Draft Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016.

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Nuttall? The purpose of the draft order is to make changes to the fees payable in proceedings in the civil courts and tribunals. Specifically, the order will uplift a number of fees charged in the civil and magistrates courts by 10%.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

The Minister says that the fees are being increased by 10%. How does he justify such a large increase over and above inflation? Does that not put at risk the process of, and access to, justice?

[Mr Vara]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question, but he will be aware that running the courts and tribunals system costs a lot of money. Given the economic difficulties that the country is in, we have found it necessary to impose fees that will contribute towards the cost of keeping Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service operating.

As I was saying, the order will uplift a number of fees charged in the civil and magistrates courts by 10%. That will include all the fees that are currently at full cost recovery levels including, for example, the fees for judicial review proceedings, but the uplift will not apply to fees in civil proceedings that are already set above cost. The uplift will also apply to judicial review proceedings heard in the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal to ensure that the fees in judicial review proceedings are consistent across jurisdictions.

The order also introduces a new, consistent fee-charging approach across the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal. The current structure that operates in the tribunal is complex and inconsistent, with a range of different fees charged for some application types and no fees charged for others. Our changes will simplify and standardise the approach, reducing the burden on the general taxpayer by raising the overall recovery rate in the tribunal from about 4% to about 10% and sharing that burden more equally between all those who use the tribunal.

As we announced in our consultation response last December, the target is to recover about 25% of cost from fees in the property chamber. Achieving that aim will require us to revisit our specific proposals relating to leasehold enfranchisement cases, and we will make an announcement on our plans for fees in those proceedings in due course.

Finally, the order will change the default classification of two new appeal rights that have been created in the employment tribunals from a type B claim, which attracts the higher fee, to a type A claim, for which the fee is lower. The normal rule is that when those who use a public service are charged a fee to access them, the fee should be set at a level designed to cover the full costs of the service. The civil and family courts have operated on that basis for a number of years.

Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides the Lord Chancellor with the power to prescribe fees above cost, but requires that those fees are used to

“finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals”.

That power was used for the first time in March last year to increase the fees for money claims, and again earlier this year to increase the fees for possession claims, general applications in civil proceedings and applications for a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. The power will be exercised again in this order to increase the fees in a range of civil proceedings by 10%, which will take those fees above cost recovery levels.

The fee changes that affect the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal and employment tribunals will be made under section 42 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, given that even after these changes, the fees will remain well below cost recovery levels.

The case for revisiting the fees that we charge in courts and tribunals is based firmly on the need to ensure that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is properly funded to protect the vital principle of access to justice.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to have his support. When he was a Minister he was receptive to many of the changes that I suggested. He tweaked them so that they went through to another place without my name attached, but the effect was still the same.

Some have questioned whether genuine, legitimate literature such as “Lolita” would be covered by section 62(5) of the 2009 Act. To be completely clear, the written material that I am targeting can be as shocking as images described as level 5 based on the classification used by the courts. The section refers to prohibited images that it describes as

“pornographic…grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise…obscene”

and

“of such a nature that it must be reasonably assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.”

In certain cases, that description, which is applied to photographs, can, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) said, be applied equally to the written word. Such material is quite different and it is horrific. Its distribution is prohibited, and so should be its possession.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I strongly support the remarks of and the campaign by my friend, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). Her initiative and that of the Childhood Lost campaign, which I have strongly supported, will be especially warmly welcomed by my constituents and hers, who are horrified at what was uncovered by the Operation Bullfinch investigation and prosecutions in Oxford. They are very worried that it was not possible to stop these crimes happening earlier and that even now there are people it has not been possible to bring to justice before the courts because of the difficulty in giving evidence. Anything that can be a step forward in stopping these horrific crimes must be greatly welcomed.

I want to underline an enormously important point that the hon. Lady made about the strength and clarity of guidance that is given on the use of these orders and the importance of each local area having the wherewithal to carry them into effect. In the wake of Operation Bullfinch, in Oxford we have had established the Kingfisher unit, which she and I jointly visited. It brings together all the relevant agencies and undertakes preventive and educational work as well as helping to bring cases to justice. We need such units in every part of the country. There has to be the strongest guidance to ensure that these orders are going to be used. I look forward to an assurance from the Minister that there will be close reporting and monitoring on the extent and areas of their use so that this House can see the progress that we all very much hope the bringing into law of these orders will represent.

Child Protection

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). I agree with the points that he and, indeed, previous speakers made—this is a vital debate.

I want to focus on the lessons and the aftermath of the awful crimes uncovered in Oxford in the Bullfinch investigation. We were all shocked and horrified by those crimes, and it is right that those who are guilty are punished and feel the full force of the law. It has to be said, though, that the convictions were just the beginning of the action that needs to be taken.

I welcome the steps that are being taken by the National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People. No one should underestimate the challenge of pulling together all the Government Departments, agencies, local authorities and outside organisations, including in the private sector, whose commitment, resources and action are needed to provide real focus and drive to this vital work. I hope that this debate can support the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice in having the clout and reach that he will need to force the pace of progress and deliver real change on the ground. I also support the further steps called for in the “Childhood Lost” petition to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), which calls for more sensitive court procedures, the publication of serious case reviews, and consistent support across the country for victims of child sexual exploitation.

The Oxford victims, who, as children, should have been protected and cared for, suffered so much and were very brave in giving their evidence. We owe it to them and to all who are at risk to make a mighty effort to prevent such abuse in future.

I have three key points to make. First, the victims and their families are owed a clear explanation of what went wrong; why they were failed; and, where there was fault, who was responsible and what action will be taken about that. It is terrible to think that this went on so long, for years and years, before the hideous reality was uncovered, thanks eventually to police and social services action. It is right that the Thames Valley chief constable and the county council chief executive have apologised for the time it took and are committed to uncover any shortcomings within their organisations.

We have to look to the serious case review as the first step, but, as the independent chair of the Oxfordshire safeguarding board has made clear to me, the prime purpose of serious case reviews is to learn lessons to improve work to safeguard and promote children’s welfare. She wrote to me:

“SCRs are not inquiries into how a child died or was seriously harmed, or into who is culpable…Nor are SCRs part of any disciplinary inquiry or process relating to individual practitioners”.

Such action is the responsibility of the relevant organisation, be it the county council, the police, the health service, or whoever. The abuse in these cases went on for a very long time, and some of the staff involved, and those responsible for them, will have retired or otherwise moved on. In its briefing for this debate, Oxfordshire county council says:

“Staff previously employed by the County Council will be interviewed by the Serious Case Review author and will be a matter for the Serious Case Review.”

