Prisons: Violence

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, of course, any outbreak of violence, wherever it takes place, is concerning. The noble Lord referred particularly to Medway and Rainsbrook. On Medway, I hope to be able to update the House shortly, following the inquiry into how Medway Secure Training Centre had been run in the wake of the “Panorama” programme.

In the Statement, I said that there was no single solution. It is significant that there is violence in all sorts and types of prisons, so one must beware of thinking that there is one particular solution. I take the noble Lord’s point about the very useful and seminal report prepared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, following the Strangeways riots in Manchester, which provided a lot of guidance to prison management in future. We will learn from that and from all these events. As the noble Lord will be aware, reports are shortly to be published on education and mental health in prisons. All that will help to inform the substantial reform that I mentioned, and we hope that that will contribute to stamping out the violence.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, there are two aspects that are matters of concern. One was mentioned in the Statement: the use of psychoactive drugs and the extent to which that could destabilise the control of discipline in prisons. The Minister has not mentioned the other one, though, so I wonder if he could throw some light on the extensive use of severe and harsh sentences. They are one of the causes of overcrowding, which ultimately results in the type of violence that we saw in Wormwood Scrubs.

[Lord Faulks]

The question of sentences is difficult. As the noble Lord will know, the choice of sentence is a matter for the judge in the individual case and generally will reflect the severity of the offences that have been committed. From time to time Parliament will intervene—notoriously, for example, with IPP prisoners—and set certain parameters within which judges have to sentence certain offenders. The fact is that there is currently a higher cohort of violent offenders in prison than there has been for some considerable time. Together with the substantial difficulty caused by psychoactive substances, that contributes to the problem of violence in prisons. It is important not to generalise too much about sentences. A sentence should be long enough to reflect the seriousness of the offence but short enough to give the offender a chance to rehabilitate and give them some hope. In due course, through the work that we are doing on rehabilitation, we hope to ensure that when people leave prison they do not return, because of course the biggest increase in prison sentences is for those coming back again through the prison door.

Prisons: Violence

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

On the positive side, the female prison population is now under 4,000—the lowest it has ever been. In the speech I referred to earlier, the Prime Minister made a particular point of the importance of finding alternative ways of dealing with women offenders, preferably avoiding sending them to prison altogether, which has been very much the trend with sentencing. Of course, there will be an irreducible number who have to be sent to prison. Although the noble Baroness is quite right that any suicide in prison is a matter of complete regret, and self-harm is equally concerning, we are in the process of modernising the prison estate to ensure that there are the best regimes and that women are held in environments that better meet their gender-specific needs.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister must have read the report in 2015 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons—a devastating report that talks about violence and poor conditions in our prisons. The most disturbing aspect of the report and the allegation made by the then Chief Inspector, Nick Hardwick was that the Secretary of State tried to influence his report. Will the Minister make sure that that sort of thing does not happen in future? Public confidence will be eroded if independent reports by prison inspectors are interfered with by Ministers.

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord is right to suggest that the report by Mr Hardwick was unfavourable in a number of respects. The Government will learn lessons from what he said. It is important that we should take on board an objective analysis of that. It is perhaps an indication of the Secretary of State’s willingness to embrace criticism that he has appointed Mr Hardwick to have continued involvement in the criminal justice system, by his appointment as chair of the Parole Board. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that is a real sign of somebody getting to grips with a critical friend of the system.

Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL]

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dholakia]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, my Bill is designed to raise this country’s unusually low age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. At present in England and Wales, children are deemed to be criminally response from the age of 10. This means that children who are too young to attend secondary school can be prosecuted and receive a criminal record. A 10 year-old who commits a grave crime—which includes serious violent and sexual crimes but can also include burglary—will be tried in the adult Crown Court. A child of 10 or 11 who is accused with an adult will also be tried in the Crown Court.

