Safety of Prison Staff

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) will be meeting the relatives of someone who took their own life in custody recently. There are sometimes sensitivities about specific cases, but as a general rule this is something that, of course, we would wish to do.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

From his experience as Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend will have worked out that there is a catalogue of reasons why the safety of prison staff is placed at risk: overcrowding of prisons; the mental health issues he has described; and the lack of purposeful activity for prisoners, which he has described. Does he also accept that the continuing uncertainty for prisoners on IPPs— indeterminate sentences for public protection—making them the most difficult cohort of prisoners to manage, is something we ought to be dealing with very quickly? Can we not arrange to have them re-sentenced quickly to determinate sentences or put before the Parole Board so that their cases can be reviewed? This is a matter of urgent priority and I urge him to look at the IPP question, which is causing such a lot of disturbance in our prison system.

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. and learned Friend is a busy man, so he probably will not have had an opportunity to read the speech I gave to the governing governors forum some six weeks ago. In it, I outlined the urgent case for reform of IPP sentencing and said that the former Member for Sheffield, Brightside, Lord Blunkett, had acknowledged that the original intention when he introduced those sentences had not manifested itself in the way in which those sentences were applied. I can say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I will be meeting Nick Hardwick, the new chair of the Parole Board, later this week specifically to expedite some changes which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend and others in the House might welcome.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. We have about an hour and a half before the winding-up speeches start, and there are eight Members wishing to speak. If we can keep to about 10 or so minutes, everyone should be able to contribute.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I would not criticise for a moment the shadow Home Secretary for speaking for 45 minutes. He had a lot to say and spoke with great passion. He knows a lot about the bereaved Hillsborough families and all the associated issues, so I do not want to criticise him. If I may, however, before coming on to talk about new clause 23, I would like to say something gently to the right hon. Gentleman.

I do not know the Silk—I have never met him—to whom he twice referred and accused of unattractive conduct. That Silk was speaking on instructions, and I assume that, in line with the traditions and professional standards of the Bar, he did not set out deliberately to attack people. He was acting for the two relevant public authorities on the two separate occasions. It was his duty to put the cases for those clients. The cases might well have been unattractive and might well have come across as deeply upsetting to the people who were cross-examined, but it was his professional duty to act in that way. Another barrister might have done it differently or another client might have given different instructions, but it is a bit mean, if I may say so, to call out a particular barrister here in the House of Commons.

[Norman Lamb]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I do not want to be distracted when we have so little time. I just wanted to defend the method by which members of the profession have to represent their clients. That aside, there is little on which I wish to criticise the shadow Home Secretary.

In the short time available I want to speak to new clause 23, which removes the requirement for prior authorisation in section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, so that

“Where a constable…reasonably believes that an offence has been, or is being, committed he may…require any person to remove any item”

when it is used

“wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing identity”.

The context in which I tabled the new clause—with about 22 other right hon. and hon. Members—goes back, as I said, to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Section 60 states:

“If a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes…that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area, and that it is expedient to give an authorisation under this section to prevent their occurrence, or…that persons are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in any locality in his police area without good reason, he may give an authorisation that the powers conferred by this section are to be exercisable at any place within that locality for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours.”

That section gave the police a geographically limited and time-limited power to do certain things. That was extended in 2001 by the addition of section 60AA, which gave the police a power, in that geographical area and for that limited time, to require the removal of disguises. Provided that there was prior authorisation, provided that that authorisation was written, and provided that it was for 24 hours unless extended by another officer for a further 24 hours, within that limited location, the constable in uniform was enabled to

“require any person to remove any item which the constable reasonably believes that person is wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity”

and to

“seize any item which the constable reasonably believes any person intends to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose.”

So it was not until 2001 that the 1994 Act was amended to allow the police, in certain limited circumstances, to be authorised to deal with disguises.

As the House will recall, in August 2011 there were widespread riots throughout the country, following which the Government issued a consultation paper to consider whether three things needed to be looked at: the use of the word “insulting” in the 1994 Act, new powers to request the removal of face coverings, and new powers to impose curfews. The Government thought it appropriate to consult about new powers relating to such matters as disguises, saying:

“The…consultation aims to progress the commitment made by the Prime Minister following the recent disorder in respect of new powers to request the removal of face coverings. After the ransacking and arson by looters wearing masks to conceal identification, the Government announced that the police would be given extended powers to demand the removal of face coverings under any circumstances, where there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

Interestingly, the Government did not respond to the consultation other than in relation to “insulting words or behaviour”; the law was amended in that regard. In respect of the power to require the removal of face coverings, the law remains as it was in 2001. As I have said, that power is geographically limited and time-limited, and requires prior authorisation.

I have had the benefit of two meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims, who generously allowed me, and two of my hon. Friends, to try to persuade him that the law needed to be changed. On that occasion there were only eight officials in the room, but he seemed to be unpersuaded, on the basis of the advice that he had been given by officials and police officers, that a change in the law was necessary. Indeed, I think it was suggested to me that our new clause would weaken the powers of the police to remove disguises.

We need to recognise that the people who attend demonstrations wearing balaclavas or other face coverings are not doing that simply to prevent their identities from being discovered. Clearly, if a demonstration involves unlawful activity and the police are able to film it, or it is covered by local authority CCTV cameras, there is no better way for people to avoid detection, or avoid being caught, than disguising their faces. In most, although not all, criminal cases, the identity of the perpetrator is a fairly central part of the prosecution case. I am reasonably sure that in the olden days when robbers used to run into banks with shotguns and hold them up, normally wearing stockings over their faces, they were not wearing silk stockings on their heads because they liked the feeling of silk on their faces; they were wearing those silk stockings—or even tights, in which case it would be nylon on their faces—in order to prevent themselves from being discovered.

The same thing, I suspect, goes for people who are intent on pretty unattractive behaviour in the streets here in London, and in Manchester at last year’s Conservative party conference, where people in masks spat at delegates going into the conference hall, but they also do it to intimidate. There is nothing more intimidating than seeing somebody covered like that coming at you or demonstrating with a view to causing trouble. Yes, of course, there are laws already on the statute book or, no doubt, under common law which make it possible for a police officer to arrest somebody wearing a face mask if they are committing an offence. But in the event that there is a large-scale demonstration and there are not enough police officers to make it safe or practical for the police officer to go in, and therefore the police need to rely upon video evidence or film evidence of the perpetrator, it strikes me as unreal for a police officer to rely upon the existing power, which is geographically limited and time-limited, in order to deal with the matter.

[Mike Penning]

rose—

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Is my right hon. Friend getting restless?

[Mike Penning]

I am just conscious that I may not have enough time to cover everything in my winding-up speech. My right hon. and learned Friend indicated earlier that I was not persuaded. I did listen to the police officers, but a review of the PACE code A is coming through for stop-and-search later this year. We will insert face coverings into that review so we have a better understanding, and if a change is necessary, that will take place. I think that is a significant concession.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

That is a change of attitude, and I am grateful for it, but I am not sure that a review is what we need; what we need is action. My understanding is that the police do not want this change because they think—at least some of them do—that the power they have is adequate for what they need to do, but it is not, because these events are happening. People are being terrified, and people are being inhibited from going about their lawful business in the countryside and in urban areas, and it is not good enough for us to rely on a change in the PACE code or following some review.

The Government did not reply to their own consultation in 2011, and I do need to press them a little harder to ensure that this matter is properly ventilated. One of my jobs as a Member of Parliament is to express the concerns of the public from my constituency, and from other parts of the country as well, who are dissatisfied about the level of policing for this sort of behaviour.

