Prisoner Transfer Agreements

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords—

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, when discussing this matter with some overseas territories from where foreign nationals have come, there has always been a sticking point over the length of sentence and the length of time that people might be expected to serve. If people go back from this country, there has been a fear that they might be released before the end of the sentence awarded by our courts. The key part of the sentence that we are talking about is at the end, when people are appropriately resettled into their country of origin. Can the Minister confirm that it is the resettlement end of the sentence which will be the subject of the discussions in the review that he mentioned?

[Lord McNally]

On this particular matter, no; we are looking at the broad issue. However, it is interesting that the noble Lord should say we are concerned that we send back to their country of origin prisoners who may then be given an easier sentence than the one imposed by our courts. Perhaps I may suggest that that precisely may be the concerns of countries that send our prisoners back. Countries have a right to their own system of justice, and some of them take matters such as drug offences very seriously indeed. When you are resident in those countries, you should be aware of the seriousness with which they view such offences.

Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, at the end of a week when the customs and courtesies of this House appear to have been honoured in the breach as much as in the practice, it is a great pleasure and privilege to be given the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her most impressive and interesting maiden speech. I am not a citizen of Richmond but I have many friends who live in her constituency, and the affection that she records for it is recorded by them for her. Many of my friends said how sorry they were that she was no longer their Member of Parliament.

The noble Baroness brings to this House wide experience. She mentioned banking but she was also the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, shadow International Development Secretary, her party’s spokeswoman on work and pensions, and shadow Transport Secretary in the House of Commons, so I am quite certain that in future years we can look forward to her contributions on many subjects that are of interest to us.

When I was given this opportunity to speak, I was particularly interested to see whether there were any connections between the noble Baroness and me. She triggered a story about Latchmere House which perhaps I may share with your Lordships. One of the people from Latchmere House was working with a bus company during his resettlement, and one day the bus company owner rang up the governor and said, “What crime did this man commit? He’s very good and we want to give him a job but we’re worried about the crime”. The governor said, “Sorry, I’m not going to declare that. That’s up to him”. The response was, “Well, it must be very serious because he had a 15-year sentence and presumably violence was involved”. The governor sent for the prisoner and asked, “Why have you not declared that your crime was violent?”. The prisoner said, “It wasn’t violent”. However, the governor said, “But you did kill your wife, chop her into little bits and distribute them around the country”, to which he replied, “That wasn’t violent because I drugged her first”.

The three things that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and I share in common are that, like her, my mother and two aunts were all at St Paul’s. My mother never ceased to tell me throughout my life how far superior St Paul’s was to Haileybury, where she sent me. She never disguised what was almost her contempt at the fact that I had chosen a career in the Army. One day after the Falklands war, the headmistress of St Paul’s invited me to talk to the school about the way in which we worked with the media during a war. Afterwards, I wrote to my mother saying, “I’ve just been to a school called St Paul’s and the only reason I got there was because I was in the Army”.

The second thing that the noble Baroness and I have in common is a view about the replacement of Trident, which I have no doubt we shall be discussing in future. Thirdly, we share an interest in a wonderful organisation called HomeStart, which works particularly with new mothers. I first became associated with it in a garrison in Germany. While congratulating the noble Baroness on her maiden speech, perhaps I may say that she has made a marvellous start in her new home.

I turn to the Bill before us. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on, once again, bringing this Bill forward. This is not the first time that we have had a Second Reading on his Bill and I am very glad to see it being brought forward now. However, I like to think that today we are in a slightly better context than we were on the previous occasion, because, as has already been mentioned, the Government have declared in the Green Paper, Breaking the Cycle, their intent to do something about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and indeed we are requested to ask specific questions about which parts of the Act need to be reformed.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned that the Act is out of date. I submit that it is more than that: it is a positive inhibitor to making the sort of progress that we all want in achieving a rehabilitation revolution. Here, I must declare an interest as president of UNLOCK, formerly the National Association of Ex-Offenders and now the National Association of Reformed Offenders. In the spirit of the Bill, I must share with the House my delight that in the New Year Honours List the chairman of UNLOCK, Bobby Cummines, himself an ex-offender, was awarded the OBE. The ripples of pleasure that that has sent around the whole sector is very marked. If ever there were a mark that offenders can be rehabilitated, Mr Cummines getting an OBE is, I think, it. It is absolutely splendid in view of the enormous amount of dedicated work that he has put into the whole process.

