IPP Sentences

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection sentences.

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Imprisonment for public protection sentences, which were introduced in 2005 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, are cruel, unjust and damaging to those who are still serving them. They were meant to be used to protect the public against criminals who had committed one of 96 offences and who were thought still to be a danger after the minimum term or tariff of the original sentence had expired. No level was set for that tariff by the legislation and the open-ended nature of the sentences led to some catastrophic results.

The House of Commons Library, in its excellent briefing paper for this debate, noted one instance where the courts applied an IPP sentence to someone who had served a minimum term of just 28 days. The misapplication of, and erroneous logic behind, IPP sentences resulted in widespread criticism and to the Government being challenged in court over restrictions on ways that IPP prisoners could demonstrate that they were no danger to the public.

Following a joint report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and HM inspectorate of probation that highlighted the low levels of IPP prisoners being released, as well as the unsustainability of IPP prisoners adding to the burgeoning prison population, a ministerial review was carried out. Eventually, after further court cases and public pressure, IPP sentences were abolished on 3 December 2012. By then, more than 6,000 prisoners had received IPP sentences. Fast-forwarding to the present day, according to Ministry of Justice statistics as of June this year there were 1,132 IPP prisoners who had never been released, and a further 1,602 who had been recalled for breaching their licence conditions, making a total of 2,734 IPP prisoners still in our prisons.

Criticism of IPP sentences has come from far and wide. In August of this year, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, said:

“IPP sentences are inhuman treatment and, in many cases, amount to psychological torture.”

Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas described them as “morally wrong” and “inherently unfair”. Even Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were brought in, described their introduction as “the biggest regret” of his political career, which in some cases had led to injustice.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Did the hon. Gentleman hear Lord Blunkett on the media today saying that one of the alternative options should be secure therapeutic units?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right, and one of the biggest impacts of IPP sentences is on the mental health of prisoners. I will come to that later. She makes a good point with which I agree.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I want to raise the case of my constituent whose son is serving an indefinite IPP sentence and suffers from long-term psychiatric conditions. She feels he is in the wrong institution, unable to access the specialist support he urgently needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that such cases underline the urgent need for a review of IPP sentences, particularly given the crisis in overcrowded prisons?

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a special need for prisoners to receive support. Keeping IPP prisoners incarcerated for longer than they should be is adding further pressure on our already overcrowded prison population.

In a recent written response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Minister confirmed that there are still five serving IPP prisoners who were given a minimum term of less than six months but have served more than 16 years. There are a further 15 with a tariff of between six months and a year who have not been released after 16 years. There are in a further 47 in the same position whose tariff was between a year and 18 months.

Among the 1,132 IPP prisoners who have never been released is one of my constituents. Ongoing legal proceedings preclude me from naming him, although I can say that in 2006 he was sentenced to serve a minimum of 10 years for robbery under an IPP plan but has now served 19 years. He is now 42 years old and has missed the funeral of his grandfather, along with countless other family occasions. That has had a serious impact on him and his family.

The psychological harm experienced by IPP prisoners and their families has been well documented by the British Psychological Society, which refers to the heightened risk of self-harm and suicide that IPP prisoners face as a result of their hopelessness and their perpetual state of anxiety at the prospect of additional years in prison. The deterioration of IPP prisoners’ mental health is illustrated by the Royal College of Psychiatrists case study in which a 17-year-old was given an IPP sentence for street robbery of trainers and given a one-year tariff but spent 10 years in prison, during which time he lost both his living relatives: his mother and grandmother. His mental health deteriorated so badly that he had to be transferred to a secure NHS mental hospital.

Having spoken to some of the family members of people currently serving IPP sentences—I met them at lunchtime today, and many are in the Public Gallery—I have heard at first hand about the impact that this unbearable situation has on family members, but the impact on IPP prisoners is far more profound. According to the United Group for Reform of IPP, or UNGRIPP, which is campaigning to bring about change to IPP sentences, 90 IPP prisoners have committed suicide since the sentences were introduced, with nine of those suicides occurring in 2023. Considering that the prison population last year was approximately 87,000 and IPP prisoners were only 3% of that total, it is staggering that IPP prisoners accounted for 10% of all self-inflicted deaths in prison in 2023.

One example is the tragic suicide of Scott Rider in 2022. In 2005, he had been sentenced to an IPP sentence, with a minimum tariff of 23 months. Seventeen years later, he was still in prison. He was one of the longest serving IPP prisoners at the time of his death. Following a three-day inquest into his death, the senior coroner for Milton Keynes, Tom Osborne, said in his regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths:

“On any consideration of the circumstances of Mr Rider’s death one has to conclude that his treatment was inhumane and indefensible and that if action is not taken to review all prisoners sentenced to IPP then there is a risk of further deaths occurring.”

He added:

“Mr Rider was one of many IPP prisoners struggling to progress”

and, at the time of his death, he had served 17.5 years and had

“given up all hope of release.”