At 10 years old, the age of criminal responsibility in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is the lowest in Europe. In Ireland in 2006, the age was raised to 12, with exceptions for homicide, rape or aggravated sexual assault. The Minister will be aware from his experience that in Scotland in 2010 legislation provided that children cannot be prosecuted below the age of 12. Outside the British Isles, the age of criminal responsibility is invariably higher. In France, Greece and Poland it is 13. In Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania it is 14. In the rest of Europe, it ranges between 14 and 18.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly stated that our minimum age of criminal responsibility is not compatible with our obligations under international standards on juvenile justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In a statement in 1997, the committee said:

“States parties are encouraged to increase their lower minimum age of criminal responsibility to the age of 12 years as the absolute minimum age and to continue to increase it to a higher age level”.

Taking 10 and 11 year-olds out of the criminal justice system would not mean doing nothing with children who offend. It would mean doing what other countries do with 10 and 11 year-old offenders. It would mean doing what we do with delinquent nine year-olds—in other words, it would mean dealing with the causes of these children’s offending through intervention by children’s services teams. In the minority of cases where court proceedings are necessary, it would mean bringing children before family proceedings courts, which can impose compulsory measures of supervision and care. In the most serious cases, it could mean long-term detention in secure accommodation, but this would be arranged as part of care proceedings rather than as a custodial punishment imposed in criminal proceedings.

Those who oppose increasing the age of criminal responsibility often argue that children of 10 and 11 are capable of telling right from wrong, as though it automatically follows that they should therefore be dealt with in criminal courts. That does not logically follow at all. Most six year-olds have a sense of right and wrong but no one suggests that they should be subject to criminal prosecution. The point was made very well in 2012 in a report from the Centre for Social Justice, which was set up by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith. In 2012 the centre produced a report on the youth justice system entitled Rules of Engagement: Changing the Heart of Youth Justice. It said:

“There is now a significant body of research evidence indicating that early adolescence (under 13-14 years of age) is a period of marked neurodevelopmental immaturity, during which children’s capacity is not equivalent to that of an older adolescent or adult. Such findings cast doubt on the culpability and competency of early adolescents to participate in the criminal process and this raises the question of whether the current”,

minimum age of criminal responsibility,

“at 10 is appropriate”.

The evidence from international research is overwhelming, showing that children of 10 and 11 have less ability to think through the consequences of their actions, empathise with other people’s feelings and control impulsive behaviour. This does not mean that children aged 10 or 11 are not responsible for their actions, but that on any reasonable interpretation of the evidence they must be regarded as less responsible than an older adolescent or an adult. It cannot be right to deal with such young children in a criminal process based on ideas of culpability that assume a capacity for mature, adult-like decision-making.

In all other areas of law, whether it is the age for buying a pet, the age for paid employment, the age of consent to sexual activity or the age of smoking and drinking, children are not regarded as fully competent to take informed decisions until later in adolescence. The age of criminal responsibility is an anomalous exception. Ironically, a 30 year-old who had a mental age of a 10 year-old child would probably be regarded as unfit to plead and yet, by a strange twist of logic, a child of 10 is seen as capable of participating in the criminal justice process. I simply cannot accept that.

It is sometimes argued that there is no need to raise the age of criminal responsibility because the number of 10 and 11 year-olds who receive a youth justice disposal is small. “Small” is not necessarily the right argument. We are talking about normally fewer than 300 a year who are prosecuted and sentenced in court. Even though this represents a small proportion of those going through the criminal justice system, what happens to up to 300 vulnerable children can hardly be regarded as a matter of little importance. The fact that the numbers involved are relatively small is a strong argument for the Bill; it means that it would not be a huge burden in terms of resources to make alternative provision through welfare interventions and, where necessary, family court proceedings for the children who would otherwise have been charged and prosecuted.

Nor can it be argued that dealing with these children through non-criminal processes would put the public at risk. On the contrary, dealing with 10 and 11 year-old children through non-criminal procedures would be more effective than using the criminal justice process. The evidence shows that children who are dealt with through the criminal justice process are more likely to reoffend than those who are diverted from the criminal justice system and dealt with in other ways. Children who are officially labelled as offenders often react by trying to live up to the label and acting in increasingly delinquent ways to achieve status in front of their friends. Again I quote the Centre for Social Justice report, which says that,

“raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility would achieve important changes. Young children would not be tarred with the stigmatising ‘offender’ label which the evidence shows can exacerbate delinquency and would more likely have their victim status and welfare needs addressed, which the evidence suggests are currently often neglected”.

