—but he is presiding over his predecessors’ failure, and he has the job of making improvements.

At this morning’s Justice Committee I asked the chief inspector of probation, “Did the changes make the position worse?” She said, having been pressed a couple of times, “Yes, they did.” The Government need to account for that failure. We had 110 years of a probation service that took pride in its staff, with high morale. It delivered an effective service, but within the space of six years, the Government have put people at risk, split the service and reduced competence. We have not had an effective service, which has been shaken up, and it is now having to rebuild.

How does it do that? There is a model in Wales, where the probation service has been brought back together as a public service. I would like to see a justification not for why that has been done but for why it has not been done elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Government are undertaking a consultation—again, in a calm, collected, professional way, the Minister is batting that ball and taking those hits—and the outcome should be clear: the probation service performed better when it was a unified body, working with serious and lower-risk offenders, and when it had good rehabilitation services, including community payback services, under its wing. Yes, it can contract out some of those services to the private sector—a drug charity might provide a good drug rehabilitation service; a local workplace scheme might best be provided by a local charity or a voluntary organisation. When I took the Offender Management Bill through the House of Commons in 2007, that was the private and voluntary sector involvement that we sought. It was not about splitting the service.

I simply say to the Minister, because I am coming to the end of my eight minutes, that I want to know who is accountable for this mess. If the Secretary of State stands up and says, “My predecessors”, that will help. I want to know what has been the consistent impact of this mess. There is a whole range of things that he and I know have gone wrong, and there are services that he and I know are not performing. It is his job to come clean and say those things in a professional way.

What happens next? I do not have time to talk about prisons, but I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) in the belief that we should bring the probation service back into the public sector to meet the needs of our constituents, reduce crime, and turn offenders’ lives around. I welcome the new Prisons Minister, who will respond to the debate. He should stand up and say, “I have looked at this. I have been in office for two or three days. I have come to the conclusion that my predecessors left an unholy mess, and I commit to bring the service back into the public sector.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

We now have 4,300 additional prison officers, which is the highest level since 2012.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

What about 2010?

[Rory Stewart]

We have fewer officers than in 2010. There was a reduction from 2010 to 2012, but we have now turned that around, with the 4,300 extra officers, meaning we can now roll out the key worker programme, which is central, as it means we have the ratios we need to have one prison officer allied with four prisoners to make sure we deliver the work on rehabilitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

The big change that has been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to ensure that education in prison is linked to employment. This involves talking to the local job market, ensuring that we provide the skills that match that market and, above all, ensuring that we have safe, decent prisons so that we can remove the prisoners from their cells and into work and education so that we can get them into jobs. That reduces reoffending by an average of 7%.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T8. How are we getting on with securing the 26 prisoner transfer agreements that are currently in place with the European Union to ensure that they are in place at the end of this year?

[Rory Stewart]

I am delighted that Labour Members are working with us to try to get a good Brexit deal in place, and if we can get such a deal, we will be able to continue through the transition period. In a no-deal situation, however, it will become significantly more difficult because we will have to fall back on older and more cumbersome ways of moving prisoners. That would not be good for us or for Europe.

Disclosure of Youth Criminal Records

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I begin by thanking the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—he is my hon. Friend in this circumstance—not only for his chairing, but for his contribution today. We work as a very strong team on the Justice Committee, and it is good to focus on key issues. I am sure the Minister will respond to them in a positive way in due course. I also thank those who contributed with oral or written evidence or who were involved in the informal seminar, as has been mentioned, where we met people who had committed offences that had impacted on their lives for a considerable period in terms of employment, housing and other services.

I want to focus on one simple issue: employment, which is central because work is one of the key planks for preventing reoffending. There are key issues to do with housing, drug and alcohol rehabilitation and maturity, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, but ultimately the ability to get and keep work, to have self-worth in doing that work, and to progress through work, is critical.

We focus in the report on training, employment and through-the-gate services, including prison and youth offender institution training and community rehabilitation companies in adult prisons and elsewhere. Those are critical in helping people to get into work, but whatever the system does with that training, someone ultimately has to get a job with a public sector body or an employer. When an individual goes before a public sector body or employer, it might see that they have a criminal conviction that may be 10, 15 or 20 years old, and an initial value judgment may be made on that basis. That will stop someone accessing employment. Whether it is earlier or later in their life, that may lead to reoffending or stop them contributing in a way that is important to society as a whole.