[Mike Penning]

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend realises that a review of PACE is nothing to do with what the police want. We did a review of stop-and-search because it was being inappropriately used by the police, and that is why we changed the rules. If we find during the PACE review that the legislation is not being used in the way our constituents would expect, PACE will be changed. That is why we are doing the review. PACE reviews do not come up very often; this is a golden opportunity.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I look forward to seeing the terms of the review, and I trust the Minister when he says it is going to be useful, but right now constituents in rural and urban areas are very distressed at the way in which face masks are used to terrify and to hide the identity of criminals. The sooner this matter is debated—with reasonable time to conclude it—on the Floor of this House or in the other place—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am one of the co-signatories of my right hon. and learned Friend’s new clause. The problem with the situation at the moment is that the constable on duty may require a face covering to be removed but he does then require post-authorisation from a senior officer on duty. In the Blackpool case and in my own case on the badger culls, where someone was parked in a car late at night for several nights with masks on deliberately to intimidate the residents inside the nearest farmhouse, I am not sure whether the constables on duty knew whether they would or would not get that prior authorisation or post-authorisation, and my right hon. and learned Friend’s new clause will make this crystal clear if it becomes part of the Bill.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support, and I hope our new clause will make it easier for the police to do what the public require them to do, which is arrest frightening people who are intent on doing criminal things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

This is probably way beyond my portfolio, but as a father I would ask, if someone is assessing a child who has been abused, how can they not assess them for mental health damage that may have occurred? That is the natural thing to do—I will probably get shot for saying that, but at the end of the day that is probably the moral position. How that is done is for the right hon. Gentleman’s former Department and social services to address.

I turn to facial coverings and new clause 23, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and other colleagues. I think we have reached a consensus. I arranged for Assistant Chief Constable Paul Netherton to lead on the issue for the whole country within the police. Very unusually for a senior police officer, or indeed for any police officer, he said, “Don’t give me any more powers. I am happy with the powers we have,” In our meetings, however—I am happy to share this with the House—it was conceded that the way the current legislation is being interpreted through guidance is an issue. There is also some confusion about the powers under section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which concerns the need for a written authority. In reality, the police get on their radios and say, “This is the situation. I want to remove it. I think that an offence is going to take place.” The request is instantly given, and it is signed later on. That is not breaking any law; that is how the procedure works on a daily basis.

The Home Secretary and I both understand that there are real concerns about whether the measure is being implemented in a way that ensures public confidence as well as that of the police. Rather than change the law against the advice that I am getting from the police, we have proposed a review into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A. That does not happen often, but this autumn a review will take place into stop and search. The powers in the Bill are similar to those stop-and-search powers, and we will ask for them to be included in that code. That significant change will alleviate some of the concerns, but we must ensure that we provide those powers.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I would not want the Minister to think that I am ungrateful for what he is suggesting—I would never be that. However, it would be helpful if he would write to me setting out precisely what he is proposing and stating the likely amendments to PACE. He mentioned a review of PACE, but he did not necessarily mention an amendment to that Act. If he would be clear on paper, that would be useful.

[Mike Penning]

Not only will I write to my right hon. and learned Friend, but I will put a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. There are cross-party concerns about some of these issues. I listened carefully to his point, but that issue is not part of the Bill and is, as he said in his speech, for later. He may think that I am trying to kick the issue into the long grass, and that is exactly what I am doing for the purposes of this Bill.

I hope that the way in which I and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, dealt with the debate in Committee has helped the Bill to progress positively. It is a long time since I received such encouragement for a Bill—other than for the Mesothelioma Act 2014, which I took through the House with a little bit of disagreement. I am adamant that this Bill, and the measures it contains, will be a legacy for the Hillsborough families and the campaign that they have taken forward for 27 years. I am sorry that we cannot agree on everything, but as I have indicated, even if we disagree tonight, we will probably agree tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 48 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1

Schedule to be inserted as Schedule A3 to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004

“SCHEDULE A3

English Inspectors

Interpretation

1 (1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Schedule.

(2) References to an English inspector are to an inspector appointed under section 28(A1).

(3) References to the inspection function are to the function conferred on the English inspectors by section 28(A3).

(4) References to a person providing services to a fire and rescue authority are to a person providing services, in pursuance of contractual arrangements (but without being employed by a fire and rescue authority), to assist the fire and rescue authority in relation to the exercise of its functions.

(5) “Public authority” includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.

Delegation

2 An English inspector may arrange for the inspection function to be exercised (to such extent as the inspector may determine) by another public authority on behalf of the inspector.

Working with Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary

3 An English inspector, when exercising the inspection function, must co-operate with Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary.

4 An English inspector may act jointly with Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective exercise of the inspection function.

Assistance for other public authorities

5 (1) The chief fire and rescue inspector for England may, if he or she thinks it appropriate to do so, provide assistance to any other public authority for the purpose of the exercise by that authority of its functions.

(2) The chief fire and rescue inspector for England may do anything he or she thinks appropriate to facilitate the carrying out of an inspection under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 (inspection of best value authorities).

(3) Anything done under this paragraph may be done on such terms (including terms as to payment) as the chief fire and rescue inspector for England thinks fit.

Powers of English inspectors to obtain information etc

6 (1) An English inspector may serve on a relevant person a notice requiring the person—

(a) to provide the inspector with any information or documents that the inspector reasonably requires for the purpose of the exercise of the inspection function;

(b) to produce or deliver up to the inspector any evidence or other things that the inspector reasonably requires for that purpose.

This is subject to sub-paragraphs (6) to (8).

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “relevant person” means—

(a) a fire and rescue authority in England;

(b) an employee of a fire and rescue authority in England;

(c) a person providing services to a fire and rescue authority in England;

(d) an employee of a person providing services to a fire and rescue authority in England.

(3) A notice under this paragraph must—

(a) specify or describe the information, documents, evidence or other things that are required by the inspector;

(b) specify the period within which the information, documents, evidence or other things must be provided, produced or delivered up.

(4) A notice under this paragraph may specify the form and manner in which any information, documents, evidence or other things are to be provided, produced or delivered up.

(5) An English inspector may cancel a notice under this paragraph by written notice to the person on whom it was served.

(6) A notice under this paragraph must not be used to obtain information, or any document or other thing, from a person if—

(a) the information, or the document or other thing, was obtained by that person (directly or indirectly) from a body or other entity mentioned in sub-paragraph (7), or

(b) the information, or the document or other thing, relates to a body or other entity mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

(7) The bodies and other entities referred to in sub-paragraph (6) are—

(a) the Security Service,

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service,

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters, or

(d) any part of Her Majesty’s forces, or of the Ministry of Defence, which engages in intelligence activities.

(8) A notice under this paragraph must not require a person—

(a) to provide information that might incriminate the person;

(b) to provide an item subject to legal privilege within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (see section 10 of that Act).

(9) In this paragraph—

“document” means anything in which information of any description is recorded;

“English inspector” includes—

(a) a person appointed under section 28(A5) as an assistant inspector or other officer;

(b) a person authorised by an English inspector to act on behalf of the inspector for the purposes of this paragraph.

Powers of English inspectors to obtain access to premises

7 (1) An English inspector may serve on a person a notice requiring the person to allow the inspector access, which the inspector reasonably requires for the purpose of the exercise of the inspection function, to—

(a) premises that are occupied for the purposes of —

(i) a fire and rescue authority in England,

(ii) a person providing services to a fire and rescue authority in England, and

(b) documents and other things on those premises.

(2) A notice under this paragraph must—

(a) specify or describe the premises to which the inspector requires access;

(b) specify the time when access is required (which may be immediately after the service of the notice).

(3) Where there are reasonable grounds for not allowing the inspector to have access to the premises at the time specified under sub-paragraph (2)(b), the requirement under this paragraph has effect as a requirement to secure that access is allowed to the inspector at the earliest practicable time specified by the inspector after there cease to be such grounds.

(4) An English inspector may cancel a notice under this paragraph by written notice to the person on whom it was served.

(5) In this paragraph “document” and “English inspector” have the same meanings as in paragraph 6 (and, for that purpose, the reference in paragraph (b) of the definition of “English inspector” in paragraph 6(9) to paragraph 6 is to be read as a reference to this paragraph).