It seems to me that there may well be a gap in accountability between the ambit of the serious case review and the internal enquiries undertaken by the county council and the police.

I will of course look very carefully at the serious case review and the outcome of the internal reviews. It is crucial that this is all fully transparent and covers every angle. I am sure that the public will want to know what independent involvement and oversight there is of these reviews. We might well, though, need a public inquiry to get to the bottom of how children in care were left so vulnerable and what can be done to take good care of those at risk in future. The police and crime commissioner for Thames valley has already called for a more general public inquiry into how we safeguard children nationally, reflecting remarks, which I support, that have already been made in this debate. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that.

My second key point is that it is vital that we put in place effective measures to protect children. Children and parents must be educated in the risks and tell-tale signs and have someone to go to for support and advice. We all have a responsibility to report suspicious activity to the police. I welcome the “Say Something If You See Something” toolkit produced by the NWG Network and the Children’s Society to help businesses, as well as the wider community, to play their part.

One good thing to come out of Operation Bullfinch in Oxfordshire is the joint team, the Kingfisher unit, bringing together police, social services, drug and alcohol specialists and the health service in combating child sexual abuse. Another is the work being undertaken with schools to alert children to the dangers of grooming. Steps are also being taken to develop a multi-agency safeguarding hub. I urge colleagues from other areas to find out what is being done in their constituencies. Such initiatives are urgently needed everywhere because, sadly, as is becoming more evident as more cases come to light, grooming and abuse are a significant risk everywhere. Do not let the councils, police, schools and other agencies wait until they have a horror on the scale of Operation Bullfinch to deal with.

My third key point is the question of whether, in social care practice and law, the balance is right between the rights of the child and the duties of parents or those with responsibility for care to safeguard that child. I asked the Library for a briefing on this, because one of the issues of public concern material to the Operation Bullfinch cases is how on earth children can go missing time after time from what supposedly is a place of care, even when staff suspect those children are victims of grooming. The Library dug out for me the statutory guidance under the Children Act 1989. Volume 5, which is on care homes, states:

“Staff in children’s homes that are not approved as secure children’s homes should not try to restrain the child or young person simply to stop them from leaving the home.”

Similarly, “Is it legal? A parents’ guide to the law” by the Family and Parenting Institute states:

“A parent cannot stop a child leaving home by locking them in or physically restraining them.”

I told one of our colleagues this and he was shocked that he could not legally ground his teenage daughter.

We have to be careful because, sadly, as other awful cases have shown, abuse sometimes takes place in the family home itself, and no one wants to be in the position of locking the fire escape. Equally, however, it is no good our criticising care workers for their inability to prevent the victims of grooming from going out if we do not give them the power to do so. This needs to be looked at very carefully, to see whether the balance can be shifted more strongly towards allowing those charged with safeguarding to fulfil their responsibilities.

[Meg Munn]

I am listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend is saying, because this situation is familiar to me from my time working in social services. At that time, secure places were available, which meant that once a child was identified as being at risk, they could be put in secure premises where they were offered support. I am concerned that that provision is not as widely available any more and that that is one of the reasons we find ourselves with the dilemma being described by my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Smith]

That is precisely the sort of thing I had in mind when I said that we need to look carefully at whether the balance can be shifted towards enabling those with caring responsibilities to fulfil them.

We also need urgently to spread the best practice of those care homes—there are some—that have achieved a lower rate of absconding. The sad reality in many of these grooming cases is that the victims initially want to go out because of the treats and affection, and then later, when they are drugged, abused and threatened, they are too scared not to go out and need protection.

The sad lesson of Operation Bullfinch and similar cases is that while most children can enjoy a childhood free from such horrors, there is a bigger risk of grooming and abuse out there than was previously realised. We know about it now, though, and there is a massive responsibility on us all, both to uncover what has gone wrong and to do our utmost to make sure that every child is safe.

Legal Aid Reform

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I want to speak about these proposals specifically in relation to prisoners, not when they are on trial but after sentencing or when they are in prison on remand. The proposed savings of £4 million mean that they will no longer be able to access legal advice and will instead be expected to use the internal complaints system when they have problems.

It is unpopular to speak up for prisoners’ rights in this House, but it is so important that we do so, because it is a mark of our being a civilised society that we set parameters on what we do to people when we remove their liberty. Removing their liberty does not equate with removing all their human and legal rights.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about prisoners. I am sure that she will apply it equally to those in immigration detention. The removal of legal aid from those people breaches the specific pledge given by the Lord Chancellor to this House on 18 December last year, when he said that legal aid will continue to be available to anybody whose life or liberty is at stake. Is it not essential that that promise be kept?

[Kate Green]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not have time to cover immigration in detail, save to say that we are talking about people who may be returned to face homophobia, torture and appalling treatment when they have lost asylum cases or are failed immigration seekers, yet they are being denied access to legal advice contrary to the assurances that we were given in this House.

We know that people in prison are more likely to have learning difficulties or mental health problems, or to be poorly educated. They are often the product of disruptive and difficult childhoods. Many of them have arrived in prison having spent most of their childhood, to our great shame, in public care. Those people are particularly poorly equipped to advocate for themselves and to use the internal prison complaints system. It is therefore particularly important, not only in their own interests but in the interests of the smooth running of the prison, that we take the steps that we should to ensure that they are given effective opportunities to make their case.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Some of them undoubtedly will be covered by the new hardship fund, to which I intend to refer in a moment. I thought that the right hon. Member for Tooting was uncharacteristically churlish in describing it as a smokescreen. It was set up because the Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State and other Ministers listened—

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

May I respond to the previous intervention first?

The people to whom my hon. Friend refers will certainly have access to the hardship fund. As she knows, the purpose of the fund is to compensate those who have suffered as a result of a crime, and in the case of some attacks by dogs a criminal offence will not have been committed. The right hon. Member for Tooting mentioned a case in which someone had gone to prison, so clearly a crime had been committed in that case, and it ought to be covered by the scheme. However, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern, and I hope that it has been addressed.

[Mr Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister. How will access to this very meagre fund be rationed, and what will he do if it runs out during the course of the year? Will he undertake to top it up, or will he deny assistance to further applicants once it has been exhausted?