The key question that I will focus on is one that a number of Members have touched on: banning the box. The Disclosure and Barring Service, which we have discussed, is important in relation to a series of jobs, but it does not relate to all jobs. Ban the Box is a simple idea that could, if adopted through Government and the private sector, help to ensure that we gave people an opportunity to show what they were worth prior to judging them for what they may have done 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

The simple idea, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) mentioned, is that disclosure happens after the job interview and job offer. The right to refuse is still there, but the judgments are made on the merits of the application and the individual in front of the employer—not on a conviction that may have happened some years ago. In his review, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham emphasised the difficulties that BME individuals face, because those who have convictions will also encounter other prejudices. It is important that we tackle those head on and up front.

Ban the Box is an initiative of Business in the Community, which is a branch of the Prince’s Trust. It had the support of the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, in February 2016, and was taken forward by the current Prime Minister. It has had significant success with, according to my latest figures, 120 employers signing up and some 828,000 roles being taken forward. Many private sector companies, such as Adnams Brewery, Barclays Bank, Boots, Cambridge University Press and Fujitsu, as well as Bristol City Council and Nacro, have taken people on, and operate the Ban the Box scheme to ensure that they do not discriminate at the point of application and interview of individuals.

We made key recommendations in conclusions 1 and 2 of the report. As my hon. Friends mentioned earlier, we agreed

“with the recommendation of the 2015 Parliament Work and Pensions Committee that Ban the Box, which applies to all criminal records, should be extended to all public sector vacancies, and that the Government consider making it a mandatory requirement for all employers.”

That is important, because we identified in conclusion 1 that

“the laudable principles of the youth justice system, to prevent offending by children and young people and to have regard to their welfare, are undermined by the system for disclosure of youth criminal records”

and by discriminatory practices that stop people getting employment, and which banning the box will address.

Those are the key recommendations. I have four or five fairly straightforward questions, which will give us an indication of the Minister’s thinking, and of whether the Government’s response and rhetoric match the aspirations that they have set themselves—it is important that they do. The first is simply this: how many employers do the Government believe to be operating a Ban the Box principle for their employment practices? Does the Minister keep a record of, or have access to, the number of employers who have that scheme in place? What is he doing to ensure that we expand and progress the scheme? What initiatives has he taken, or does he have planned, with major trade organisations, the CBI, perhaps the Trades Union Congress, businesses, the British Retail Consortium and a range of agencies to promote the idea of banning the box?

The Government’s response to the Committee helpfully said:

“The Ministry of Justice…will continue to explore options for promoting Ban the Box across both the public and private sectors, primarily by ensuring we lead by example.”

When I held a ministerial job, I may well have signed off such words, but I am interested in what they mean in practice. What initiatives are planned? What effort has gone in? Is it something that the Government have said in response to the Committee, and perhaps even—dare I say it?—to get through a debate such as today’s, but will file away tomorrow and not worry about? What is the plan for the future on those issues?

Great play was made in the response that in

“early 2018, we will publish an employment and education plan”

to promote Ban the Box. Early 2018 is a year ago. What has happened in the past 12 months? What progress has been made in Government? Does the Minister know? Could he tell me—not today, but perhaps in writing afterwards—how many of the Departments before us in this great House of Commons operate Ban the Box principles? Do any not operate those principles?

Government is not just the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Departments; it is also health trusts, health boards, arts councils and a plethora of quangos. Has that been pushed by the Minister? Has he brought together the chairs of quangos to ask what they are doing about Ban the Box, and whether they have extended it to their organisations?

What about local government? That is a big issue and part of the public sector. The Government have said that they will look to encourage the public sector to ensure that Ban the Box is adopted. What has the Minister done to encourage local councils to undertake that policy? The issue of procurement was also mentioned. The Government remain the biggest spender in the private sector across the country, commissioning builders, construction firms and purchasers. Have they checked with their suppliers about banning the box?

The simplest thing of all may be just be to make this mandatory. Then the Minister would not have to worry about extending it, and trying to push it forward and promote it—he would simply have to find a mechanism to check those who do not do it. If discriminatory practice emerges, the possibility of its being an offence could be explored, or at least the possibility of naming and shaming. As we recommended in our report, that might be the simplest way to make it a mandatory requirement for employers. I am interested, in a helpful way, in the progress the Minister has made, and what other progress there will be. Does he accept that it should be a mandatory requirement for employers as a whole?

I was asked by the Welsh Government last summer to undertake a review of prison, education and employment issues centrally. I undertook that review during the latter part of last year. The review was submitted to the Welsh Government in October of last year, and they helpfully published it last Thursday. One of the recommendations in my review of the Welsh Government’s responsibilities was that they should support the Ban the Box campaign in their own operation, procurement proposals and suppliers. I hope they will do that in Wales as a whole in response to my recommendations.