This is a particularly important point, as children who go through the criminal justice process at a young age are often young people from chaotic, dysfunctional and traumatic backgrounds involving a combination of poor parenting, physical or sexual abuse, conflict within families, substance abuse or mental health problems. The prospects for diverting the child from offending will be far better if these problems are tackled through welfare interventions than by imposing punishments in a criminal court. A welfare approach would avoid unnecessarily giving children a criminal record, which can make it harder for them to gain employment when they reach working age. As unemployment increases the chances of reoffending, this is another way in which criminalising children can increase rather than reduce the likelihood of future crime.

Of the 10 and 11 year-olds who are charged and prosecuted each year, very few receive a custodial sentence, and in some years none do. However, although the number of serious child offenders is small, the public will of course want to be assured that raising the age of criminal responsibility will not increase the risk from these young people.

Some people who generally support raising the age of criminal responsibility argue that an exception should be made for the most extreme cases, such as homicide or serious sexual offences. I am willing to consider this point in Committee but my inclination at this stage is to resist making exceptions. The most serious child offenders invariably have the most complex welfare needs. Their backgrounds include experiences of serious physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect, parental mental illness, rejection and abandonment by adults, traumatic loss, conduct disorder and serious emotional disturbance. They need a welfare-based approach, in secure care if necessary, to help them to face their unresolved trauma, to develop and mature emotionally, to reach an appropriate sense of guilt and to learn to control their emotional and aggressive impulses.

Noble Lords will recall the trial of the boys who killed James Bulger, who were aged 10 at the time of the killing and 11 when they were tried. Most foreign commentators were amazed that children of that age should be dealt with by a trial in an adult Crown Court. They questioned whether such young children could really understand the complexities of a lengthy criminal prosecution and trial, whether they should have appeared in the full glare of media coverage, whether they understood all the issues and language of the trial, whether they could give sensible instructions to their lawyers and whether their decision not to give evidence was simply because they were frightened of speaking in such a setting.

Exposing such young children to a criminal trial is no way to achieve justice. Moreover, the case took nine months to come to trial, during which time the defendants received no treatment or therapeutic help in case it prejudiced their pleas. That is a completely unacceptable way to deal with young defendants and one which would be unthinkable anywhere else in Europe. It should be equally unthinkable here. The two boys should have been dealt with in family proceedings and detained in secure accommodation, without all the ill effects which resulted from a public Crown Court trial.

I commend the Bill to the House. The simple proposition that it contains, if enacted, would be an important step towards dealing with vulnerable, difficult and disturbed children in a way that befitted our civilised society. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his contribution to the debate and for the observations that he has made. I am of course disappointed that the Government are not prepared to support this very simple measure. I do not wish to take any longer than necessary; many noble Lords have given up considerable time to be present here on a Friday afternoon, so I shall be very brief. I just want to make one or two points.

The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was absolutely right when he said that we are a civilised society, but we must also accept that in any civilised society, from time to time, there will be heinous and serious crimes and it is how we deal with such crimes that determines how civilised we are. In this respect, if there is one message I would like the Minister to take to the Secretary of State, it is that this time I have the church on my side: God is speaking on my behalf as well, so I hope there will be change at some stage.

My second point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I appreciate what my friend and colleague the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said: the Labour Party is reviewing this policy and it remains for its membership to influence it and say that there is substance in the arguments that have been put forward.

Let me give the Minister an example. Under the coalition Government, I persisted in bringing forward my Bill on the rehabilitation of offenders. My purpose was very simple. Welfare and rehabilitation go hand in hand on this sort of issue. I was able, with the support of the House of Lords, to discuss it on a number of occasions, but I did not get any support from either the Labour Party or, later, from the coalition. However, I was able to convince my noble friend Lord McNally to fix a meeting with the Secretary of State at that time, Ken Clarke. Together, we sat down and we were able to take forward, under the LAPSO Bill, a number of suggestions that came from my Bill. According to private research that has been carried out, the simple measure to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act that I proposed now benefits more than 750,000 young people in this country. That is a tremendous strength that has come from legislation of this nature. We are not saying that people should not be dealt with or that people’s perception that youngsters will get away is wrong. All we are saying is that there are better ways of dealing with them and I hope we can pursue them.