The loss of hope of ever being released is certainly one of the big factors behind the high levels of suicide and self-harm among IPP prisoners. Even when IPP prisoners have been released on licence, the draconian licence conditions have led to prisoners being recalled for minor breaches of their licence, such as being late or missing an appointment. As I have mentioned, there are currently 1,602 IPP prisoners who have been released on licence but recalled.

I am sure that we all agree that the current situation cannot continue, so what is to be done? In September 2022, in its excellent report on IPP sentences, the Justice Committee, chaired by Sir Bob Neill, made several recommendations to remedy the damage done by the sentences. The three main recommendations can be summarised as follows. No. 1 involves a refreshed action plan for IPP sentences, better access to prison programmes to help IPP prisoners to progress and better support for prisoners who are suffering with their mental health because of these sentences. No. 2 involves better training for Parole Board members overseeing IPP prisoners’ parole hearings, more support for IPP prisoners in preparing for parole hearings, a reduction of the qualifying licence period and better support for prison leavers. No. 3 is resentencing. In paragraph 152 of its report, the Justice Committee said:

“Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals…This is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence and its subsequent administration, and to restore proportionality to the original sentences that were given.”

The Committee also noted that there is precedent for resentencing retrospectively, but that it would require primary legislation. Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas emphasised his support for this approach.

I acknowledge the steps that this Government and the previous Government have taken to tackle some of the problems caused by the licence conditions of IPP sentences. Particularly of note is section 66 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which creates an automatic termination process for IPP licences in certain circumstances, starting from this Friday, 1 November. At lunchtime, I had the pleasure of meeting a former IPP prisoner who will benefit from this measure, which means that he will no longer be on an IPP licence and will be able to be at large freely. The Act also allows for reviews by the Parole Board in certain circumstances from 1 February 2025.

However, resentencing would be the most effective way to deal with the legacy of IPP sentences. I am aware that it is not without its problems, but it is the only just and fair way to deal with this appalling situation, which, if left unresolved, will lead to more IPP prisoners self-harming and taking their own lives.

Prior to this debate, some of the IPP reform campaigners met Lord Woodley to discuss his private Member’s Bill on resentencing IPP prisoners, which reflects the Justice Committee’s recommendations on the matter. I hope Ministers will meet Lord Woodley to discuss his proposals, because there needs to be a review of IPP sentences, and all options need to be considered.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister advise me on what steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in our prisons? What support mechanisms have been put in place to help IPP prisoners who are struggling with their mental health, including those who have been institutionalised, to help them overcome the barriers that may adversely affect their parole hearings and to prepare them for a return to life outside prison? Will the Government reconsider their position on resentencing IPP prisoners? At a stroke, that would rectify this injustice once and for all. Will the Government at least carry out a review to see what the barriers to resentencing are? That is the one thing that all commentators think needs to be done to resolve the injustice caused by IPP sentences.

I thank UNGRIPP, the Howard League—which runs an excellent advice line for family members of IPP prisoners —the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Psychological Society. I also thank the House of Commons Library for its excellent briefings ahead of the debate. Most important are the family and friends of IPP prisoners who are incarcerated and those who have endured IPP sentences. Finally, there are those who unfortunately bow to the pressure of hopelessness, as there is no end to their sentences in sight, and, sadly, end their lives in prison. I hope that change will come and that IPP sentences will finally be gotten rid of from our prisons and confined to the dustbin of history, where they belong.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to call the Lib Dem spokesperson at 3.28 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

I also thank colleagues who have taken part in the debate, which has been thorough and thoughtful. There have been great contributions from everybody. I also have an apology from the Justice Committee, which is in its first meeting right now so its members could not be present, but would have liked to attend, so we would have had more voices around this Chamber.

I welcome many of the comments made by the Minister, particularly those about the action plan and the dashboard for prisoners. They need to know what is happening, so I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that they need to be in the correct prisons in order to progress and the fact that they will have dedicated time to see support workers and get the right education and training to be released. I look forward to seeing the action plan when it is republished, and I am keen to see what progress it makes, because we want to see progress and ensure that IPP prisoners are no longer suffering and are able to get on with their lives. It impacts not just them, but their families. If this does not work, I certainly think we need to revisit the resentencing option.