Failure to comply with notice under paragraph 6 or 7

8 (1) If a person who has received a notice under paragraph 6 or 7—

(a) fails or refuses without reasonable excuse to do what is required by the notice, or

(b) (in the case of a notice under paragraph 6) knowingly or recklessly provides information in response to the notice that is false in a material respect,

the chief fire and rescue inspector for England may certify in writing to the High Court that the person has failed to comply with the notice.

(2) The High Court may then inquire into the matter and, after hearing any witness who may be produced against or on behalf of the person, and after hearing any statement offered in defence, deal with the person as if the person had committed a contempt of court.

Sensitive information: restriction on further disclosure

9 (1) Where an English inspector, in exercise of the inspection function, receives information within sub-paragraph (2), the inspector must not disclose the information, or the fact that it has been received, unless the relevant authority consents to the disclosure.

(2) The information is—

(a) intelligence service information;

(b) information obtained from a government department which, at the time it is provided to the inspector, is identified by the department as information the disclosure of which may, in the opinion of the relevant authority—

(i) cause damage to national security, international relations or the economic interests of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom, or

(ii) jeopardise the safety of any person.

(3) Where an English inspector discloses to another person information within sub-paragraph (2) that the inspector received in exercise of the inspection function, or the fact that the inspector has received such information in exercise of the inspection function, the other person must not disclose that information or that fact unless the relevant authority consents to the disclosure.

(4) A prohibition on disclosure in sub-paragraph (1) or (3) does not apply to disclosure by one English inspector to another.

(5) In this paragraph—

“English inspector” includes—

(a) a person appointed under section 28(A5) as an assistant inspector or other officer;

(b) a person authorised by an English inspector to act on behalf of the inspector for the purposes of paragraph 6 or 7;

“government department” means a department of Her Majesty’s Government but does not include—

(a) the Security Service,

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters (“GCHQ”);

“intelligence service information” means information that was obtained (directly or indirectly) from or that relates to—

(a) the Security Service,

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service,

(c) GCHQ, or

(d) any part of Her Majesty’s forces, or of the Ministry of Defence, which engages in intelligence activities;

“Minister of the Crown” includes the Treasury;

“relevant authority” means—

(a) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to the Security Service, the Director-General of the Security Service;

(b) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to the Secret Intelligence Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service;

(c) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to GCHQ, the Director of GCHQ;

(d) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to Her Majesty’s forces or the Ministry of Defence, the Secretary of State;

(e) in the case of information within sub-paragraph (2)(b)—

(i) the Secretary of State, or

(ii) the Minister of the Crown in charge of the government department from which the information was obtained (if that Minister is not a Secretary of State).

Provision of intelligence service information to English inspectors

10 (1) A person who provides information that is intelligence service information to an English inspector exercising the inspection function must—

(a) make the inspector aware that the information is intelligence service information, and

(b) provide the inspector with such additional information as will enable the inspector to identify the relevant authority in relation to the information.

(2) In this paragraph, “English inspector”, “intelligence service information” and “relevant authority” have the same meaning as in paragraph 9.””—(Mike Penning.)

Like the provision made by amendment NC48, this new Schedule is about the inspection of fire and rescue authorities in England. It makes provision in relation to English inspectors about delegation, joint working with her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary and the giving of assistance to public authorities. It also confers power on English inspectors to obtain information from fire and rescue authorities (and their employees) and from persons providing services to fire and rescue authorities (and their employees) and to obtain access to premises occupied for the purposes of fire and rescue authorities and persons providing services to them.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

Public records

“(1) In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), in Part 2 of the Table at the end of paragraph 3, insert at the appropriate place—

“Office for Police Conduct.”

(2) The records that become public records for the purposes of that Act as a result of the amendment made by subsection (1) include all records of the Office for Police Conduct of the kind mentioned in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 to that Act (whether created before or after the coming into force of this section, and whether created under that name or under the name of the Independent Police Complaints Commission).

(3) If the amendment made by subsection (1) comes into force before subsection (1) of section 31 comes into force, the reference in that amendment to the Office for Police Conduct is, until subsection (1) of that section comes into force, to be read as a reference to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.”—(Mike Penning.)

This new clause provides for the records of the Office for Police Conduct to become public records for the purposes of the Public Records Act 1958.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 63

Police and Crime Commissioners: parity of funding between police and families at inquests

“(1) A police and crime commissioner has the duties set out in this section when the police force they are responsible for is a Properly Interested Person for the purposes of—

(a) an inquest into the death of a member of an individual’s family, or

(b) an inquest into the deaths of members of a group of families,

under the Coroners Act 1988.

(2) The police and crime commissioner must make recommendations to the Secretary of State as to whether the individual’s family or the group of families at the inquest require financial support to ensure parity of legal representation between parties to the inquest.

(3) If a police and crime commissioner makes a recommendation under subsection (2) then the Secretary of State must provide financial assistance to the individual’s family or the group of families to ensure parity of funding between families and the police.

(4) The individual’s family or the group of families may use funding authorised under this section solely for the purpose of funding legal representation at the inquest.”—(Andy Burnham.)

This new clause would put into law the principle of parity of funding between police and families at inquests. It would ensure that funding to a bereaved family, or a group of bereaved families, for purposes of legal representation during an inquest is an amount broadly equal to the level of funding that the police force receives. This new clause seeks to place an obligation on the PCC to recommend to the Home Secretary as to whether a bereaved family, or a group of bereaved families requires funding to support their legal representation at the inquest. The Home Secretary must provide such funding if it is recommended.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey]

If I agree that it should have been included in the past, I hope the Minister will agree that in future never again will I hear the Government say, “We’ve cut crime.” Crime is not falling; crime is changing.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

This is all very interesting, but surely the central point of the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that clause 35 should be deleted, full stop. All these pussy-footing little amendments that he has tabled are really designed to undermine the concept of the volunteer. He disagrees with the concept of volunteers; the Government clearly think they are a good thing. Why does he not just speak to that argument rather than wasting our time with amendments 11, 12 and 13, which are actually designed to make it difficult for someone to perform the function of a police volunteer?

[Jack Dromey]

With the greatest respect, I would not downplay the significance of this, including to the public out there whom we serve. We will come specifically to two issues relating to amendment 10, on volunteers, and amendment 13, on volunteer PCSOs being able to carry CS gas and PAVA spray.

It is simply not true that crime is falling. Nor is it true that the Government have protected the frontline. The Policing Minister has been good enough to acknowledge that he inadvertently misled Parliament by suggesting that. Nor is it true that police funding has been protected. Last November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

“The police protect us, and we are going to protect the police.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]

Sir Andrew Dilnot has now made it clear that a £160 million cut, in real terms, in this financial year alone would be sufficient for 3,200 police officers. The inconvenient truth for the Government is that 18,000 officers have gone and ever fewer are doing ever more, just when demand is growing. Coming to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), that is crucial in this respect: given the context in which this Bill has been introduced, our amendment 10 would block proposals to grant additional police volunteers until the Government have passed a police funding settlement that guarantees that funding to police forces will be protected in real terms. The Government said that it would be protected last November, but that is not true. We ask that it now be the case, rather than the phoney police promise that we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer last November.

[Jack Dromey]

The interesting thing about what the hon. Lady says is that the current police funding formula skews funding away from metropolitan areas towards leafy Tory shires. Why is the west midlands hit twice as hard as Surrey? If we ask the police and crime commissioner for Surrey, we find that he agrees. To add insult to injury, the Government finally said, “We admit that the formula is unfair. We will change the formula,” which led to the omnishambles before Christmas when they had to abandon the proposed changes to the formula.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I have been listening with deep fascination to the hon. Gentleman for the last 15 minutes or so, but he is yet to come to amendments 11, 12 or 13. Are there any arguments in support of those?