I do not propose to comment on all the statistics and facts that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has given the House, except to agree with them 100 per cent and to pay tribute to Nacro for the work that it has done, and continues to do, in this area. I think that Nacro is making the most significant contribution to the whole debate, and I know that all Members of this House have benefited from the information that has been given.

I absolutely accept the need to review all the provisions for adult offenders but, as other noble Lords have said—the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, concentrated on this— it is young offenders more than any others in the sector who most need the effects of the reform of the Act. I once went to a sixth-form college and was shown around by two of the pupils. I asked one of them, “What is the best thing about this place?”. She immediately replied, “The fact that none of the staff remembers me when I was 12”. That is very significant, because you grow up and move on. I was fascinated when inspecting the young offender prison in Barbados to find that at the age of 18 a young offender’s criminal record was automatically looked at and only the very serious crimes were carried forward. Everything else was eliminated on the grounds that the offenders were children and it was not fair to inhibit people in adult life with crimes committed at that time and of that kind. That is something I have always felt that we could do with advantage.

I said that the Act was an inhibitor. Yesterday, in this House, a number of us launched the Young Offenders Academy, which is a new idea for youth justice. It is based on two understandings of the current situation. One is that too many young offenders or people who come into contact with the criminal justice system come there having been denied long-term contact with a responsible adult. If you look at how the criminal justice system for young offenders operates, the one thing that it does is deny long-term contact with a responsible adult.

The second thing that has been shown over and over again is that if local people are involved in the care, rehabilitation, resettlement or whatever you like to call it of young offenders, they will contribute much more than if they are working with someone else. London feels that perhaps more than anywhere else because there is only one young offender institution in London at Feltham. I found boys from Feltham as far away as Northumberland. What interest in the resettlement of a boy in London will a voluntary organisation in Northumberland take? There could be nothing other than pure humanity; nothing practical.

The Young Offenders Academy will have on one site, within a radius of one hour by public transport, workshops, education centres, activity centres, mental health and drug treatment centres and so forth. At the heart of the idea is the opportunity, which has been welcomed by the chambers of commerce, to give aptitude tests to everyone there and see whether they can fit that aptitude to a job. At the same time, they will identify what special skills might fit future jobs and start the training for them.

However, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is an inhibitor to all that process. The fact that it sits there as a block to so many initiatives in this area should encourage the Government—I hope it will encourage the Government and I am delighted in thinking that it will—to do something about it. In doing so, they must listen not just to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but to all the good things that were in that report Breaking the Circle, which gave us so much hope nine years ago and which I hope today marks the move forward to something that has long been needed.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Lords Chamber

I would be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would also comment on that. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 40, which refers to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration. In doing so, and in wishing to greet the Minister and wish him a happy new year, I say that I have nothing but respect and admiration for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has conducted what I can only describe as a hospital pass on what I think everyone I have spoken to regards as an extremely bad Bill. Frankly, the Bill needs to be taken back and thought through again because of the sheer amount of time and effort that is going to be taken going over ground that need not be gone over, although I am sure that everyone is respectful of the original intention, which was to look at unnecessary quangos, as they have been called, and other bodies. It seems that, in looking at the unnecessary, a number of the necessary have been swept up, which will require a great deal of time to eliminate or move. Therefore, I speak with interest in the outcome but with concern at the number of good things that are liable to go under the axe for all the wrong reasons unless there is some thinking again.