[Damian Green]

I am pleased to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that a written ministerial statement will be published shortly giving details of the scheme. I can also tell him that there will be a £500,000 fund to establish the scheme, and that it will be aimed at people who are temporarily unable to work as a result of their injuries and are not in receipt of statutory sick pay or an equivalent employer-provided scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

The Minister’s speech was a weak defence of the Government’s proposals, and that is because they are literally indefensible. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), I was shocked that the Government, who withdrew the statutory instrument from the Committee in recognition of the concerns on both sides of the House as well as among the general public, brought it back after changing the content not of the measure but of the Committee. Government Members must see how wrong that is and I appeal to them to consider carefully what is at stake.

Despite the argument that the Minister attempted to make, we are talking about compensation being taken away altogether from nearly half the victims who are presently eligible in tariff bands 1 to 5. Although those tariff bands are at the lower end of the scale, as we have heard, they cover quite serious and permanent injuries, such as permanent speech impairment, partial deafness and minor facial disfigurement. The 35% of victims who are even more seriously injured, often with permanent disability, will see their compensation in tariff bands 6 to 12 severely reduced. I do not believe most Government Members really think it is right to cut by £1,500 to £2,000 compensation to people with permanent brain injury, penetrating injury to both eyes or a collapsed lung. The House should remember that, as my right hon. Friend said, the cuts would have affected more than half of the victims of the 7/7 terrorism attacks.

The measure also means that payments for loss of earnings will be drastically cut, with payments of only £85 a week, the level of statutory sick pay, being paid rather than the victim’s average earnings. Compensation for loss of earnings will be limited to those who can never work again or to those who can work only in a very limited capacity. What is more, it will be denied to any who have a broken work record in the previous three years. Government Members must see that that is penalising people who have been unemployed but have got themselves back into work. Despite all the rhetoric we hear from the Government about getting people off welfare and into work, they are penalising the very people who have made the effort to get out of unemployment into a job but who then suffer injury.

The cuts to and conditions on loss of earnings compensation will also apply to dependants of victims of murder or manslaughter, drastically reducing the payments that they receive. We are talking also about compensation being taken away from thousands of victims who have been viciously attacked in the course of their work. Often, those people were on low wages. They are going to feel that, having been degraded once by their assailant, they are being degraded again by this attack from the Government.

[Gloria De Piero]

My constituent was a self-employed business man when he was subjected to a vicious knife attack. He lost everything when he was attacked. There were two years of form filling before he got a small amount of compensation—an extremely stressful process. Should we not be talking today about improving the system for blameless victims, rather than making it worse?

[Mr Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course we should be doing that. The Labour Front-Bench team has offered to have talks. There should be talks between Opposition and Government. Let us get the scheme right so that it genuinely helps victims of crime, rather than withdrawing modest sums of money, often from people who have suffered serious injuries.

I am proud to have been a member of the shop workers union USDAW for more than 30 years, and I know just how vulnerable many shop workers, along with other workers serving the public in the postal, transport and other public services, are to attack. I recently met Frankie, a customer services adviser aged 28, who was attacked on a woodland path on his way to work in a large supermarket on the south side of Glasgow. Frankie suffered two stab wounds and was left with eight scars on his face, hands and forearms, after one of his attackers held him down while the other slashed at him with a sharp object before robbing him. His assailants were never identified. He has been told that if they are caught they will be charged with attempted murder.

Frankie was off work for almost a year and says that the incident, understandably, turned his life upside down because of the trauma. He still gets anxiety and panic attacks. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome, for which he has received counselling. Under the proposals in the scheme, the £2,500—that is all—that he received in compensation would be reduced to £1,000, which he says would have left him homeless in the circumstances that he was in. I cannot believe that in their heart of hearts Government Members really think it is right to deny the likes of Frankie £1,500.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making some powerful points. He mentioned that he was an USDAW member for 30 years. Is it not ironic that this week of all weeks is USDAW’s respect for shop workers week? Many shop workers who were injured at work and became victims of crime would not be compensated under the scheme.

[Mr Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The irony will not be lost on hundreds of thousands of USDAW members and other trade unionists.

The Government have argued, and we heard it from the Minister, who has now left—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon. He is still here. He has moved to the Back Benches, but perhaps not permanently just yet. He argued that the compensation scheme was financially unsustainable, but that is not borne out by the Government’s own figures or the impact assessment.

Over the past four years, the cost of the tariff scheme to the Ministry of Justice has averaged £192 million, which is both remarkably stable and within the current budget of £200 million. The cost of criminal injuries compensation as a whole was higher in 2011-12 because the Government made payments totalling £237 million on 78 cases that arose before the tariff scheme was introduced in 1996. The majority of those cases involved children, where a final assessment of their ongoing need could not be concluded until they reached adulthood. Total liabilities under the scheme are inflated by the cost of historic cases, including pre-1996 cases yet to be settled.

[Damian Green]

As I understand it, and I suspect this may be an argument that appeals to the right hon. Gentleman from his time at the Treasury, he thinks the system is fine and solvent as long as we keep delaying payments to victims, which is what has been happening for many, many years. Surely when he thinks about that, it is clearly an unacceptable way to ration public spending.

[Mr Smith]

I want the liabilities to be settled and the victims to get the money to which they are entitled. To be fair, some progress has been made on those cases. Earlier in the autumn there were 73 pre-1996 cases still to be settled, at a predicted cost of £148 million, but the figure has now come down to 33 cases, probably at a cost of £100 million, so the backlog is being addressed and is not the rising burden that the Ministry is trying to claim it is.

Furthermore, if the Secretary of State’s argument is correct, why does the Government’s own impact assessment state:

“The current scheme costs around £212m per year—£52.5m per quarter—and we assume that in the absence of reform this would continue”?

That is the cost to both the Ministry of Justice and the Scottish Government. The impact assessment does not state that in the absence of reform the costs would rise or get out of control; it states that the level of spending would continue. The problem is that the Government are choosing to cut the budget for the scheme.

I appeal again to Government Members. In making the victims of crime pay the price of these cuts, they have picked the wrong target. We know that difficult choices have to be made. I understand the pressure of party loyalty they feel under, but there are times when we have to put the interests of vulnerable members of the public first. If Government Members consulted their constituents and party associations about this, I feel sure that they would say, “Don’t cut criminal injuries compensation.” Above all, if they listened to the victims of crime, they would reject the measure and support our motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

Of course—that is what happens when we do not ring-fence. I would have thought that that was straightforward. It is about local accountability. The PCCs will get a much enhanced budget in order to provide services for victims of crime, and that is an extremely healthy place to be. That is only part of the story. In addition, we are raising £50 million from offenders for victims’ services.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Blunt]

Let me first put this in the proper context, if I may.