[Jack Dromey]

Absolutely. Under the current arrangements in the police service, there is an agreement between the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs Council, the College of Policing and the police staff unions that police support volunteers should bring additionality to the workforce but should under no circumstances replace or be a substitute for paid police staff. The Government claim that they have protected police funding and that they are not using the provisions to plug holes left in the workforce from funding reductions. If plugging gaps in our hollowed-out police service is not the Government’s aim in these ill-though-out proposals, there should be no reason whatsoever for them not to support amendment 10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I used to be chairman of the defence unions. I am proud of my long association with members of our armed forces, of which he was an admirable example. It is extraordinary—I have given some reasons for this, and I will come on to others—that there is no clarity about training and accountability. A proposal has simply been inserted in the Bill for volunteer PCSOs to be issued with CS gas and PAVA spray, which raises fundamental issues of concern. I suspect that if this was raised with members of the public in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, they would say, as was the case in Hove and in my constituency at the weekend, “What planet are they living on?”

[Sir Edward Garnier]

If I can just bring the discussion back to this planet, I accept that the Labour party does not want volunteers to be able to enter our police system in the way proposed by the Bill, but where on earth does the hon. Gentleman get that idea? I hope he is just making it up as he goes along, because if he has thought about his arguments I am even more worried than I was a moment ago. Where in the Bill does it say that anybody is going to be handed a noxious substance such as CS gas or the other spray without adequate training? It defies belief that anyone with common sense would advance that argument, and it is even less likely that a consequence of the measure would be that they would not get that sort of training. It is just bananas.

[Jack Dromey]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should put that question to his Front-Bench colleagues so that the concerns he has just expressed can be allayed. The concerns raised during detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee were heard but not acted on, and that is precisely why we are having this debate today.

On the principle of volunteers in the police service, I went out of my way to say at the beginning of this debate that there is a long and honourable tradition of excellent men and women serving as special constables and in neighbourhood watch teams. Had we won the election in May 2015, we had plans to enhance the role played by local people in having a local say over the policing of their local communities, including greater volunteering and co-operation with the police. The question is where we draw the line on what is and what is not appropriate. Perhaps I could visit the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency and we could ask the first 100 people we meet, “What do you think of volunteer PCSOs being able to carry CS gas?” I suspect that I know the answer we would get.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

That, I respectfully suggest, is not a very clever question, because it is loaded to produce the answer that the hon. Gentleman wishes to receive. He is very fond of other volunteers, but he does not like clause 35 volunteers. If I asked anybody in his constituency or in mine, “What do you think about untrained people carrying shotguns, police weapons or CS gas?”, of course they would say that that was not very sensible, but the question removes reality from the practical application of the Bill. No volunteer within the ambit of clause 35 is going to be walking around Market Harborough, still less the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, without having been properly trained in the use of the materials, weapons or instruments to which they will be given access. That is just plain silly, and I wish he would move on to something rather better.

[Jack Dromey]

I agree it is plain silly that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s Front-Bench colleagues have not answered those questions. When they speak today and during the Bill’s subsequent stages, I have no doubt that he will pose those questions and say, quite rightly, that it would indeed be silly for something to happen without proper training or accountability. At the moment, for the reasons I have spelled out, that just is not in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

What an honour it is to be called before all these august Members!

In respect of amendments 11, 12, 13 and 10, I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on manfully—or indeed womanfully—arguing what seems to be a lost cause; Conservative Members eloquently made the case that the proposals are nonsense.

Fundamentally, the hon. Gentleman is saying through his amendments that he does not trust a chief police officer to get right the architecture around volunteers used in their organisation. He is saying that a chief constable cannot be trusted to organise and train volunteers correctly—but if they cannot be trusted to do that relatively simple task, how can they be trusted to handle some of the risks that they face on a daily basis, even with their warranted force? As he considers these matters over the next couple of hours, I urge him to think about withdrawing his amendments and simply to vote against the Government’s amendments if he believes that to be right. His would be Heath Robinson legislation, as I said, and the House has a duty to keep things simple.

I am extremely supportive of new clause 1. As the hon. Gentleman said, the proliferation of knives, particularly these unpleasant zombie knives, has caused a huge problem, particularly in urban areas and especially in London. We have seen some tragic cases over the last two or three years. A while ago, as people will remember, there was some alarm about air rifles and air-powered weapons; as a result, the legislation on purchasing air rifles was changed so that they could not be bought other than face to face. Now, when someone buys an air rifle online, it has to be delivered by the firearms dealer, who has to verify, face to face on the doorstep, that the person is who they say they are and of the correct age, and that the weapon can be sold to them lawfully. Alternatively, there is a mutual network of firearms dealers operating in such a way that someone can buy from one and pick up from another, who will verify that person’s identity and age.

I am 6 feet 2 inches—nearly—and quite a big chap. I am much more frightened of zombie knives than of air rifles, so I urge the Government to look carefully at new clause 1. It would be a valuable addition to our armoury as we try to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them. Having said that, I do not think it would be a silver bullet—not much we do in the House is; many of these knives are bought on the dark web, where things are a little more amorphous, identities more difficult to find and things are often posted illegally. Many firearms are bought on the dark web and sent to the UK through the normal post, but the police are becoming quite sophisticated at picking them up, and the same could be true of knives. I therefore urge the Government to adopt the new clause.

I am similarly supportive of new clause 19, on flares at public events. They are not allowed at football matches any more, but elsewhere they often cause injury and terror—people, particularly children, are frightened of them—so it would be sensible to outlaw their use in those circumstances.

Finally, I will speak briefly—we are pressed for time—to new clause 17, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment, as they say, and I have no intention, at this stage, of putting it to a vote, but I will give Members the back story because it might well appear in the other place.

Members might remember that three or four years ago City Hall ran a big campaign to get a disposal on to the books called “compulsory sobriety”, which manifested itself as alcohol abstinence monitoring orders made against people who have committed a crime where alcohol was a contributory factor. Essentially, an offender, rather than going to prison, which would mean losing their job and contact with their family, is sentenced to wear an alcohol-testing tag or bracelet that, for three, four or six months, tests their skin every 30 seconds to make sure they are not drinking. If they drink and the tag detects it, a signal is sent, the police apprehend them and they go back into the criminal justice system and might well get a custodial sentence. Effectively, the offender is in charge of their own custody.

These orders have been hugely successful in the United States. In South Dakota, where they started, there has been massive compliance and a drop in the number of people arrested for drink-driving and dying on the roads. I learned this morning that there has also been an increase in life span because there is less drinking. South Dakota is a big, flat state; there is not much to do except drink a lot and beat each other up, as in parts of this country. That was happening an awful lot, until these orders were introduced by the now famous prosecutor, Larry Long. They have changed the alcohol environment there entirely.

We managed to get the orders on the statute book here, and a pilot in Croydon over the last couple of years has resulted in a 93% compliance rate among offenders fitted with a tag and an extremely good reoffending rate—once someone has had three to six months off the booze, they do not tend to go back but instead learn the error of their ways. However, there is one aspect of the scheme in the states that we did not adopt but which they think is critical to its success: the ability to charge offenders for their own testing.

In the United States, when somebody is put on this disposal and they go to be tested, more often than not they appear twice a day at the police station, blow into a breathalyser and pay a buck, or a dollar, a test. Effectively, that is money that they would otherwise have spent on booze. From the point of view of the criminal justice system, that makes the scheme self-financing.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I can see that my hon. Friend is on to a good thing here. As someone who has not sentenced anyone to this type of order but has sentenced people to the drug testing orders under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, I would like to ask whether this should be a compulsory requirement. Is it that the police “must” or “may” charge? If it is the former, I think my hon. Friend will find that many people who fall into this sentencing remit will be so chaotic, at least to start with, that they will not have the finances to be able to reimburse the state for the charge.

[Kit Malthouse]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point. However, these people are somehow financing an alcohol habit, so they are paying for alcohol. I think my right hon. and learned Friend would be surprised at the demographic of offenders. In the US, this was more often used for repeat drink-driving than anything else. In this country, repeat drink-driving is predominantly a crime of white, middle-aged, professional men; it is they who get done most for this offence. One hopes that they would indeed be able to afford to pay the cost.