At this late hour, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Sometimes the Government should remember that they assume wrongly that the public are as punitive as they tend to make out. They are not. It is better not to follow newspaper headlines but to see what is right and appropriate as far as the criminal justice system is concerned.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Prison Reform

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for his excellent contribution and I declare an interest as president of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.

Although the Secretary of State is right to be shocked by the conditions that he has found in many of our prisons, purposeful activity is currently at the lowest ever level recorded. There are fewer staff looking after more prisoners than five years ago—nearly 14,000 fewer staff looking after around 1,200 more prisoners. Assaults in custody are at the highest ever level. The number of deaths in custody is also at the highest ever level. The reality is that, at the end of September 2015, 70 of the 117 prisons in England and Wales were holding more prisoners than they were built for. Furthermore, 45% of adult prisoners and nearly 70% of juvenile prisoners are reconvicted within a year of leaving custody.

I welcome Mr Gove’s plan to close all decaying prisons and replace them with newly built establishments. I also welcome his plan to review prison education, to monitor educational outcomes more rigorously and to make governors more accountable for those outcomes. But we need to tackle the root cause of the problem—namely, this country’s overuse of imprisonment.

Too many offenders are still sent to custody for short sentences, which was a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. They are released after no more than a few months in custody. That serves very little purpose. These sentences are far too short for sustained rehabilitation programmes but long enough for offenders to lose their jobs and homes, which makes them more likely to reoffend. The syndrome of the revolving door process continues. They could be better dealt with through community orders. Research confirms that community orders have a reoffending rate which is seven percentage points lower than that for similar offenders given short prison sentences.

The penal system has had to face significant spending cuts over the past few years. When resources are so stretched, we need to make sure that we are using them in the best possible way. In my view, the Government should legislate to make sentencing guidelines take account of the capacity of the prison system. This proposal is not new. It was first made in the Carter report on the prison system in 2007, and it still makes sense. At a time when all other areas of public services have to work within the reality of limited resources, there is no reason why the courts should be exempt. Sentencing guidelines should scale down the number and length of prison sentences except for the most serious crimes.

We should also convert the sentences of the many IPP prisoners who remain in our prisons by converting them to determinate sentences once they have served a period equivalent to double their tariff, an issue that has been discussed in previous debates. In essence, we should look to our judiciary to ensure that the courts send to prison only those whose offending makes any other course of action unacceptable, but more importantly to ensure that those who are sent to prison do not stay there for any longer than is strictly necessary.

We also need a clearer strategy to reduce the use of imprisonment for women. Proposals have been made in the past to establish a women’s justice board to set improved standards for women’s community sentences, resettlement and rehabilitation, mental health services, family contact and culturally appropriate support for foreign national women in our prisons. A restorative justice approach can provide an appropriate alternative to custodial sentencing.

The Secretary of State for Justice has made an excellent start by challenging punitive thinking. He must now follow that up by taking determined steps to move this country away from the unenviable position of having the highest prison population in western Europe. We need a prison system that can genuinely protect the public by rehabilitating offenders and reducing reoffending. He can make a start by supporting my Private Member’s Bill, which will have its Second Reading next Friday, which seeks to raise the age of criminal responsibility.

Prisons: Young People

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate and to lend my support to the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and his team.

This is an outstanding report dealing with self-inflicted deaths of young people in custody. Like many serious and persistent young offenders, the young people concerned—as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, identified—often had a combination of problems and experiences such as physical or sexual abuse, family conflict, parental neglect, traumatic loss, exclusion from schools, drugs or alcohol misuse or mental health problems. I have highlighted these factors in previous debates; almost all the research that I have studied points to these factors, so I am saying nothing new. However, how we deal with such issues has a direct impact on the criminal justice system.