That is the first part. Under this Administration, victims of crime will receive at least the same amount of fiscal compensation or services as they do at present. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and I sat on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee together, and he will remember that we changed the requirement and duty on sentences, so that the first thing that must now be considered is the duty to impose a requirement of compensation on offenders.

I may also be able to answer the shadow Secretary of State’s argument that there is no way of doing that because some offenders are sent straight to prison and do not have any means. Some of the more serious changes mean that they will have means. If they do not have a job or income, they are likely to be in receipt of benefits and pensions for a very long time. The Government have announced a change that will allow an attachment against benefits not of £5 a week, but of £25 a week, which will lead to serious numbers and compensation, even if some offenders will have to pay it over a significant period. That money can be taken off them and paid out at the same kinds of levels as those under bands 1 to 5, which the scheme will get rid off.

[Mr Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given his role in developing the proposals, will he tell the House how the figure of £50 million was settled on? We all want to get more money from offenders and it is notoriously difficult to do so. If the actual money that comes in ends up being less than that, will the Government top it up to £50 million, and, if the scheme brings in more than £50 million, will the extra money go to victims?

[Mr Blunt]

I am no longer responsible for policy, so the right hon. Gentleman will have to ask my colleagues on the Front Bench about what will happen in future. [Interruption.] I am of course the architect of the policy, and I can say what I would have done. We looked at what were reasonable levels of victim surcharge to place on the whole range of offences, including road traffic offences, and the sentences, including community sentences, that followed. Those additional levies amounted to £40 million to £60 million; that was the first estimate we received. I am reasonably confident that the figure will exceed £50 million.

However, that is not the whole story. The Minister mentioned the earnings from the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, which is producing £800,000 this year. We are beginning a very substantial programme of work in prisons that is designed to create an income from having prisoners working in some form of commercial way. The businesses involved will not be paying the prisoners the minimum wage. If my concept is continued by my colleagues who are now in charge of these matters, prisoners will continue to get their prisoner allowance but they will also be working in businesses. Any money that they might earn towards their own future rehabilitation should then be matched by money that goes into victims’ services. If work in prisons can be got to scale, this can amount to a substantial amount of resources, with direct compensation going from offenders, as it should, to services for victims of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I have listened with great care to the points made by hon. Members in today’s debate and I shall respond in a moment to some of them. In his opening speech my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice set out the principal reasons for reforming the scheme. He made it clear that proper support for victims and witnesses is a very high priority for this Government.

The public expect the criminal justice system to have at its heart the interests of those who have suffered. That includes paying compensation in certain circumstances, but the question for any responsible Government is what those circumstances should be. My right hon. Friend sought to set our changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the context of all the changes we are making to the support that we provide for victims and witnesses. It would be foolish to consider them in isolation. The key point that the Government want to make is that we seek broadly to maintain overall spending on victims, not to cut it, but to change its composition so that money is used more effectively.

As to the criminal injuries compensation scheme itself, there are two main problems, which were highlighted so eloquently and clearly by my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr Blunt), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). The first is that it is in financial difficulties. I know that Opposition Members have made much of their disagreement with us over this, swallowing whole the briefings provided by trade unions, but the fact is that the scheme does need to be put on a sustainable footing.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

The second point is that the design of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is inadequate and the policy rationale flawed. Compensation is in many cases poorly targeted, with millions of pounds spent on relatively minor claims such as sprained ankles. Worse than that, over the past decade, nearly £60 million has been paid to 19,000 claimants who were convicted criminals. So, instead of taking money from an unaffordable scheme and using it to give cash for minor injuries months or even years after the event, our plans seek to make a structural change in the nature of the help that we give to our victims.

[Mr Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Hon. Members]

Give way!

Criminal Justice System

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. John and Penny have persuaded Keir Starmer that no longer should things simply lie on file. What is clear is that there was a case to be tried. It would have gone to trial had the subsequent murder not taken place. It is distressing for the family. I can understand that not only as a father but as a citizen.

On stalking, half the people who are stalked will have been stalked for more than 18 months before anything is done about it, so many events in their lives will cause them both fear and misery. In the worst cases, stalking has led to much more serious offences, such as rape and murder. We also know that the probability of someone being brought to prosecution for stalking is still phenomenally low. Even in the event of prosecution, only about 2.2% of those involved in this serious crime end up with a jail sentence. Again, we must change the culture that allows that to take place.

There are examples of extremely good police performance. I had a meeting recently with women who had been victims of, or involved with, domestic violence. One person, who was the victim of a violent attack by her ex-partner, said that she wanted to place it on the record that her own experience of the police, the refuge that gave her shelter, the Crown Prosecution Service and other services had been good. In the same meeting, another woman told me that when she lay on the floor waiting for an ambulance to be called, she heard police officers joking with her partner, which simply should not happen in this day and age. Our police need specialist training for domestic violence and stalking, but it is not unreasonable to say that it should be there for all. Whoever polices or prosecutes domestic violence must treat that crime as something that matters, and the criminal justice system must help to resolve the problems.

Let me move on because I am conscious of the number of Members who wish to speak. The Minister will recall the debate a few weeks ago on criminal injuries compensation. I am sure that she will tell us that the Government are funding victim services in whatever way. None the less, there is still great anxiety about the criminal injuries compensation scheme and what will happen to it. I hope today that she will take the chance to clarify the Government’s intentions on the matter. There is massive interest outside in what is happening. There is massive interest, too, in Parliament. I do not say this as a warning, but I hope that she has been able to tell her colleagues in Government that her own experience in that debate was a little unfair on her but was not unfair in the spirit of what she inherited from her predecessors. We need some clarification that we will have a robust criminal injuries compensation system that survives any proposed changes.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on calling this enormously important debate. May I underline the importance of the point that he has just made? I have never seen so many people queuing to get in to observe a debate in Westminster Hall as I have today. It shows the level of public anxiety. Following the Government’s wise decision to withdraw the statutory instrument, does he agree that when they bring back some proposals to the House they need to advertise them within both Houses, so that all Members can make their voices heard about how unacceptable the proposed cuts in criminal injuries compensation are?

[Tony Lloyd]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me add one extra thing. It would be desirable if any such debate were heard on the Floor of the House and not simply in a Committee Room, so that the full House can be persuaded of the merits of any changes and can vote accordingly. That would be in the interests of people up and down the length and breadth of this land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I want to speak about information and draw attention to the Victim Support survey, which stated that 82% of people did not know their local candidates for the position of police and crime commissioner. We have seen the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) working hard to change that percentage. More than two thirds of those surveyed thought that they should be better informed about an offender’s progress and what an offender is doing, particularly if they are serving a community sentence.