My right hon. and learned Friend is, however, right that the proposal is that the police “may” charge. They do not have to. If a PCC believes it would be useful, they could apply to the Home Secretary to run a scheme on a charging basis and then decide on the charge. It might be 50p a day, a pound or £3—who knows? It will depend on the area and the level of offences committed.

Having this particular power adds two critical things to the scheme. First, one of the successes in the US is that the scheme gives offenders the notion that they are in control of their destiny. Every time they reach for a drink, they have to think about the consequences. That is why there is such high compliance—because people feel they are in control. At the same time, having to pay provides an even greater sense of ownership of the disposal. Offenders understand that this is a punishment; they understand that they have to take responsibility and finance the scheme themselves. It is essentially “the polluter pays”.

Secondly, although this disposal has been wildly successful in London and has spread to the rest of the capital, it took a lot of up-front Government funding to get the scheme out there. The Ministry of Justice had to put in £500,000 and the Mayor has done the same to get the facilities out and around town. If we want the disposal to spread so that other PCCs take it up, there needs to be a business case. Bluntly, I am a Conservative, and if there is a flow of income coming from this disposal to a PCC in a way no other disposal will allow, I believe PCCs would be more likely to use it and invest the money up front; they would know that the income would come in to finance it.

I realise that offenders paying for their own punishment would be a new departure for the British criminal justice system, but I think it could be useful given that alcohol abstinence monitoring orders are themselves a new departure. There may be some cultural difficulties. When I first proposed the disposal, I went to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was then Lord Chancellor. His first response was to say, “Good grief, you can’t stop people from having a pint!” I explained that if these people break somebody’s jaw or cause a crash because they have been driving drunk, of course we can. If we put them in prison, we stop them drinking. This was just a way of doing that, I explained, without incarcerating people. It is much cheaper, much quicker and, if the Government are kind enough to think about this new clause—perhaps following it up in the other place—the disposal could be self-financing and help to save a huge amount of money.

Prisons and Probation

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes UK prisons are in crisis; notes the increasingly high rates of violence, self-harm and drug use in prisons, and the resulting pressure on the NHS; further notes that the last report by the outgoing Chief Inspector of Prisons warned that outcomes across the prison estate were the worst for ten years; believes that no prison staff should have to go to work facing a threat to their safety; notes with concern the decision of the Scottish Government, announced in its recent draft Scottish Budget for 2016-17, to reduce funding for the Scottish Prison Service by almost £40 million in cash terms; is appalled by the disturbing allegations of violence at Medway Secure Training Centre; regrets the Government’s inadequate response to the Harris Review and to mental health in prisons; is concerned that re-offending rates are so high; believes the Government lets down victims of crime by failing to enshrine their rights in law; regrets the Government’s reckless privatisation of the probation service and the job losses in community rehabilitation companies; and calls on the Government to put all G4S-run prisons, STCs and detention centres into special measures, to immediately review the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation and to publish the Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Cooperation with Saudi Arabia.

Prison and probation staff have some of the toughest jobs in our country. With few exceptions, they work with industry, compassion and resolution to protect the public and to help to change lives through rehabilitation. All of us in this House owe them our gratitude. Over six years in the shadow Justice team, but also as MP for one of Britain’s most iconic prisons, HMP Wormwood Scrubs, and, in the past, as a criminal barrister, I have visited many prisons and spoken to both prisoners and staff, and to their representatives in the Prisoner Learning Alliance and Napo, to which I also pay tribute.

The inescapable conclusion is that the prison system in this country—I use the term to include both the adult and youth estates—is not working, contrary to the famous pronouncement of the noble Lord Howard. From the Lord Chancellor’s statements and speeches so far, I think he may agree. The question for today is: what are he and his Government going to do about it? It is certainly the view of many in his party that prison is not working. We have waited some time for a parliamentary debate on the crisis in our prisons. This will be the fourth in a week. I hope that is a reflection of the new priority that parliamentarians in both Houses are giving to this issue.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

When I was in the hon. Gentleman’s position as shadow prisons Minister 10 years ago, I could have tabled a motion in the name of the official Opposition in exactly the same terms as the first four and three-quarter lines of his motion. Why did he not do something about the problem then?

[Andy Slaughter]

I take the intervention in the spirit in which it is meant, but I hope we are not going to have a war over who did what when. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see in a moment, we are talking not about the last 10 years, but the last 50 years.

I should make a special mention of the debate on prison reform in the other place on 21 January in the name of the noble Lord Fowler. Lest the Lord Chancellor take exception to the wording of today’s motion—

“That this House believes UK prisons are in crisis”—

the noble Lord ended his excellent speech with these words:

“In 1970, we faced a prisons crisis; today, we face a prisons scandal.”

Every speech in that debate was superb, and I hope this House can live up to those high standards today.

Lord Fowler set out five proposals. In concluding the debate, the Minister, Lord Faulks, said he

“had no difficulty in supporting any of them”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 910-940.]

I assume the same can be said for the Lord Chancellor. To remind him, the five proposals are: deprivation of liberty, but not to make life as uncomfortable as possible; end overcrowding; reduce the number of people sent to prison; do so by re-examining sentences; and pass responsibility to the governor and staff. The Lord Chancellor has spoken approvingly of the last of those points, but does he agree with Lord Fowler and his Minister on the other four points? More importantly, if he does, how will he set out to accomplish them? That is not a trick question. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor is in muesli mode or Shipley mode today. He has made some fine rhetorical flourishes on the subject of prison reform and set reviews in progress, but what action do his Government intend to take?

I am happy to give the Lord Chancellor a platform today to add some substance to the rhetoric—it is a platform rather than a scaffold—but I will do so by setting out the scale of the task before him. Let me begin with the basic issue of safety. In the 12 months to September 2015, there were 267 deaths in prison custody—95 suicides, up from 60 in the same period in 2010; 153 deaths from natural causes, up from 123; and seven homicides. There have been the same number of homicides in prison in the past two years as there were in the preceding eight. In the 12 months to June 2015, there were 28,881 reported incidents of self-harm, up by 21% in just a year; 4,156 assaults on staff, a 20% rise from the year before; and 578 serious assaults on staff, a rise of 42% from the year before. Tragically, a prison officer, Lorraine Barwell—it was the first such incident of its type in a quarter of a century—died in July last year after being the victim of an attack in the line of duty one month earlier. We owe it to her and her family to ensure that her colleagues are as safe as possible.

Police Funding Formula

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

The Barnett formula seems to be very popular in parts of the United Kingdom.

I wanted to ensure that the House was aware of what we are going to do. Many of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has asked for are exactly what we are going to do. The decision I have made today with the Home Secretary is partly based on some of the submissions to the Home Affairs Committee and its recommendations. I listened carefully to that evidence. Not every PCC and chief constable in the country was unhappy—I noticed that not many of them gave evidence; perhaps they are shy. We will listen carefully, get it right and make sure the mathematics are right, so that I am not in this embarrassing situation again.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—my parliamentary neighbour, who initiated this urgent question —my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and I were very kindly met by the Minister not so very long ago, when we discussed this question. How would my right hon. Friend the Minister describe fairness and the time schedule for the new process? It is very important that police and crime commissioners—in particular, the police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire—know the context within which they will be setting their budgets in the spring.

[Mike Penning]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. We had a good meeting and I promised to listen, and I hope that the response I am giving today shows that we have listened. The funding formula for 2016-17 will be based on the existing formula and the announcement, as normal, will be made in December, but there will be a lot of work, a lot of listening and a lot of understanding of what the demands are, within the difficult financial situation that we are in. Not everybody will think it is fair, but we will think it is fair and we will not be in the opaque position of the existing formula.

Cremation of Infants (England)

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Howarth, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under you, and I will be as quick as I can.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing a debate on this important issue. On average, almost 20 very small babies die around the time of their birth every day in England and Wales. This issue is clearly significant for many families, and indeed for society as a whole.