When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I was concerned that the prisons were a part of, not apart from, the criminal justice system. To an outsider coming in, the criminal justice system did not look like a system; it looked like a number of warring tribes competing with one another for ever diminishing resources, which in fact made the whole system less efficient. There were inspectorates of different parts of that system and collectively we came together to decide what we could do to bring to the Government’s attention the fact that, if all these different agencies worked better together, the result would be better.

Six inspectorates came together to discuss that: the Inspectorate of Prisons, the Inspectorate of Probation, the Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, the then Magistrates’ Court Service Inspectorate and the then Social Services Inspectorate. We did so because we felt that all of us had something to contribute not just overall when all six of us were involved, but where, as studies showed, two or more might come together in order to produce an outcome. The first report that we produced was a study of casework and information needs within the criminal justice system, which pointed out exactly what each of these six areas needed of the others, what was available, what was not available and what was available with difficulty. When we presented this report to the Ministers, it caused considerable confusion. The report showed the need for joint cross-government working, but the Government were unable to receive it. The strength of that report was that each of those separate inspectorates was able to contribute its expertise to come up with a combined whole, which would not have been possible unless they had all worked together.

In 2003, the Magistrates’ Court Service Inspectorate was overtaken by Her Majesty’s inspector of the courts, which looks at Crown Courts, county courts and magistrates’ courts. Its job is to report on the system that supports the carrying on of their business. At the same time, the Police and Justice Act 2006 requires the courts inspectorate to work with other criminal justice system inspectorates—in the way that I have just outlined and as we were doing ourselves until then—to look at the end-to-end justice process and to improve the experience of all people who use or work within the justice system. That is a very large remit.

The remit of the courts inspectorate covers three types of inspection: area inspections to look at court services within particular areas; thematic inspections to look at particular themes, including examples of good practice, to see how improvements can be made; and joint inspections of the type that I have just outlined. For example, recently, there has been a joint thematic inspection by the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and the inspector of constabulary on victim and witness experiences. That could not have been carried out unless experts were working together and bringing their expertise jointly to the result.

The courts inspectorate recently carried out an inspection of the Coroners Service for Northern Ireland. It provided a very useful report, which of course has great relevance in the context of this Bill if, as I hope, the chief coroner is appointed, as was intended in the previous Bill. In order to make the coroners service work, there has to be someone to ensure that the courts in which that service functions are working.

In addition to that, the Government have announced that 93 magistrates and 49 county courts will be cut. Inevitably, that will have an impact on the delivery of court services throughout the country. An experienced inspectorate will be needed to go around examining the impact of this and to come up with firm recommendations and advice to Ministers as to what may need to be done to ameliorate the problem or to introduce other arrangements.

Clause 8 stipulates the objectives to which the Minister must have regard when making an order under Clause 1. One of the objectives is,

“achieving increased efficiency, effectiveness and economy in the exercise of public functions”.

I put to noble Lords that nothing that I have seen in practice and in the research that has been done has been more efficient, effective and economical than the functioning of this inspectorate. The Cabinet Office, in producing the impact assessment on this Bill—I have spoken about this many times already—says that it is ridiculous to have an impact assessment on a Bill that says that there is no impact on the criminal justice system. Yet here we are in Amendment 40 getting deep into the heart of the criminal justice system, which is being affected.

Why is there no impact assessment? It is because the Cabinet Office is not the right place to produce an assessment of the impact of removing a courts inspectorate on the working of a justice system that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. The Cabinet Office says:

“It is therefore not possible to provide details of the likely costs and impacts of the Bill, as any costs or impacts arising from its use relate to orders made under its powers rather than to the Bill itself”.

That, I suggest, is a cop out. The Explanatory Notes go on to say:

“When Departments use powers, they will produce full impact assessments of the change or changes they are seeking”.