The Government have set as a priority the issue of information. Indeed, in response to a question that I asked in the House on 18 September, the Justice Secretary said that that has to be a priority. It has been mentioned before. Louise Casey told me that across a whole range of issues affecting victims the big task needed to improve the service dramatically is relentless information throughout the criminal justice system. She said that in 2010.

The previous Labour Government talked a lot about the issue, too. Indeed, in 2002 they threw £11 million at the Crown Prosecution Service, setting a target of tracking all cases of victims online by 2005. Sadly, as with many other targets set by the previous Government, that was not met and the money went into the ether.

We must ensure that we can do better than that. From my own experience—I declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor, although not practising much now—I know that the system of criminal justice is too closed and too insular. The coalition programme said clearly that we must be the most open and transparent in the world, and that light must also shine in the shadows and darknesses of the criminal justice system.

We have some momentum across the political spectrum. The Institute for Public Policy Research report this year supported the tracking of cases online. In these days of information technology, we must be able to enable victims to track cases, from the moment when they are reported to the point at which justice is served. All too often the CJS Online information is largely impersonal, and when victims want personal, relevant, useful and timely information, it is lacking.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that victims are entitled not only to things being tracked properly and so on, but to proper compensation? Has he looked at the Government proposals on the cuts to compensation and does he agree that they need to be abandoned?

[Mr Burrowes]

I am happy to talk about that and, if the right hon. Gentleman is patient, I will respond shortly, but first I must finish my train of thought on information. It is important not to lose the momentum gained from the development of online crime mapping and take it into online victims’ justice mapping. That must happen. Yes, there is benefit from social media and peer support, but there are examples from across the sea, in Florida, where VINELink can be used to track information properly online. Avon and Somerset has TrackMyCrime and a 90% satisfaction rating for victims.

On the case for compensation, I was the shadow Justice Minister in 2008 and during a delegated legislation Committee it was interesting to note the concern in respect of removing or limiting the scope of compensation under the criminal injuries rules. The Labour Government were seeking to reduce the scope then, but I did not see the attention and concern among Labour Members that I see among them now.

An issue that we should all recognise is that “criminal injuries compensation scheme” is a misnomer; it is a criminal injuries contribution-to-compensation scheme—it is a contribution and essentially limited. Homicide victims who have not come through the criminal justice system but are going through the highly bureaucratic process do not get adequate compensation; they get to a maximum level, which is a derisory amount for the victims of crime in many ways. It is essentially limited, and compensation has to be broader than that.

Yes, we should provide the support, in particular where the offender has not been identified and brought to justice—that lies within the scope of the scheme—but we ought to recognise the progress made by the Government. For the first time, we have a statutory duty for compensation on all offenders who come to court. Let us ensure that, when cases get to court, victims are properly compensated, so that they do not have to go through civil and other remedies.

It is also planned that offenders will now have to pay an extra £50 million into the victims’ pot; there is the prisoners’ earnings scheme, which will go to victims, as well as the additional surcharges. Let us recognise that the issue of compensation covers a whole range of areas. Let us get the right compensation and the right information. Let us ensure, as I am sure we can with the new Minister, that we carry out the central task of doing so much more, so that those surveys from Victim Support and others do not come back and tell us that too many victims feel that the criminal justice system does not treat victims fairly.

Not-for-profit Advice Sector

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I have seen that statement. I will mention statements made by Ministers, including both the Secretary of State for Justice and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who yesterday made an announcement about advice funding.

Citizens advice bureaux alone will lose 500 specialists. Make no mistake: this is specialist work. It is not simple form-filling, which people can do by themselves. The bureau in my constituency told me that in the past three months appeals to the commissioners have increased by 50%. Surely, people are not expected to do this by themselves.

I will tell hon. Members the story of one CAB client called Sharon, who went there when she was told that her income support claim would be stopped as she was living with her ex-husband Darren, who should support her financially. After a lengthy interview with an adviser, Sharon told the specialist caseworker that she was not living with Darren, but that he used her address for financial purposes as he often did not have a permanent address for long periods and that he also stayed, on occasion, to help care for her, as she had severe and chronic mental health problems.

The adviser challenged the Department for Work and Pensions decision, using the lengthy, complex case law about the living-together test, and provided a written submission to the tribunal contesting the DWP’s interpretation of the case law, and expert evidence to show that Sharon’s relationship with Darren was a close friendship. At the appeal, the tribunal judge commented on the substantial body of evidence provided by the specialist and used it to conclude that Darren’s relationship with Sharon was

“more akin to an adult child who goes to care for a frail elderly relative who is living in their own home.”

All Sharon’s benefits were reinstated.

Where does the Minister expect people like Sharon to go for help in future?

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and support the argument that she is making so eloquently. Is it not a particularly cruel irony that these cuts happen at precisely the time when, because of benefit cuts and working tax credit loss, families are under especially acute pressure? Therefore there is double harm from these damaging cuts.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I agree. The need for advice will increase when universal credit and the personal independence payment come through. All evidence from the past proves that the need for advice increases when there are changes to the benefit system, particularly in the six months before and after.

There will be no places to go to pick up the slack. Age Concern, the pro bono unit and the free representation unit—all the agencies mentioned by the Minister and the Secretary of State as being able to pick up the slack—have categorically said that this is not possible. Specialist services will be lost.

Broadcasting of Court Proceedings

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to hold a short debate on the subject of the broadcasting of court proceedings. I should perhaps make it clear at the start that I am not a lawyer. I have appeared in court, but only in the jury box—never as counsel and not yet in the dock.

However, during the past few months, both in my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and as Chair of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, I have had dealings with many lawyers. In respect of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, I read the report of the committee on super-injunctions recently prepared by the Master of the Rolls. I want to quote the opening section, in which the Master of the Rolls states:

“It has been a fundamental principle of the common law since its origins that justice is conducted, and judgments are given, in public.”

He then goes on to quote the Lord Chief Justice, who said only last year:

“Justice must be done between the parties. The public must be able to enter any court to see that justice is being done in that court, by a tribunal conscientiously doing its best to do justice according to law…In reality very few citizens can scrutinise the judicial process: that scrutiny is performed by the media, whether newspapers or television, acting on behalf of the body of citizens. Without the commitment of an independent media the operation of the principle of open justice would be irremediably diminished.”