I also have a constituent’s story to tell, which raises a related but slightly different problem. In 2009, my constituent gave birth to a baby girl who, sadly, did not survive. My constituent was told at the time by the funeral directors that there would not be any ashes, because the body of her baby was too small.

Following the media attention on this issue, which has been mentioned by several Members today, and the campaigning by Action for Ashes, my constituent was moved to contact Banbury crematorium in June. She hoped to find out details of their practice at the time when her baby was cremated. Imagine her enormous surprise and distress when she was told that her baby’s ashes were still at the crematorium, some six years on, waiting for her to collect them. She immediately went to pick up the ashes, as any mother would, and there was no difficulty in identifying them or in the crematorium handing them to her.

I understand that this is not an isolated case. I have written to crematoriums, because I understand that there are more babies whose remains are waiting to be collected; their families are simply not aware that their ashes are in crematoriums. Clearly, that is not acceptable—at the very least there has been a major breakdown in communication between the funeral directors, the crematoriums and the families. It is to be hoped that we can use these sad cases to inform debate and to consider how we can prevent such incidents from happening again.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice for meeting my constituent last week, and for the interest and sensitivity that she has shown in dealing with this difficult issue.

It is no longer necessary to have personal experience of the loss of a young baby to understand their importance in the eyes of their parents, grandparents and wider family. With recent advances in medicine, whereby some babies survive after only 22 or 23 weeks’ gestation, the perceptions of the whole of society towards these very important members of society have altered considerably. We may not be good at discussing death, but we all know that it matters how the bodies of these babies are treated.

The Scottish Government accepted all the recommendations of the Infant Cremation Commission and have established a national committee to ensure that they are implemented. I am keen that we learn from that work and move speedily to ensure that the rest of the UK does not lag behind in its provision for infant cremations.

I understand that both the leading professional organisations in the UK have adopted the wider definition of “ashes” to include remains from clothes, coffins and soft toys. This is good progress, but work must be done to ensure that the definition is applied in practice, and that small babies are always cremated in individual trays. A standard definition, and clear guidelines, would really help in this regard.

Clearly, work also needs to be done to ensure that funeral directors, crematoriums and families know exactly what is going on at each stage of the process. Care must be taken to ensure that both parents are involved in decision making. Obviously, many of the mothers who have given birth to these babies are unwell at the time, and enormous stress is placed on the families. It is very important that everybody is very clear at every stage of the process where the body of their baby is.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is setting out the case most sensitively and powerfully. I am extremely grateful to her, as will be my constituents, Mr and Mrs Jones of Wigston Magna, whose son, Nicholas, died over 30 years ago. They have been living for the last 30 years with exactly the sorts of problems, traumas and distress that my hon. Friend is outlining. I am most grateful to her, on their behalf, for what she is saying.

[Victoria Prentis]

The pressures on the couple, dealing both separately and together with the loss of their child, are enormous, as all hon. Members know. Clearly, specialist staff training is needed to make sure that parents are helped in the best way. Many of us, whether we have lost children or other relatives, know that the actions of funeral directors and crematoriums can really make a difference in helping the living survive a bereavement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I begin by extending my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this debate and for the fantastic way in which he has championed his constituents on this important issue. I also express considerable thanks to all the Members here today, who have represented their constituents so heroically and sensitively.

The issue has been at the forefront of many people’s thoughts, including mine, since David Jenkins published his report into the historical practices at Emstrey crematorium on 1 June. I have been considering the report extremely carefully and am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss his findings further and to set out the next steps that the Government will take to ensure that the tragic events at Emstrey cannot happen again.

As my hon. Friend set out, last week I had a very helpful meeting with him, along with the bereaved parents who are members of the Action for Ashes group, which was set up by the families affected by the non-return of their infants’ ashes. It continues to support them and campaign for changes in the law. I am hugely grateful to those parents for travelling to London from all over the country to tell me of their experiences. Listening to them, I was struck by how palpable their pain remains and by the fact that the ashes of their babies were either not recovered or not returned to them, often for many years and in some cases for decades. The pain has not elapsed and not diminished, and the meeting will stay with me for many years to come.

Meeting those parents has strengthened my view that bereaved parents and other family members affected by the loss of an infant should never have to experience what those families have gone through. My meeting with the Action for Ashes group, my ministerial postbag and parliamentary questions from many Members from all parts of the House have shown that what happened at Emstrey was unfortunately not an isolated occurrence, as many Members have said today. We now know that other crematoriums either did not recover ashes or did not return them to parents. Whether there were no ashes following a cremation or the ashes were not given to parents, neither of those things is acceptable, and the pain of those parents is unimaginable.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The Minister mentioned her ministerial postbag. Two of the letters in it came from me: one on behalf of the Jones family, whom I mentioned a moment ago, and another on behalf of Lisa Smith, whose daughter was cremated in the mid-1990s. Both those cremations took place at Gilroes crematorium in Leicester. Will she make a particular point of looking up those two letters so that she can reply to them as soon as possible? One of the parents of the Jones family met the Minister last week, but they would be most grateful for a personal letter from her, as would Ms Smith.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I will certainly do that as soon as I get back to the office. I will not spend too much time on the history, because it has already been outlined by a number of Members today. As the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) outlined, the Emstrey inquiry followed Lord Bonomy’s infant cremation commission in Scotland, which reported in June last year. It concluded that crematoriums in Scotland had not returned ashes to families. That report followed on from Dame Elish Angiolini’s report on the issue at Mortonhall crematorium in Edinburgh.

As we all know, David Jenkins’s report on infant cremations at Emstrey was published on 1 June this year. It established that between 1996 and 2012 the Emstrey crematorium did not obtain ashes to return to families after the cremation of a baby or stillborn child. As we all know, the report contains 12 recommendations, of which some of the important ones are: to introduce a statutory definition of ashes; to implement a national inspector for crematoriums; to make a single Government official responsible for all cremation policies; to ensure that there is one code of practice for crematoria; and to consider all 64 of Lord Bonomy’s recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) also raised the need for training for crematorium staff and funeral directors. All those recommendations are important, and we will consider them carefully before responding, but I can say now that I am determined that any regulations, both existing and future, must be followed and applied uniformly in all crematoriums throughout the country.

I am aware that many bereaved parents think that there should be a national investigation into the non-return of ashes, and I appreciate families’ wish to know. It is deeply moving to have read about and heard at first hand the experiences of such families. The Emstrey report highlighted the fact that the crematorium did not recover ashes in 51 out of 53 cases over the 13 years. In my view, not only is 51 cases too high, but one would have been too many. We are focused on ensuring that no other parent has to suffer in that way. The Government’s role is to ensure that in future two things happen: first, that there are always ashes in infant cremations, and secondly, that they are returned to parents. That would be the case whether there were thousands of affected families or one. The painstaking and insightful inquiries into Emstrey crematorium have led to very helpful reports with many important recommendations.

I am heartened to hear that some parts of the cremation industry now appear to be taking infant cremations seriously, and to hear of examples of good practice in dealing with families. There is a lot to build on. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has already outlined the changes that Emstrey crematorium has made since 2011. Its ownership has changed and there have been changes to its machinery, and it is now working with Shropshire Council to review and progress the recommendations outlined in the report.

More generally, we need to ensure that the industry knows, in no uncertain terms, what good looks like, and that good practice must be installed across the country. I am aware that the Federation of Burial and Cremation Authorities felt that Lord Bonomy’s report, which came a year before the Emstrey report, had been a wake-up call for crematoriums. The FBCA and Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management codes of practice require crematoriums to recover ashes for families wherever possible. I also understand that crematoriums have been working with funeral directors to ensure good and consistent practice following both reports. The technology now allows for far more sophisticated cremation programmes for infants than 20 years ago, and such programmes increase the recovery of ashes after cremation.