In that case, why has this House not been given an impact assessment by the Ministry of Justice of the impact of removing this inspectorate and the costs of what it will have to put in its place? If you are going to have a criminal justice system that works properly, you need the courts and, if you need the courts, you need an inspectorate to oversee their functions. I hope very much that the Government will think again about this thoroughly unnecessary proposal. If they do not, I suspect that it will be essential for this House to vote on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment 40. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that it would be churlish at this stage to press for a vote. I am enormously grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which frankly I and many other Members of the House would have welcomed before this stage. If all that information was available, why could it not have been put in the Explanatory Notes and given to us in another form? We are going to have the same sort of debate when other issues, such as the Youth Justice Board, come up for discussion. If alternative plans have already been made it would be enormously helpful to know those in advance so that we can weigh them against the bald statement in the Bill.

I listened with great care to noble Lords’ contributions, particularly that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, whose wisdom I respect hugely and whose advice I listen to. In that spirit, it would be sensible to withdraw Amendment 40 with, I hope, discussions to follow with the possibility of resuming it later. I have read the National Audit Office report—I worked for the National Audit Office in other respects. I am not sure that it completely fills the remit, although it fills some of it. Again, this is an issue it would be sensible to look at in detail before necessarily pressing it to a vote.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

We are, of course, on Amendment 31. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Prisoners: Diet

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I do think that it was wrong to get rid of the prison farms. One thing that we are looking at as part of making prison terms working terms is looking again at the idea of prisoners doing farm work. I think that it would be a very good thing to return to.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of Natural Justice, an organisation which in 1997 conducted a random double-blind trial in the young offender establishment in Aylesbury, proving that, given the right mixture of vitamins, minerals and fatty acids, offending and antisocial behaviour came down by 40 per cent. We are currently conducting a second trial. Can the Minister assure me that the second trial will be given a more favourable reception than the previous one, after which it took 11 years to convince government that replication was sensible?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

If Mr Cameron is right, I hope that his colleague in the coalition, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will take note of that and accept the amendment.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for raising this issue, which has been raised on the Floor of this House many times. I am also grateful to him for the way in which he explained the inordinate delay that there has been over the years, which frankly could have been avoided if the nettle had been firmly grasped. The noble Lord mentioned a letter that I wrote to him, which was consistent with what I have contributed to both consultations and, indeed, on many occasions—that one reason for removing the vote as part of a sentence is that that would enable the judge to add that penalty for a particular crime. It is interesting that most of the comments that we see in the press on this issue refer to certain types of prisoner who have committed certain types of crime being given that penalty of having the vote removed. Personally, I would have no objection to that, provided that the measure is adopted as quickly as possible, because too many elections have passed without this happening. Everything possible ought to be done to enable those prisoners who are qualified to take part—whether that is according to the crime or whether, as appears likely, the Government will put a time limit on it—in the referendum and the other elections likely to take place next year.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It is difficult to see what would happen if a judge were to be given discretion to impose the loss of the civic right of voting depending on the particular type of crime. One simply asks this question: if, for example, a prisoner were guilty of shoplifting, which would normally have a very short sentence at most, is that crime one that would make him forfeit those civic rights? If there is a form of assault, is that to be one? There would be infinite argument about how the judge should exercise that discretion. Surely it is better to have a blanket bar if there is to be a bar at all.

I have enormous admiration for my noble friend Lord Foulkes. We served for over a decade in the same team in opposition and I had great admiration for his assiduity—fertile in invention was perhaps the way that we always thought of him. However, I thought, with respect to him, that he appeared to be arguing against himself. Having suggested four years in his amendment, for the reason that he gave, he then appeared to be arguing in favour of no bar at all. I will reread what he said but for the life of me I could not see any consistency.

I confess that my predisposition is, in principle, to be in favour of a bar, but I reluctantly accept that those who have committed crimes and therefore forfeit a number of their civic rights should not also forfeit the civic right to have a vote. That puts me not in the liberal club, although perhaps my noble friend Lord Foulkes was trying to follow our party’s new line of trying to attract dissident Liberal Democrats into our fold. I will not follow that line. In spite of my predisposition, I accept the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, it has to be accepted—the sooner the better. The only question that remains is the length of sentence that there should be. There has been far too long a delay, as the noble Lord said.