I could almost end there, but I want to go on to say a bit about the background to the matter.

The ban on television cameras stems from a section of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which I understand was passed to prevent the distraction caused by exploding flash bulbs of cameras in court. Of course, at that time television had not even been invented. Since then, there has been a long debate about whether our courts should be opened up to allow greater access to the media.

The debate about television cameras has been going on for more than 20 years. In 1989, Jonathan Caplan on behalf of the Bar Council produced a report that came out broadly in favour of allowing television, subject to certain very strict controls. Nothing then happened until 2004 when, after discussions between the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the broadcasters, it was agreed that a pilot scheme would be allowed to operate for a few weeks in the Lord Chief Justice’s court and then in the Master of the Rolls’s court.

That pilot scheme was never broadcast, but it demonstrated that the televising of court proceedings could be done without causing great distraction or disruption, or creating the dangers that people had spoken about. The broadcasting of proceedings could be done very discreetly and, most importantly, it could be completely controlled by the judge. During the pilot scheme, on a couple of occasions the judge pressed the button he had to shut off broadcasting. A large number of people have seen the results of that pilot and, as far as I am aware, it is generally regarded as a success. The pilot scheme did not lead to any great concerns being expressed and most people felt that it was a step forward both in allowing people to see the workings of the court and increasing understanding of the judicial procedure.

Although the pilot scheme was generally deemed to have been successful, nothing then happened. However, there have been one or two developments outside the English and Welsh court system. For instance, the Scottish courts have allowed very controlled broadcasting, but because anybody can object, it has not been used very much. When the Supreme Court was established, it allowed some televising of its judgments. Despite the fact that those are largely fairly detailed legalistic debates, I understand that the streamed feed from the Supreme Court made available by Sky has had a lot of viewers. Indeed, there have been around 50,000 this year, with 14,000 recently watching the ruling on the Assange case.

There have been other judicial procedures during which television cameras have been allowed, such as the Chilcot inquiry, the Hutton inquiry and, of course, most recently the inquiry carried out by Lord Justice Leveson. Given the fact that I am involved in considering similar material, I have been watching the proceedings of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry with great attention. Those proceedings have been carried in considerable part on both the Sky News channel and the BBC News channel. There are also plenty of examples in other countries. In fact, Britain is one of very few countries left that does not allow any televising of its judicial proceedings. Most comparable countries in the developed world allow broadcasting; indeed, even China and Russia allow broadcasting of their court proceedings.

So if the arguments are so strong, why has it not happened? There have been objections. A long-standing objection is that broadcasting proceedings might lead to grandstanding and that people will play to the cameras and want to become celebrities in their own right. I was not a Member when television cameras were introduced in the House of Commons, but I was active in politics and I remember precisely the same arguments being made then about what would happen with MPs’ behaviour and that they would similarly perform to the cameras. In large part, that has not occurred. Indeed, I think most people regard the broadcasting of Parliament as having been a great success.

There have also been objections that somehow the media might distort coverage, presenting a slanted view, and that there will be a loss of objectivity. Of course, any televising of court proceedings would be subject to the same restrictions on court reporting that exist at the moment for other forms of media—for example, not revealing the identity of jurors or of potential rape victims. Those rules would apply equally to television cameras as they do to newspapers. One has to say that in general—not just in terms of the coverage of judicial proceedings—television has a better record than newspapers for impartiality and objectivity because it is governed by strict rules requiring it to be impartial and objective.

I shall illustrate a recent case where the televising of proceedings certainly had a beneficial effect for me. I had read a great many fairly lurid accounts, particularly in the tabloids, of the Amanda Knox case and the murder in Italy. Many people felt such reports were not entirely objective and, indeed, that they suggested very strongly that Amanda Knox was guilty. I happened to be away at the time of the appeal hearing in the Italian courts, which was carried in large part on Sky News, and I watched much of the proceedings, including the broadcast of Amanda Knox appearing in the witness box. At the end of the proceedings, I had considerably more doubt about the case. Therefore, when the court delivered its verdict that she should be released and was not guilty, it came as less of a surprise than it would have done to those people who had only read about the case in the tabloid press. That is an area where broadcasting can increase understanding and serve justice well.

It is easy to think of cases that will obviously be attractive to the broadcasters. Such cases will not only be sensational, lurid murder trials, although I have no doubt that some of those will be broadcast. I shall give three recent examples where there would have been real merit in having broadcast coverage. The first—this is a painful subject for all of us in this place—is that of the recent trials of MPs for abuse of their expenses. There was a huge public interest in people who were paid from the public purse, and it was very important that it was shown that nobody should be above the law. If those trials had been broadcast, they would have received a lot of interest and coverage.

Secondly, there were the riots, and the cases involving those who were convicted of rioting last summer. Again, there was a very big public interest. There was, perhaps, a lack of understanding about some of the sentencing policy. If people had had the opportunity to see the judge deliver a sentence and explain why he had reached that decision, that would also have increased understanding.

Thirdly and most recently, there was the Stephen Lawrence case. The fact that justice was finally done received huge coverage in the newspapers. It would have been even more powerful if the case had been broadcast and people had had the opportunity to see justice finally being done.

I was therefore extremely pleased to hear the announcement by the Lord Chancellor last September that the Government intend to move towards allowing the televising of court proceedings. Of course, there should be a step-by-step approach.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I agree with the thrust of his argument. It is important that justice is not only done, but, as he says, seen to be done.

On the step-by-step approach, does he agree with the points made by the Master of the Rolls in his speech to the Judicial Studies Board on 16 March 2011? He asked,

“from a public interest perspective might there not be an argument now for its hearings”—

that is, the Supreme Court—

“and some hearings of the Court of Appeal, being televised on some equivalent of the Parliament Channel, or via the BBC iPlayer.”

Broadcasting court proceedings could start there. We could then see how that goes, and extend it later.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. The pilot scheme started in the Court of Appeal. In their review of the pilot scheme, the broadcasters said that they would have liked it to have gone further, and that it should have been allowed to cover Crown court proceedings, and perhaps to have shown witnesses as well as the counsel and judge. That needs to be done in a step-by-step way. There are genuine concerns and to allay them, we need to proceed gradually. I hope that in due course we will have much greater access, but let us start, as the right hon. Gentleman and the Master of the Rolls say, with the Court of Appeal. That would be a major step forward and is, I think, what the Government hope to do.