We take very seriously the experiences of families who have encountered problems following the death of a loved one. They deserve services that are as sensitive as possible following a death. That is why I am encouraged that in the Budget earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a forthcoming review of crematorium facilities, cremation legislation and coroner services, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and sensitive to the needs of all users and faiths. That may not be the Budget commitment that makes the headlines, but it is very important to me.

The previous Government planned for the Ministry of Justice to amend its cremation regulations to dovetail with wider death certification reforms planned by the Department of Health. It was planned to make any changes regarding infant cremations at that time. That is not good enough for me. Bereaved families deserve better. I felt that when I first heard of the Emstrey report, and I feel it even more having met the families last week. I have been considering that timetable again in the light of the reports’ recommendations. In particular, I have been considering whether it will be possible to progress the work on infant cremations before the death certification reforms are implemented. As I indicated to the families I met last week, I believe we should act now. As I announced in my written ministerial statement this morning, it is my intention to consult on a number of changes to the Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008 later this year. In answer to a couple of Members who asked when later this year, it will be as soon as possible, because I have absolutely no reason to delay.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked when the cremation legislation was last changed. It was changed in 2008, but we want to ensure that it does what it is intended to do, which is why we will consult on it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) mentioned baby William from her constituency and the tragic events of 1994. That was before the implementation of the 2008 regulations. Now, parents, or another appropriate applicant, must sign an application form. Nevertheless, we will continue to look at all practices to ensure that they are being done properly. We will continue to work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Human Tissue Authority and the cremation industry stakeholders. We will consider all the report’s recommendations as part of our consultation.

I want to cover one final issue. I am aware of many cases in which parents have not received ashes even when ashes were recovered. The 2008 regulations say that after a cremation, the crematorium must give the ashes to the applicant or their nominee. If they do not want the ashes or have no nominee, the cremation authority must retain the ashes and either decently bury them or scatter them. But parents have told me that that has not been the case. Our consultation will consider further how the regulations can be improved.

I want to leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham to sum up. I welcome both the publication of the Emstrey report and the important chance to debate it today. I look forward to announcing more details of the consultation in due course, as soon as possible. I will do whatever I can to make sure that I do not hear of grieving families suffering in the future as they have in the past. Specifically, I will do all I can to ensure that, in future, any parent who has already had to endure the unimaginable pain of suffering the loss of a baby does not have to suffer in order to be reunited with their child’s ashes.

Human Rights Act

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on obtaining the debate. Were he, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and I sitting as a three-man court of appeal, I should simply say, “I agree with my brothers and have nothing further to add,” but since we are not and I have a few minutes to say something, I think I shall.

First, the political reality is that there is no majority in this House, and there certainly is not in the other place, for a repeal of the Human Rights Act—still less for our removal from the European convention. The second point to think about was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), although perhaps the speed with which he spoke slightly confused things: there is a world of difference between attempting to repeal or amend an Act of Parliament and resiling or removing ourselves from an international treaty. That comes back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the Good Friday agreement and other devolved questions. In so far as those are matters of treaty, there is not much that we can sensibly do in the House of Commons, apart from talking about it, to amend them or remove ourselves from them; but it strikes me that that feeds into the political reality. We are not going to unpick the devolution settlement at the behest of a tabloid newspaper that finds the word “Europe” disobliging.

There are several things that we need to think about, which I have discussed before, in relation to the problem. The question is a mixture of politics and law. I truly confess that there are plenty of lawyers who do not like politicians because they find them thoughtless, intemperate and political; and plenty of politicians who have not condescended yet to read the Human Rights Act, still less the convention. There is therefore a gap between people’s state of knowledge and their prejudices. Politicians need to arbitrate that difference.

Perhaps the most important question that we need to ask is what the point of the exercise is. Is it necessary, and what will it achieve? Well, it will achieve an awful lot of political angst, a split in the Conservative party and a disagreement across the Chamber to little effect. At some point we will have to work out whether it is all worth the candle. Yes, of course there are things that one can do to tinker with an Act of Parliament. One should pay more attention to section 2; one should understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) a moment ago about the human rights regime and our armed services. There are all sorts of sensible things that we could talk about, but we do not need to waste the next four and a half years of this Parliament banging our heads against an impenetrable brick wall to no effect.

Thank goodness we have my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary here to handle the flaming cauldron, and carry it carefully, like—mixing my metaphors—a delicate Ming vase all the way to the next election, where he can quietly lock it in a cupboard and forget about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I look forward to having a British Bill of Rights on the statute book. That was in our manifesto, and it would only increase cynicism in politics if we abandoned such a clear manifesto commitment.

When the Bill is introduced, I hope it will include the word “responsibilities”. One thing that really annoys constituents is that the principle of equity, which runs right through English law like a golden thread, is not applied in very many human rights cases. People want a sense of fairness. They particularly want to ensure that those who come before the courts do so with clean hands, and that if they do not, they cannot expect to be treated in the same way as those who do.

The issue is not compliance with the strict words of the European convention on human rights—they are not an issue, because we all agree with them. The only reason why one country in Europe is currently not a member of the Council of Europe is that Belarus refuses to disapply the death penalty. That is a fundamental breach of the legislation.

More difficult is the judicial interpretation of the original words of the convention, which now extend into what is effectively judge-made law, over which Parliament and the people have no control. We are all familiar with the issue of voting rights for prisoners and how it was specifically excluded in the discussions leading up to the signing of the protocol. The sentence of life imprisonment was clearly introduced as a substitute for the death penalty, but even that is now being undermined by the European Court of Human Rights saying that there should be the opportunity for a review, rather than life meaning life.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Chope]

I am not going to take any interventions, because even if I get an extra minute it will mean others will lose out.

Article 31.1 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties makes it clear that

“a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its objects and purpose”.

If the European Court of Human Rights was doing that, there would not be a problem.

The UK Government are in close contact with the thinking of the European Court of Justice. In its opinion earlier this year, the European Court of Justice said that the EU could not join the European convention on human rights because of concerns that the interpretation of human rights law in Europe would then rest with the European convention on human rights rather than the European Court of Justice. We are in exactly the same position in this country: we want our own Supreme Court to interpret the treaty, rather than to leave it to an external body.

The Government are on the right course and should not be deterred by the siren words we have heard from so many people this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

We cannot require older prisoners to work, but I would certainly want those opportunities to be available to older prisoners, just as they are to many older people in society who want to carry on working. All our educational opportunities are, of course, open to older prisoners. We recognise the challenge, which the hon. Lady rightly raises, of an increasingly elderly prison population.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Between 2005 and 2009, I visited about 65 prisons in England and Wales, and it was my universal experience that the work done by prisoners was more or less useless to the outside world. In one prison, I saw people making hairnets. No doubt there is a market for hairnets—

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

There is!

[Sir Edward Garnier]

None of the prisoners in that prison—it was not too far from Lichfield!—was ever going to leave prison to work in a hairnet factory. Will my hon. Friend please ensure that proper wages are paid for the work we tell prisoners to do, so that they can support their families, rather than the welfare state, and can leave prison and get a job that they want to do?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hairnet has been replaced, to judge by the length of the question, but we greatly enjoyed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

We are all enjoying “Wolf Hall”, but perhaps with a tinge of regret that the office of Lord Chancellor, in the 500 years since Thomas Cromwell held the title, has gone from the indomitable to the unflushable. Cromwell was the architect of the biggest social and religious changes in the country’s modern history. This Bill, this Lord Chancellor’s last Act, certainly in this Parliament, is literally meaningless, and it is therefore, as has been said, a fitting memorial.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I do not need to be as offensive or as rude as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. It is not in the least bit helpful to indulge in such rather childish and cheap personal remarks. The Lord Chancellor has a lot on his plate. I regret that the Bill was part of the menu, but none the less Parliament has discussed it and expressed its views on it and I, as a Member of Parliament, have done so as well.

I thank the Chancellor for the decision to agree with Lords amendment 2 and to remove from clause 4 the words

“and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

That makes clause 4 marginally better, although I have nothing to resile from in the views that I expressed about the Bill last summer. I thank the Government for that.