I declare an interest. I am president of Nacro, formerly the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. Its mission is to positively change lives, strengthen communities, enhance social inclusion, reduce crime and prevent new offending behaviour. All available evidence points to the fact that young adults require a distinct approach that takes into account their unique needs and vulnerabilities. The current strategy is grossly inadequate; for example, there is no specific system-wide provision for young adults, and the lack of provision for young women and minority-ethnic young adults is even more evident.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, rightly argued that tackling this problem requires a wide-ranging strategy, an approach I fully endorse. We need to ensure that vulnerable young people are diverted from the criminal justice system wherever possible, that custody is used for young offenders only when absolutely essential, and that custodial regimes can provide young people with care, support and rehabilitation that takes the particular needs of this age group into account.

The Government should adopt the same approach for young adult offenders aged 18 to 24 as that for under-18s, which has produced a significant fall in the number of juvenile offenders in custody in recent years. This is not science; it is common sense. For example, the Sentencing Council could be asked to produce a set of overarching principles for sentencing young adults, similar to the old Sentencing Guidelines Council’s principles for sentencing juveniles, which helped to create a climate in which significantly fewer juveniles were sentenced to custody. Measures such as the restorative caution and the referral order, which have worked well for juvenile offenders, could be extended to young adults. The Government could set targets for reducing first-time entrants to the young adult criminal justice system, similar to those which helped to increase the diversion of juveniles from the youth justice process. They could also set targets to reduce the number of young adults entering custody, as the Youth Justice Board did for juveniles. The intensive alternative to custody sentence for young adults, which was successfully piloted a few years ago in Manchester, could be introduced nationwide.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, chairman of the Youth Justice Board, should take credit. The Youth Justice Board is one of the few success stories in the criminal justice field. He will not thank me, but let us work to increase his workload by ensuring that these nationwide objectives are also implemented for young adults. Unless we take measures of this kind, it will be very difficult for overstretched prisons to provide the regimes that vulnerable young adults need.

In almost all previous debates on this matter, I have argued that far too many young adults are still being put into custody for short sentences that serve little purpose. They are too short for sustained rehabilitation programmes, but they are long enough for young people to lose jobs and accommodation and to weaken their family ties—all of which makes them more likely to reoffend. This is a root cause of the repeat offending that clogs up our criminal justice system and our prisons. Many offenders return to prison repeatedly, in a pointless and depressing revolving-door process. Many of them would be better dealt with by community orders, which can provide a longer period of supervision, better support and more intensive work to change offending behaviour. If they were removed from the prison system, custodial establishments would have a more realistic chance of providing suitable, supportive regimes for those young people who genuinely need to be in custody. This is not a soft option; it is the right option.

The report from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has highlighted the way in which prison regimes have suffered as a consequence of the large reduction in the number of prison staff over the last few years. This is a result of spending cuts. Inaction now would be a recipe for future disaster. The amount of purposeful activity in prisons has fallen in consequence, as reports by the Chief Inspector of Prisons have repeatedly made clear.

Since resources are so stretched, we need to make sure that we are using them in the best possible way. We need to rethink an approach that incarcerates so many young people and impoverishes regimes for those young people who genuinely need to be in custody. I have repeatedly urged successive Governments to legislate to make sentencing guidelines that take into account the capacity of the prison system. This proposal was first made by the Carter report on the prison system in 2007 and it still makes sense. At a time when all other parts of the criminal justice system have to work within the reality of limited resources, there is no reason why sentencers should be exempt.

Reducing the number of young adults who are unnecessarily imprisoned would enable the Prison Service to provide more constructive and caring regimes for a smaller number of young prisoners. These regimes should include increased opportunities for work, training and education, as well as healthcare provision that is at least equal to that in the outside community.

It is particularly important that the Government should implement the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for young adult prisoners to have a suitably trained custody and rehabilitation officer with a small enough caseload to give adequate support to vulnerable young people. As the noble Lord’s report proposes, young prisoners should also have individual custody plans based on a multidisciplinary assessment project.