The obstacle is the requirement for primary legislation. There is no doubt that it will take time for the rules to be worked out, and secondary legislation will probably be needed to set out in detail how this will work. However, none of that can begin to happen until there is primary legislation. The broadcasters—in a letter that was sent this week by the head of BBC news, the chief executive of ITN and the head of Sky news: a joint letter from all three of the main news broadcasters in this country—have stated that they are very keen for the process to get under way, but that primary legislation would be required in the Queen’s Speech. My request and plea to the Minister this morning is not just to confirm the Government’s intention to move gradually and carefully down this road, but to do so at the first opportunity—the Queen’s Speech.

In conclusion, this is a reform whose time has not just come, but is long overdue. I hope the Minister agrees and is able to provide us with more details this morning.

Women Offender One-stop Shops

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

It is with great pleasure that I speak in this debate under your wonderfully impartial chairmanship, Mr Weir. I am pleased to see, yet again, my colleague from the Ministry of Justice, with whom I participated in a recent Westminster Hall debate on coroners. I hope that this debate on women in the criminal justice system is equally consensual, and that we reach a partnership in the same way.

I asked for the debate today because I am extremely concerned about the disconnect between the Government’s stated aims and policy on alternatives to prison, to which I am very committed, and the lack of sustainable and increased funding for the network of organisations that could help the Government achieve their long-term aim.

I have long felt that it is a national disgrace that we jail more women than any other country in the western world. The number of women in jail is increasing more quickly than that for men, yet the offences women commit are often petty, small in nature, requiring short sentences. In the past decade, the number of women entering prison has increased by 44%. The rise is not driven by an increase in criminality among women but by the courts, increasingly sentencing women to jail for minor crimes. My focus today is on the funding for women’s centres, the one-stop shops, which provide a cheaper and often more effective rehabilitative outcome as an alternative to prison for women.

The most common reason for women to be imprisoned is shoplifting, and 64% of women sentenced to jail are serving short-terms of less than six months. Female prisoners are much more likely to be serving short-term sentences than men, and are much more likely than men to have been imprisoned for non-violent, acquisitive crimes. To put it bluntly, if men had committed many of the offences that these women have committed, they would not have been jailed. All of the recent expert reviews of the criminal justice system, by Baroness Corston, Lord Bradley and the Fawcett commission, have come to the same conclusion: prison is not the answer. I am pleased that we also often hear that statement coming out of Government.

We need services providing interventions to help and support women in turning their own lives around, services such as those provided by one-stop centres for women offenders, which are also known as women’s centres. Building on the excellent work done by charities such as the Asha centre, the Calderdale women’s centre, Together Women and the women’s turnaround project in Cardiff, in 2009 the Ministry of Justice invested £15.6 million. There is now a national network of almost 50 women offender one-stop shops around the UK but, sadly, that is not enough: coverage is patchy, particularly in rural areas.

The way in which each such centre works is unique and the services available to women can vary, as the centres are often run by local or regional charities, with their own ethos and practices. Such centres work with women at every stage in the criminal justice system. What they have in common is that they will take women referred to them by the courts, police or social services who have offended or are at risk of offending, helping the women to take responsibility. The centres do not only contain them, they get the women to take responsibility for their own lives.

Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust said to me that, when women are sent to prison, they do not have the opportunity to address the underlying reasons for their crimes. They are not encouraged to take responsibility for their everyday lives: for sorting out somewhere to live, paying bills, cooking meals or looking after their children. Prison takes women away from their lives, and refuses them the opportunity to take responsibility for themselves or to address their problems.

One-stop shops for women offenders operate as hubs, offering back-up and support to ensure that appointments are kept and that courses dealing with the issues taking women into the criminal justice system in the first place are completed.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate. Does she agree that, as a consequence of the comprehensive nature of the support from women’s centres, we are seeing dramatic reductions in the rate of reoffending? That is of benefit not only to the women, but to the children and to society, and makes the centres extremely cost-effective. If we look at the issue in the cold terms of cost per crime avoided, a concept that might be applied more generally in the criminal justice system, women’s centres are extremely good value, as well as the right thing to do.

[Mrs Moon]

Absolutely. That is very much the direction in which I am hoping to take the debate, demonstrating exactly those points made by my right hon. Friend.

In many cases, we find that prison allows women to opt out of responsibility; to opt out of the life experiences that have often brought them into the criminal justice system. The one-stop shops get the women to the stage of beginning to see what they want for their future, beyond coping with the moment. That is an incredible thing to do; to help people move on from coping with the moment to seeing a life and the potential in the future, not only for themselves but for their children.

Many women offenders are also the victims of crimes that have left them with enormous problems in their lives, so a prison sentence presents a unique problem and difficulty for women. Up to 50% of female prisoners have experienced violence in the home, and one in three has been the victim of sexual abuse; up to 80% of women in prison have diagnosable mental health problems; 70% of women coming into custody require drugs detoxification, compared with 50% of men; 16% of the female prison population self-harm, compared with 3% of men; and the rate of suicide is higher among female prisoners than male ones, despite the opposite being the case in the general population. Women prisoners are also less likely than male prisoners to have settled accommodation, qualifications or experience of working, and they are more likely to have been living in poverty. Because there are so few women’s prisons, they are often situated further away from their children, friends, families and support networks, so they receive less help and support during their sentences and when they leave prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for raising this important issue. It has been a good debate with helpful contributions. As part of the proposals for reforming the justice system, the Government want to continue to focus on turning women away from crime. One-stop shops provide much needed community provision for women offenders. The complex reasons underlying women’s offending, and the particular vulnerabilities of women, were recognised by the Corston review in 2007, and Baroness Corston is welcome here today.

The hon. Lady began by mentioning funding, so I will also start with that issue in case I run out of time. I understand her point about consistency. It has always been the intention to embed the wider network of women’s community services—one-stop shops as they are sometimes known—into mainstream local commissioning. I acknowledge, however, that in the current fiscal climate, securing funding at local level has been extremely challenging for many projects. In recognition of that, and of the work needed to embed that approach into mainstream local commissioning, National Offender Management Services and the Corston Independent Funders’ Coalition have agreed over £3.2 million of funding for 2011-12, as the hon. Lady recognised, to sustain the majority of projects that were previously funded by the Ministry of Justice. In addition, Michael Spurr, chief executive of NOMS, has made a commitment from 2012-13 onwards to commission services that demonstrate effectiveness. That will be worked through as part of the discussions on the allocation of next year’s budget.