On clause 3, I do not particularly welcome the change of “generally” to “predominantly” because I do not think either adverb assists very much. Clause 3 would have been better had the Government moved a little towards what the former Law Lord, Lord Brown, said on Third Reading in the other place on 6 January at columns 253 to 255. I shall not rehearse all that he said, but I would move a little further than him and say that rather than talking about acts or omissions in line 10, the Bill would be better if, instead of

“in carrying out the activity in the course of which”

and so on, it said, “The court must have regard to whether the person responsible for the act or omission in the course of which the alleged negligence” and so on. That would have been a clearer set of words. If the Bill, when it is enacted, is to be of any use to any court, it would be a little more useful had those words been put into clause 3.

Finally, I agree with what Lord Pannick said when he paid tribute to my very good and noble Friend, Lord Faulks, the Minister of State in the Lords. Lord Pannick said:

“However, I pay genuine tribute—I emphasise ‘genuine tribute’—to the Minister, who has applied his formidable skills of reason and eloquence, and has done so with consummate courtesy”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 January 2015; Vol. 758, c. 262.]

I shall not finish the sentence because it is not necessary to do so. I wish that those of us in this House who remain deeply critical of the Bill will none the less remember the hard work put into its deliberations in the other place single-handedly by my noble Friend, who has, like the Lord Chancellor, a lot on his plate, much of which, I am sure, he might have wished was not there.

There we have it. The Bill will go on to the statute book. I suspect that this particular book will not be opened again, but no doubt we will have other things to think about for the remainder of our busy schedule between now and the general election.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. and learned Friend mentions the common law approach. When it was introduced in 1974, judicial review was a limited remedy for individuals who felt they had been badly wronged by a decision made by a public body, central Government or local government. Over the years since, it has become very different, and it is now overtly used by campaign groups and third parties to seek to disrupt the process of government. He is absolutely right to say that the common law approach exists, but our judgment as a Government—I hope and believe that, at the end of the debate tonight and of the one to follow in the House of Lords, it will also be the judgment of Parliament—is that Parliament needs to set in place some tramlines within which the courts can operate. We do not want to undermine, remove or destroy judicial review; we want it to be used in the right and proper way for which it was originally intended, and that is what the reforms are designed to achieve.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I have some sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is trying to do, because I witnessed at first hand the judicial review of the reburial of Richard III in Leicester cathedral. If I may say so, however, it would be very well worth while paying attention to what our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) has said. I urge the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers to try to work out a form of words that will avoid the trap he pointed out, but that deals with the practical problem of our courts being overburdened with footling judicial review cases. That can be done in a sensible way that does not attract the derision of the courts, and I urge my right hon. Friend to have another think.

[Chris Grayling]

We thought carefully about how best to address that issue, and the original clause was straightforwardly designed to set out the position when a case is brought on a technicality—a procedural defect. For example, in a number of cases people have argued that the format of the consultation was not handled appropriately, or perhaps a Minister or official indicated that the consultation would take place in a particular form, and that was used as the basis for a judicial review. If the official promise was to hold a four-week consultation but the Government chose to hold a three-week consultation, and a judicial review was brought on the basis that we did not fulfil our promise about the format of the consultation, the frustration is that that would have made no difference to the final decision, yet the case was brought none the less. Often, the case will be struck out, but not before taxpayers’ money and huge amounts of the time of Government officials and lawyers have been spent on bringing, defending and dealing with it.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I agree with what my right hon. Friend is attempting to do, but I suspect he is trying to pot the wrong ball. Suppose he allowed himself to step back a bit from “exceptional public interest”—a moderately nonsensical expression, if I may say so—and consider the issue from a different angle. He will come at the right answer, which is the political answer that he and I want to achieve, and the Treasury answer that he has been invited to achieve, and we can then adjust the system of judicial review so that footling, silly cases that for some reason may have slipped through the net—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman with great respect that the intellectualism and erudition of his intervention are equalled only by its length.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

What a most unusual admonition. I think the Lord Chancellor understands my point, and I hope I am not ruining the point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) has already made. However, I encourage the Lord Chancellor to have one more think about this issue, because at the moment I am not prepared to vote for the Government on it. I will abstain rather than vote against the Government, but I urge him to think about some way of bringing me into the Lobby.

[Chris Grayling]

Let me give an example of one consultation response that we received when we put forward our thoughts about the changes that are needed. A group of local residents who were challenging a planning decision formed a limited company, with a small number of directors each paying £1 to the company funds. The respondent considered that by doing that the directors aimed to avoid any adverse cost consequences if the challenge was unsuccessful, and that could have meant significant costs to the taxpayer in terms of defendant legal costs that might otherwise have been recovered from a losing claimant. The respondent also said that other local residents were horrified that that small group could hold up democratically agreed development at such small financial risk to themselves.

There are two parts to that example. First, there is the financial element, and one thing I would expect us to do in the consultation is consider the use of shell companies—a shell company was used in the much discussed Richard III case. There is also the point about exceptional public circumstances. I listened carefully to and talked after the last debate to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who suggested possible forms of words to use. We looked at that option and discussed others, and decided that the exceptional public interest threshold best achieved the goal. It may not have existed in legislation until now, but that is no reason for it not to exist henceforth. These are straightforward terms in the English language, and we are simply setting the bar one step higher than public interest. A routine matter can generally be deemed to be of public interest, and we are discussing introducing an exceptional level to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

One of my problems is that the Secretary of State is trying to prove the general from the particular. We both lived through the Richard III case, and we can all learn from that, but it is not the case to build his case upon. I happen to think that the Richard III case permission hearing—it was all on paper—was wrongly decided, but that is by the way, because the eventual divisional court decision was in favour of the Government. However, I urge him not to be persuaded by the facts of that case, which could persuade someone to reach a conclusion similar to his, but to look at the wider picture and to think about what our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon said about exceptional circumstances. He should try to get at the problem that way, rather than banging his head against the wall, as he currently seems to be doing.

[Chris Grayling]

I do not accept that I am banging my head against the wall. I think we have struck a sensible balance. We have seen important development projects delayed by judicial reviews brought on technicalities. It is important that judicial review not be used as a tool for delay, rather than a genuine way of holding public bodies to account.

I want to tackle head-on what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said about the secure college. The youth detention system is not delivering the results the country needs. In the small units in secure children’s homes, in the larger units in secure training centres—where teenage boys and girls sit side by side in the same classroom, let alone the same institution—and in youth offender institutions, the performance in terms of reoffending is unacceptable: about 70% in each of those three institutions. That is not the way forward.

We are seeking, simply and straightforwardly, to create an environment that strikes a balance: a critical mass of curriculum and skills development—we cannot, in a small unit, deliver a building skills workshop alongside a literacy, numeracy and computers skills centre—and an environment that recognises that the people who end up in detention are often troubled, challenged and from the most difficult circumstances. I am seeking, simply and straightforwardly, to take away the iron bars from the windows and create an environment that is more supportive, more educational and more likely to turn their lives around. I want to create a system that is run by educationists, not simply prison officers, and that has every chance of delivering a better outcome.

I have been deeply disappointed by the lack of imagination from the Opposition, who have opposed these proposals but said nothing about what they would do—not an unusual feature of their behaviour. We have heard no fresh ideas on how to deal with this very real challenge. All they do is oppose, oppose, oppose. Given the exorbitant cost of these small units, our proposals would save several million pounds a year, although they would require a big capital investment. The Opposition have not said how they would cover the savings we will generate by harmonising the estate to deliver that critical mass of education at an affordable price, and in a way that will be more nurturing and supportive of young people.

From the Labour party, we have heard no answers, only opposition, opposition, opposition. It is not fit to govern. It is a party without ideas and without direction. It wrecked the country before, and it would wreck it again. That is why our reforms are so important and why we need to progress the Bill and our other measures.