I, too, have heard, perhaps on the same grapevine, that the Government will shortly make an announcement and that they favour four years, without any discretion for the judge. If that be their response, though, there is surely a case for consistency. If it be the case in respect of a general election, surely the Government should now act in the spirit of what we are told they will be announcing shortly and say that the same principle should apply to those who are currently serving sentences. If they will, and I suspect that there is the will for this in the House and in Parliament as a whole, they can ensure that whatever length of time they choose is in operation by the time of the referendum, whenever that may be held, be that 5 May or some other date.

If only for the reason of consistency—even though, like the great mass of public opinion, I suspect, I am not personally convinced of the case—I accept that we must follow the European Court of Human Rights. Pace the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, we cannot pick and choose the judgments that we follow. In following them, we should endeavour to attain consistency in the various elections that our people will be involved in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, for many years the law in this country has decreed that if you lose your liberty, you lose your right to vote. However, as we have heard, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that this blanket ban on prisoners voting must be ended. My noble friend Lord Anderson is right: a large number of people in the United Kingdom do not agree with that ruling, which makes the issue a difficult one for politicians of all shapes and sizes. Nevertheless, when Labour were in government—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his place as he and I used to agree on this subject just a few months ago—we accepted that we had a legal obligation to comply with the European court ruling, and that compliance would ultimately mean giving some prisoners the vote. Mindful of the need to take account of public opinion—that is a real issue here—in responding to the European court judgment, we undertook a consultation process aimed at identifying an acceptable solution to a difficult problem.

I praise the Liberal Democrats who were always keen, when in opposition, that the Labour Government should act more speedily on this issue than was the case. However, I recall that throughout our discussion on this issue—we debated it for some time in the previous Parliament—the Conservative Party urged us to stay as we were and not to get on with it. Indeed, the right honourable and learned gentleman who is now the Attorney-General said, when in opposition, that it would be “ludicrous” if prisoners got the vote. When I used to sit where the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does today, I was always relieved to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he was on the opposition Front Bench, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, among others, against the proposal that prisoners should have the vote. Therefore, let us not have any criticism of us, as I am afraid the Lord Chancellor has been prone to do in the past week or so, saying that we should have legislated on this some time ago. I do not believe that the Conservative Party manifesto stated that prisoners should vote in the previous general election, but I am, of course, conscious that the other half or third, or whatever it is, of the coalition will respond today, and no doubt he will speak, as always, on behalf of the Government.

However, more seriously, it must be acknowledged on all sides of the House that there is a strong sense among the public—I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was getting at—that a decision may be being forced on the country against the will of the people. Indeed, reading what the Prime Minister has said about this issue, one feels that he thinks that, too. Clearly, this issue has some potential to undermine yet again public faith and participation in the political process. For that reason the Government have to respond to the European Court ruling in a way that is mindful of the views of the public and reassures them that their representatives are not simply rubber-stamping decisions made elsewhere. I hope that all noble Lords agree that it must be done in a way that is sensitive to British values and respects the position of this sovereign Parliament.

To be fair, the European Court itself recognises that fact, which is why it agreed to give the Government a degree of flexibility in how they respond to the ruling that a blanket ban on prisoners’ voting is unlawful. I believe that the concept is called a “margin of appreciation”, which has also been known to apply in other fields, but is particularly important here. In short, therefore, we would argue that the Government are not compelled by the margin of appreciation to give all prisoners the vote, but are required to enfranchise some. It is clearly up to the Government to decide who they believe should have the right to vote and to put that decision to Parliament.

It is rumoured on the grapevine that there will be an announcement before Christmas; I think that that grapevine is called the Lord Chancellor. In reply to the debate last week on the sentencing Green Paper, I think he made an announcement that there would be a parliamentary Statement around this subject before the Christmas Recess, and we look forward to hearing what it has to say.