That review was commissioned by Baroness Morgan of Ely, an Assembly Member and Minister in the Welsh Government. It is now being taken forward by Kirsty Williams, who is also a member of the Welsh Government. I am very hopeful that my recommendations on Ban the Box will be adopted by the devolved Administration. However, the Minister has responsibility within the prison system and the youth justice system in England and Wales. Has he discussed that with his colleagues in Scotland, or with officials in Northern Ireland pending the resumption of the Assembly? Can we get a co-ordinated response across the United Kingdom on this issue?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, the Chair of the Justice Committee and the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) have all pointed out, this is about people’s lives. We have an opportunity to make people’s lives better by judging them not on the offences that they have committed, but on the people they are and the skills they bring when they apply for the job.

[Sir David Amess in the Chair]

Welcome to the Chair, Sir David. You may have a shorter stint than you imagined, but I am sure it will be a productive and helpful one.

The key thing is the important Ban the Box recommendation, which is based on evidence and has cross-party support. I hope the Minister will respond to my questions by giving an indication of how the Government will take matters forward in a positive way.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as ever, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, for securing a debate on an important report. I pay tribute to all the Members who have spoken today and, indeed, all members of his Committee for their work. It is a pleasure as always to serve opposite the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I know and welcome her commitment to this area of work, and to working collaboratively and in a bipartisan way when we have a common goal to achieve.

The Chairman of the Select Committee and many others present today have worked hard to champion the potential of children who offend, and their capability to move on from their previous behaviour to live rich and fulfilled lives—and, indeed, to make our shared commitment to rehabilitation a reality. My hon. Friend is right to say that although the issue is technical and legal, it is about more than that. It affects real lives and, as hon. Members have said, continues to affect them for years after the offence is committed. We are grateful for the Committee’s recommendations.

My hon. Friend set out with his typical eloquence and polite forcefulness how the system operates and what he feels does not work well. As hon. Members have said, at the heart of the debate there is a question of balance—striking the appropriate balance, as the shadow Minister said, between protecting the public and giving young people the opportunity for rehabilitation and to have a second chance and a future.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice recently set out his vision for a criminal justice system and the principles that should be at its heart. I am clear that the criminal justice system must have multiple aims—to deter, to ensure that there is both punishment and rehabilitation, and to protect society from crime. That means the system must be proportionate and, in the case of disclosures, relevant to those objectives. My right hon. Friend set out the need to move away from debates about soft or hard justice, and to think instead about smart justice that achieves what we would all want for society. That means knowing that, alongside appropriate safeguarding measures for children and vulnerable people, employment for those who have previously offended can support public protection. There are, as the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) said, few better tools for reducing reoffending than a regular pay cheque. We have made it clear that we want more employers to look past someone’s offending history and see their future potential, and I believe that rehabilitating people and getting them into employment is the best outcome for us all.

On taking office in 2016, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a pledge that the Government would fight against social injustice and give people back control of their lives. She set out a vision whereby all British citizens could go as far as their talents took them. Nothing should hinder that, and it should also apply to children who commit crimes or make an error. This must be reflected in the disclosure of criminal records.

I agree with the core position laid out by the Committee: employers should not regard the disclosure of a criminal record as an automatic barrier to employment. A balanced judgment should be exercised, having regard to factors such as a person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago it was, and the relevance to the application or post in question. The Committee’s report goes beyond this and rightly highlights the need for proportionality, clarity and fairness, as well as seeking to ensure that the systems designed to protect the public and facilitate rehabilitation keep up to date with the reality of the modern world.

The Secretary of State for Justice has already identified that one of the best ways to help those who have offended to get meaningful employment is by working more closely with employers and expounding the benefits of hiring those with criminal convictions. That is why—to address one of the key themes in hon. Members’ speeches—I am happy to see the Government leading by example by rolling out Ban the Box across the civil service in 2016 and continuing to encourage its implementation across both the public and private sectors.

Whenever I see the right hon. Member for Delyn in a debate that I am speaking in, my heart both rises and sinks. It rises because he brings great expertise and knowledge of this subject; it sinks possibly for exactly the same reason, as I know he will ask me various challenging questions. He asked a number of questions, and I will try to answer some of them—if I do not answer them all, I will happily commit to write to him next week with detailed answers.

[David Hanson]

I am glad to see I serve some purpose, if there is anything wrong with the Minister’s heart—rise and/or sink, depending on his mood. He just mentioned the roll-out across Government, and it is important that he puts on record, either now or by letter, whether any Department is not operating Ban the Box.

[Edward Argar]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not aware of any Department not doing it. There may be some roles, perhaps in the policing or security aspects of Government, where there might be more complex considerations. I undertake to write to him with a clarification on that in due course, when I will answer a number of his other questions.