Above all, we need a determined and co-ordinated strategy from central government to ensure that everything humanly possible will be done to avoid the tragic and all-too-often avoidable deaths of so many vulnerable young people in custody. Any nation that aspires to civilised values must surely treat this as an overriding moral priority.

Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL]

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, first, let me thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her Private Member’s Bill. Over the years of my membership of your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness has raised important issues affecting the rights and liberties of people in many parts of the world. She has travelled far and wide, at times to places which are hostile and unwelcoming, but that has not deterred her speaking at first hand and with experience on matters which have often escaped public attention. There are many who will agree with her; equally, there are those who may construe that as interference in their beliefs based on the faith they practise.

In a democracy, we have long considered the development of a value-driven society as a core goal. The issues highlighted by the noble Baroness will not go away. We live in times where the impact of globalisation, devolution and immigration has been substantial. This does not mean that faith-based practices are under attack; it is quite the opposite. We must not run away from the decline of ethical behaviour on the one hand and the growth of fundamentalism on the other.

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

“All human rights are born free and equal in dignity and rights”,

and Article 3 reads:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

I do not underestimate that communities feel threatened when cultures and practices that have existed for hundreds of years are discussed and debated, but cultures do not remain static. Communities change. Conflict often occurs on matters of gender, generation, religion, language and the community’s relationship with wider society. We should not be frightened. The successive generations of people settled in this country are now witnessing fusion in music, the arts, fashion and food. Changes are inevitable. It is right that there is a sensible debate, and we should question what happens when an individual’s or group’s belief impinges on other people’s lives and liberties. Debates on community cohesion are useless if we shy away from tackling the very essence of one law for all.

It was as early as 1965 that the then Government proclaimed that Britain was a multiracial society. Since the early days of Commonwealth migration, successive Governments have been proactive and valued equality and diversity as one of Britain’s core values. Britain has been at the forefront of legislative and other machinery to establish equality of opportunity for all its citizens, with strong new legislation on race, disability, gender, age, faith and sexual orientation. It is equally true that for too long we have assumed that our liberties are protected by a set of traditions and customary activities assisted by general consensus within our society about the liberty of individuals. Lawyers have often argued that we have no written constitution and limited guidance in legal process and documentation, and it is for this reason that the Private Member’s Bill promoted by the noble Baroness requires serious consideration.

Let us not forget that, in the absence of specific protection of individuals and communities, we have not hesitated to promote legislation to eradicate discriminatory and other practices. Let me give a few examples. Who would have thought in the late 1950s and early 1960s that we would promote race relations legislation to eliminate race discrimination and promote equality of outcomes for all our citizens? The same applies to sex discrimination, forced marriages, FGM and other practices that cried out for equality of outcomes and fairness for all. By these actions we have sent a clear message that, in a democracy, law is an unequivocal statement of our public policy. Individuals now have access to protection and remedy through our courts.

Let me concede straight away that in many parts of the world there are informal and accepted practices to resolve disputes without recourse to a legal process. I see nothing wrong with that. Many land disputes, family disputes et cetera are resolved by involvement of community elders. The questions that need to be addressed are as follows. Do informal processes treat individuals fairly? Do they show satisfaction with outcomes? Do informal interventions comply with the law of the land enacted by Parliament? Evidence so far produced confirms that in many cases, in particular on matters of gender equality, this is not so. Too often, women are victims because formal or informal arrangements to resolve disputes are made by men.

Let me conclude. In this fast-moving world, there is a change in attitude. The successive generations growing up in this country are better educated and more questioning of authority than ever before, and they are better informed. We need to understand that they are putting great pressure on the antique structures and, often, our antiquated ways of thought.

The Bill requires serious consideration. Law is an essential element of our democracy. It is not enough to say that everyone has access to our laws and there is no need to introduce the Bill. This will not do. As a start, the Government have a duty to monitor outcomes of informal procedures. They will find that, in many cultures, women are not only disadvantaged but discriminated against in the way that procedures deal with them. It is time to rebalance this anomaly.