The amendment of my noble friend proposes to give the vote to all prisoners sentenced for up to four years in jail. That seems to be going too far. While it may be possible to persuade people to accept a change, whereby prisoners convicted of comparatively low-level crimes are allowed to vote, we do not believe that the law-abiding public would easily accept a solution that ends up with people guilty of really serious offences—including violence, sexual assault or crimes against children—having a say in who represents them while they are in custody. That could be the consequence of the amendment, which would set the threshold to as high as four years.

We find deeply unattractive the idea that that a judge should have a say as to whether an individual whom he is sentencing should have the vote. The first reason why it is unattractive is because, frankly, I do not think that there is any judge in existence who would want that power. Secondly, the idea’s unattractiveness is demonstrated, for example, by the prospect of a prisoner not being allowed to vote because a judge has used his discretion in a particular way, and whether that prisoner should have a right of appeal about that aspect of the sentence.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when we debated this issue on the Floor of the House when he was a Minister, he mentioned that the decision would actually come from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which would guide the judges in this matter, and would remove the unlikelihood of inconsistencies between judges on different types of sentence?

[Lord Bach]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not likely to forget our frequent discussions about this subject. However, can the noble Lord help me? Would he, under his proposal, give the defendant, who the judge has told, “No, you cannot vote”, a right of appeal in the normal way against a decision such as that?

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, yes, I believe so.

[Lord Bach]

I have to say that the possibility of that kind of appeal clogging up an already busy system is not one that we would support, particularly at this stage.

We cannot support the amendment, although we are grateful to my noble friend for raising this subject—as, I am sure, the Committee is—because the issue has exercised this House a great deal over the past few years. We very much look forward to the Government coming up with their proposals in the next few weeks.

Youth Justice Board

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, in many ways, the YJB is a success story. In the late 1990s, youth services were Cinderella organisations but they are also mainly the responsibility of local authorities. We are ensuring that the system is decentralised and devolved in a positive way. In the past few years, there has been a very successful move away from putting young people into custody and towards using other methods, which has brought about the reduction. We will continue to encourage and follow this process.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I was the Chief Inspector of Prisons when the Youth Justice Board was introduced. I entirely agree with the Minister that the board has been a success story. One of the very telling things that occurred was that, at last, a named person was responsible and accountable for looking after these people—and that told. Can the Minister say whether, when the arrangements are changed, there will be someone in the system who is responsible and accountable for young people?

[Lord McNally]

Most certainly so. I have made it very clear that the Ministry of Justice is taking on the responsibility for continuing a success story. Therefore, what is put in place to carry forward these responsibilities must maintain that very clear and distinct responsibility for the service. I assure noble Lords that the new system will reflect that kind of structure.

Prisoners: Voting

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Ramsbotham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the voting rights of prisoners.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government have been actively considering the issue over the summer and this work is continuing.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand that responsibility for the issue has now been passed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who announced that action was being taken. When I last asked this question in June, the Minister told the House that we would receive an answer in October. I gather that has now been deferred until December. I dread to think what would happen in this country if anyone who was made the subject of a court order did nothing about it for six years—the time that has passed since this order was made, and it has been five years since the appeal. Can the Minister assure the House that intentions are being carried out to enable those prisoners who will be allowed the vote to vote in the elections next May?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, that is a trick question because it assumes that a decision has been made about the vote being granted to prisoners. I have said that the Government have been actively considering the issue over the summer. It is only five months—not five years—since this Government came into office. We are looking at the situation and will make a report to the European Council of Ministers, as we promised over the summer, at its meeting on 30 November.