Baroness Corston’s report highlighted the different risks and needs faced by women. Women are more likely to serve short sentences for acquisitive crime, and to have complex needs that could include a combination of mental health, drug or alcohol problems, or long histories of abuse. As the hon. Lady noted, 37% of female prisoners self-harm compared with 7% of male prisoners. Women tend to be convicted for less serious offences—34% of women prisoners were sentenced for theft and handling offences, compared with 17% of men. About 45% of those remanded in custody in both the magistrates courts and the Crown court do not get a custodial sentence. Women offenders are also likely to be victims of crime.

The costs of the failure to tackle women’s offending do not relate only to criminal justice—55% of women in prison have children under the age of 18, and imprisoned mothers are more likely to be lone parents. Twelve per cent. of their children are in care, staying with foster parents or have been adopted. There is, therefore, both a social case and a strong business case for tackling those issues in the community, not least because of the possibility of breaking the intergenerational cycle of offending.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Given the commitment the Minister has made, which I welcome, will he undertake that future payment-by-result contracts will have a dedicated stream to address the needs of women offenders?

[Mr Djanogly]

I will come on to talk about payment by results, and we are certainly looking at that matter.

Baroness Corston called for a greater focus and a gender-specific approach to women in the criminal justice system, and the development of one-stop shops for women offenders was strongly influenced by that report. The Government broadly accept the conclusions in Baroness Corston’s report, and we want to ensure that earlier progress continues as part of wider reforms to sentencing and rehabilitation.

A key part of that approach has been the development of a network of women’s community services over the past two years. Funding was given to well-established voluntary sector providers to develop effective community-based interventions, working in partnership with probation services. That approach aimed to provide new options for the courts, strong bail provision and robust community sentences. Most of those services are based around a central hub such as a building—a one-stop shop, for example—or a key worker, so that at any point in the criminal justice system, women can access support to meet their complex needs and turn them away from crime.

To date, 45 projects have been supported, including 13 that were jointly funded by the Corston Independent Funders’ Coalition through the women’s diversionary fund. Over 4,600 women have been referred to those projects—58% with drug and alcohol needs, having made positive progress, and 56% with health needs, including problems of mental health. Women’s bail services were also funded to enhance the Bail Accommodation and Support Service contract, and to provide higher levels of support and mentoring for women.

The Government recognise that voluntary sector organisations have long shown the way in providing some of the solutions to reoffending. The £2 million partnership between the MOJ and the Corston Independent Funders’ Coalition is a ground-breaking and ongoing collaboration that is, I believe, an excellent example of the big society in action.

Nationally, we are beginning to make an impact on these deeply entrenched problems. The women’s prison population has reached a plateau—as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) pointed out, numbers of women serving short sentences fell by 12% between 2008 and 2009. NOMS works to ensure that we take account of women’s different needs, and has developed gender-specific standards. It works to promote and support community-based interventions for women, including out-of-court disposals to intervene at earlier stages. A specific strand of work with probation trusts exists in some of the highest remanding areas.

Criminal justice champions, including the judiciary, are also working to raise awareness and increase confidence in community-based interventions for women. Baroness Corston, the chair of the all-party group on women in the penal system, which focused on women’s diversion, has acknowledged that improvement in her assessment of the progress made that was published at the beginning of the year.

There is, however, more to do. We want to ensure that community services are in place to meet women’s complex needs and to help them to stop reoffending. The coalition Government do not view effective rehabilitation as what my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) called “the fluffy option”, and I am pleased to highlight that again today. In December we published a Green Paper entitled “Breaking the cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders” because we could see that the system was not delivering what really matters, such as more effective punishments that reduce the prospect of offenders reoffending time and again. That pattern is true for many women offenders as well as men. Our aim was to set out how changes to the sentencing framework, coupled with more effective rehabilitation, will help to break the cycle of crime and prison. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgend, many of the issues that affect rehabilitation, such as health and education, are devolved matters. We are working with the Welsh Assembly to consider how we can take forward our plans in Wales.

The Green Paper provides an opportunity to put a spotlight on the issue of turning women away from crime. It recognises that the needs of women offenders are different, and that the majority of those offenders have multiple and complex needs. We are seeking to create more effective and robust community sentences, with greater flexibility for the assessment and provision of mental health requirements and treatment as part of a community order. We must do more to promote recovery from dependency, and we know that more effective rehabilitation will reduce the number of victims.

The Green Paper confirmed our commitment to an approach that addresses all those matters, including the development, together with the Department of Health, of more intensive community-based drug treatment options for women offenders. It recognises that the criminal justice system is not always the best place to manage the problems of less serious offenders when the offending is related to mental health problems—an issue very relevant to women offenders. The MOJ, the Department of Health and the Home Office are working to ensure that front-line criminal justice and health agencies focus on identifying those people with mental health problems at an early stage of the criminal justice process.

There are also important plans for six payment-by-results pilots to reduce reoffending. Those pilots will test the principle of payment by results, and explore how different commissioning models can help to implement that system. We will ensure that women are included as part of the new approach. The “Breaking the cycle” consultation closed on 4 March 2011, and received over 1,200 responses. Baroness Northover led a consultation event on the specific implications for women. That stimulated an important and informative debate, and we received some thought-provoking responses on how we should further develop our approach to women offenders. The Government expect to publish their response soon in the Green Paper, but we have already started to deliver some of our plans for addressing problems of mental health and substance misuse. The Secretary of State for Health is investing £5 million in 20 mental health pathfinder areas, with the aim of ensuring that liaison and diversion services are available in police custody suites and at courts by 2014.

We already know from women’s community services how successful such schemes can be. In Birmingham, for example, the Anawim project has been working with partners to provide specialist mental health women’s services. Another major strand of work under way across Government is that of supporting victims of violence. That includes support for women offenders who have been abused and who may face barriers in accessing the support that they need. Women’s community services provide much needed support to that group. The MOJ and NOMS have worked with the Home Office in developing the “Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls: Action Plan.”

For women in prison there must be a much stronger focus on rehabilitation. Prisons should be places of education, work, rehabilitation and restoration, and we must ensure that all those approaches work with women offenders. For women leaving custody, support is needed to get resettled and eventually to be supported into stable employment.

Many women’s community services are working to improve women’s employability. North Wales women’s centre, for example, put together a package of support for women to gain skills and confidence by embedding that into practical learning through a volunteer programme that exposes participants to practical activities. That programme boosts confidence as well as giving the participant the opportunity to gain practical skills such as food hygiene within a simulated work environment. Across the women’s prisons estate good work is under way.