Criminal Justice: Secure College

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

I am happy to convey the good wishes of your Lordships’ House to the Secretary of State. As to the spend, it will not be recovered. The pathfinder designs could be used or adapted to other forms of youth or adult custody in the future, and alternative provision could be developed on the prepared site at Glen Parva. However, the noble Lord and the House may be relieved to know that we will not be spending £85 million on the secure college.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the purpose of the secure colleges, as against secure training centres, was to double the time available for education in these prison establishments, thus leading to better job opportunities for inmates on release? Now that this option is not available, and bearing in mind the shocking report produced by the prison inspector about the lack of staffing in prisons, how will these objectives be met, and what will be the future role of the Youth Justice Board in providing the type of education required?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord is right that the secure college had at its heart the ambition of improving the provision of education for young offenders. As he will know from his experience in this area, a large majority of them have either been expelled from school or not attended school, and many of them are barely literate or numerate. The Government intend to focus very much on the education of young people. Since March 2015 a greater focus on education has followed, and the number of hours of education available to young people has more than doubled. However, we are not complacent.

Prisons

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

That is a large question, and perhaps I can answer some of the many sub-questions in it. The Secretary of State had nothing to do with the decision taken by NOMS, but I of course, as a Minister, take responsibility for that decision, which was an operational one. As for the appointment process, this is under way. The noble Lord seems to be very well informed about the process, and an announcement will be made in due course. There is no question that Nick Hardwick has not been allowed to act independently. The Government’s preference is that all public posts are re-competed at the end of the fixed term, with that incumbent free to apply.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the conditions in our prisons will impact on control and discipline but are also a matter of serious concern for the families of those who are detained in some of our institutions? Has the noble Lord studied the recent lecture given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in which he talked about prison conditions when he undertook a review of Strangeways prison some years ago? He mentioned that many of his recommendations are still to be implemented and also suggested that a further inquiry ought to be undertaken. Does my noble friend agree with that suggestion?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble and learned Lord’s report on Strangeways, some 25 years ago, identified a number of things that were wrong with our prison system. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree, as indeed would the party opposite, that there have been significant changes and improvements in our prison system since. For example, there is no slopping out, there are much better conditions in cells, overcrowding is at its lowest level since 2007, prisoners are doing more purposeful activity and participate more in education, and the number of people absconding has been reduced. There is no room for complacency—there will be always be challenges in the Prison Service—but I am afraid that we simply do not accept that there has been no improvement in 25 years.

Access to Justice

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The Lord Chancellor is well aware of his obligations, as he told the Constitution Committee. He has had to ensure that so far as possible there is access to justice while at the same time having to cope with the deficit that was left behind by the party opposite. I can assure the noble Lord that the Lord Chancellor remains committed to access to justice, as do all his Ministers.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is right to draw attention to the report, which is about access to justice. Does he not agree that it is a negation of democracy if justice is available only to those who can afford it? Will he therefore establish a system of monitoring so that we can see the impact of such policies, particularly on poor and disadvantaged communities in our country, and more importantly, the impact they will have on the rest of the criminal justice system and the Prison Service?

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is of course quite right to identify the potential injustice that can result from cuts in legal aid. That is something that any responsible Government will have close to their heart, and we will continue to consider any adverse effects.

Offenders: Rehabilitation

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

That is clearly a matter of concern. The Government are aware that that can be an issue and are anxious to ensure, so far as possible, that when offenders leave prison they are given as much support as possible. The noble Baroness will be aware of the transforming rehabilitation steps that have been taken by this Government. We wish to ensure, so far as possible, that the return to the community is as satisfactory as it can be.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, will my noble friend agree with me that the provision in my Private Member’s Bill, which is now incorporated in the LASPO Act, has benefited a large number of young people and a large number of offenders leaving prison? Will he therefore now look at the international dimension, in particular at what is going on in Sweden, and at how such provisions can help to reduce the prison population in this country?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for acknowledging that we have made progress. We hope to continue to make progress. Of course, he is quite right: we must learn from experience elsewhere, in Sweden or wherever else there is good practice.