Prisons: In-cell Sanitation

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the finding of the report of the National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards that in some prison establishments the lack of in-cell sanitation means that slopping-out, officially ended in 1996, still continues.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, slopping-out should not occur in the 21st century. However, it is simply not possible to install in-cell sanitation in all parts of the accommodation at certain prisons and electronic unlocking is the best option for the provision of sanitation.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but, as he knows, today 20,000 prisoners may have to defecate into a bucket, which will remain with them in their cell until they are let out from that cell. The electronic system, which was used as the justification for saying that the process had ended, does not work all the time—indeed, it is switched off during the day—and too many prisoners spend all day locked up in their cells. Can the Minister assure the House that something will be done to improve this disgraceful and uncivilised situation and will he undertake to report back to the House at regular intervals as to what improvements are being made?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I do not recognise the figure of 20,000—or was it 2,000? I thought that the noble Lord said 20,000.

Crime: Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour Commission

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Ramsbotham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government will consider the report in the context of our review of anti-social behaviour and the tools used to tackle it, as well as the comprehensive assessment of sentencing policy now under way.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure he is aware that many of us who take a keen interest in the administration of the criminal justice system have been much encouraged by the intent announced by the Secretary of State for Justice in his rehabilitation agenda. One of the areas that gives us greatest concern is dealing with youth crime and anti-social behaviour. One of the tragedies of recent years is that there have been many reports and many recommendations on this, too many of which I fear are gathering dust on the shelves of the Ministry of Justice. Can the Minister assure the House that this excellent report drawn up by a glittering cast, containing many prescient and far-sighted analyses and recommendations, will be included in the Green Paper, which is shortly to come before us?

[Lord McNally]

I share all the descriptions of the report that the noble Lord used. It has come at an extremely opportune moment. I cannot guarantee that every last recommendation will be in it but, as he said, it comes from a very good stable. I think that, in drawing up the Green Paper and carrying the debate forward, it will be reflected in many of the things that we want to say.

Criminal Justice System

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for obtaining this timely debate, coming as it does between the landmark speech by the Secretary of State for Justice on 30 June and the promised Green Paper setting out how his aims are to be achieved. Since that speech there has been a noticeable smile on the faces of those who take an interest in the criminal justice system, alongside optimism among those who have had meetings with the new Minister for Prisons and Probation, Crispin Blunt, because it appears that notice is being taken of the voices of practitioners. That is not to say that all that the previous Government did was bad. However, they did pass on two millstones—a system that, while not necessarily broken, was failing to protect the public; and a dire financial situation.

Perhaps I may make a small diversion before moving to my contribution. On Tuesday evening, in her valedictory speech at the end of her most distinguished time as Chief Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers— I join others in paying credit to her—said:

“The political game of ‘my prison system is bigger than your prison system’ has been profoundly unhelpful”.

All too often this is expressed in terms of how much more money has been put into something than the previous Government provided. In terms of outcomes, that is meaningless. Perhaps I may therefore respectfully ask the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, not to repeat her remarks about the 70 per cent increase in probation funding, because whatever it was spent on, it was not spent on face-to-face time with offenders. That has gone down to 24 per cent, including time on the telephone, which means that probation officers can spend only 10 to 15 minutes per week with medium-risk offenders and none with low-risk offenders. Frankly, I would keep quiet about the spending of money on such an outcome.

The criminal justice system is made up of four separate parts, each of which has its own distinct role—the police investigate, the courts sentence, and the prisons and probation administer that sentence. I shall limit my contribution to the reform of the latter two, which are currently called the National Offender Management Service but which I hope will be renamed the national offender management system, as that is a better description of what it is.

I start with the aim. If I understand Ken Clarke correctly, by announcing the “rehabilitation revolution” he means that he has changed the aim of the criminal justice system to one of protecting the public by preventing reoffending. One of the lessons that I was taught early in my Army career was the need to turn disadvantage into advantage. Were I a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, I would let everyone know that there are no sacred cows in the criminal justice system and that every function and job is to be examined against the criterion of whether it contributed to achieving that aim.

One of Ken Clarke’s announced intentions is to reduce the numbers in our overcrowded prisons. I have always equated the position of prisons in the criminal justice system to that of hospitals in the National Health Service—they are the acute part where treatment takes place, and no one should go there unless they need the treatment that only prisons or hospitals can provide. Although neither has any control over who comes in, both have to make people better, always conscious of the fact that the treatment will never be completed in the prison or hospital but will have to be continued in the form of aftercare. Today’s debate is about the alternatives to custody, the subject on which I shall now concentrate.

If he is to achieve this aim, Ken Clarke must find alternatives for those whom he seeks to get out of prisons, including women, children, the mentally ill, asylum seekers and immigration detainees. He must also ensure that there are sufficient alternatives to custody in which the public have confidence. One way to do this would be to give both prisons and probation the same aim and require them to do the same things with and for offenders. Therefore the aim of the national offender management system should be to help those committed by the courts to live useful and law-abiding lives. This would unite the 1983 Prison Service statement of purpose and the original purpose of probation, which was to assist, advise and befriend.

Armed with the same aim, both services should carry out the same sequential activities with every person they are required to help. First, they should assess what it is that has prevented them from living a useful and law-abiding life thus far. Secondly, they should turn that assessment into an individual programme, prioritised by the severity of the symptom and the time available. An assessment of law-abiding will include an assessment of risk as well as of criminal tendencies. An assessment of usefulness should include five subjects: first, education, including reasons for low attainment; secondly, job skills, including an aptitude test; thirdly, personal skills, including an assessment of the person’s ability to look after themselves and their dependants; fourthly, mental and physical health; and, fifthly, substance abuse. Such assessments should be standard to both services because there is no reason why such programmes should not be conducted in the community. Indeed, the best youth programme I saw in America, in the state of Massachusetts, had offenders spending half the day on education, including physical education, and half on community reparation, of which more later. The third sequential activity is that they should plan and implement transition programmes from prison to probation or the community, and from probation to the community, with the aim of continuing whatever treatment has been begun.

What I am describing boils down to nothing more nor less than putting appropriate and trained helpers face to face with people in need of their help. Those helpers, who can come from the public, private or voluntary sectors, need to be trained and resourced to carry out their tasks and require an organisational structure to deploy and support them. I suggest that all current managerial structures be examined and ruthlessly pruned to eliminate any parts that are not contributing to that purpose, such as those departments which are responsible for measuring process and overwhelming practitioners with unnecessary bureaucratic demands.

To take advantage of the savings that will inevitably accrue from this process and exploit the added value that comes from including local people and organisations in the resolution of their own problems, I recommend consideration of the following: first, the abolition of the post of chief executive of NOMS and the reappointment of separate directors-general of the prison and probation services, who will be responsible for professional leadership of their services and professional advice to Ministers; secondly, the appointment of regional offender managers who will be responsible for co-ordinating prison and probation services in their region, each with prison and probation deputies, but also with responsibility for population management and deciding when and where prisoners should move—this will save literally millions of pounds and ensure that people are not moved in the middle of courses or to places where courses do not exist; thirdly, the regionalisation of prisons so that, with the exception of high security, prisoners never leave their region; fourthly, the appointment of directors of each type of prison and prisoner to ensure consistency of treatment and conditions in every prison of the same type throughout the country, and with responsibility for turning good practice somewhere into common practice everywhere; fifthly, the giving of set aims to every prison, allowing them to concentrate on particular activities rather than requiring them to do a little of everything, which can mean that too much is not done very well; sixthly, the localisation of probation within regions, including the introduction of adult offender teams, male and female, alongside youth offending teams—each local area should be responsible for determining the community reparation part of every community sentence appropriate for that area; seventhly, the appointment of criminal justice system voluntary sector co-ordinators in every region and co-ordinators in every prison and probation area; and, lastly, laying down the principle that all contracts involving the voluntary sector should be for not less than three years, and preferably for five years, to allow investment.

The benefit of prison and probation using the same programmes is that the public are more likely to believe that they are appropriate alternatives to custody. As someone who strongly supports Ken Clarke’s intent and wants it to succeed, I know that there are sufficient motivated people and organisations to enable it to happen, but they need to be welcomed and helped to help, which means eliminating many of the impediments that are currently in their way.