One point made by numerous Members in the debate was about the recommendations of the Justice Committee, which talked about having an “expert committee”. It is about looking at and resentencing each individual case, which would be very time-consuming, but the right and just thing to do. We will see where we go, and we will monitor the progress made on this by the Government. If progress has not been made, we will come back and seek to look at other alternatives, but I welcome the measures put in place so far.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection sentences.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

On the 37 who were wrongly released, I had never imagined that it would be possible for people to be charged and sentenced under an older Act of Parliament, and not the more recent Sentencing Act 2020, and as soon as that issue was brought to our attention we took immediate steps. All 37 were ultimately returned to custody, and I will ensure that that mistake cannot happen again. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about reducing reoffending. Access to literacy training and skills and the ability to get a job are important in helping an offender turn their back on a life of crime, and I hope the sentencing review will make further positive suggestions on that. We know we have to tackle reoffending, and we know that jobs, housing and so on are part of the picture if we are to persuade people to become the better citizens that we need them to be, rather than the better criminals that our system currently produces.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s review of sentencing, but as she may know, people who are neurodivergent are hugely over-represented in the prison population. What steps will she take to ensure that prisoners with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism do not reoffend?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the support prisoners receive in prison must be tailored to take account of needs such as neurodivergence and autism, much of which has gone undiagnosed in the life of prisoners, and often does not even get diagnosed within the prison estate. We must obviously turn that around, and I am confident we can make progress in that area. First we have to deal with the capacity crisis, because when prisons are very overcrowded offenders are locked up for 23 hours a day, and in that one remaining hour little good work can be done. We must deal with the capacity problems so that we can then deal with the underlying issues that prisoners face before they can make the positive choices that we all want.

Criminal Law

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your election and welcome you to your place as Deputy Speaker.

I welcome this motion from my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is taking the only realistic action open to her to deal with the critical issue of prison capacity, with our prisons projected to be overflowing by September. This is another failure by the former Conservative Government, the result of their continuously kicking the can down the road, rather than dealing with the issues at hand.

The current situation cannot come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the developments in criminal justice over the past 14 years. Prior to the election being called, I had the pleasure of serving for a second time on the Justice Committee, and on 22 May this year, in one of his last statements as Chair of the Committee, Sir Bob Neill KC said that

“Prisons are simply running out of space. My committee has long since warned of the dangers of successive Governments ignoring the rise in jail numbers, set against a workforce recruitment and retention crisis and a crumbling Victorian prison estate. Ministers and society must be prepared to invest in prison capacity and proper rehabilitation programmes as the current situation is unsustainable”.

That is the Conservative former Chair of the Justice Committee speaking. The warning signs were there a long time ago, but the failure to invest has meant that we are now reaping this bitter harvest. I welcome the prison building programme and the renewal programme mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, but in addition to the measures proposed in this motion, I would like to suggest some further measures that may reduce the prison population over a longer term.

The first measure is addressing court delays. In its report “Reducing the backlog in the Crown Court”, published in May this year, the National Audit Office found that at the end of December 2023, the outstanding Crown court caseload was 65,573, and 18,000 of those cases had been outstanding for a year or more. It also found that it took an average of 683 days from offence to completion of a case in the Crown court, and that a staggering 16,005 people were on remand as of the end of December 2023. One third were awaiting sentencing, and the remaining two thirds were awaiting trial. The remand population is the highest it has been in over 50 years. Those figures are truly shocking, and the issue of remand prisoners needs to be addressed urgently. The maxim that justice delayed is justice denied is certainly apt, and we should remember that delays in cases going to trial also have adverse impacts on the victims and witnesses.

One of the causes of the delay is a shortage of criminal barristers and duty solicitors, whose numbers have been in decline since 2018. In part, that has been due to a serious under-investment in our criminal justice system over the past two decades. I hope that we will soon see the investment we need in the criminal justice system from this Government. On court dates and the listing of trials, I very much hope that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service gets smarter in how it uses time and space for court hearings.

The second point I wish to make is about reoffending, an issue that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has touched on. According the Ministry of Justice’s own figures from the last quarter for which stats are available, 33.4% of adults released from custody will go on to reoffend. That figure is way too high. As reoffending is so high, it should come as no surprise that a large number of people are being remanded for non-violent offences due to their repeat offending. Many of those repeat offenders will have underlying vulnerabilities, such as drug abuse, homelessness and mental health issues, which will not have been properly addressed. Unless there is a co-ordinated approach to tackling the causes of reoffending, we will see this endless revolving-door cycle in our criminal justice system that gives courts no option but to remand repeat offenders into custody. I know that my right hon. Friend is serious about taking action to address those issues, and I ask her to co-ordinate work with other Departments to help stop reoffending.

The final point I wish to focus on is imprisonment for public protection prisoners, who account for approximately 3,000 of the prisoners in our prisons. In its report on IPP prisoners, the Justice Committee said that

“Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals…This is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence and its subsequent administration, and to restore proportionality to the original sentences that were given.”

On previous occasions, I have made the point that dealing with IPP prisoners who have spent more time in prison than they should have would not only help reduce the prison population, but would right a wrong.

In conclusion, I very much welcome this motion as a short-term measure to deal with the overcrowding in our prisons. I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to an annual prison capacity statement, which will allow us to see what effect this measure and other measures have on the prison population. In addition to building more prisons, we need an investment in our criminal justice system, and greater recruitment and retention of barristers, solicitors, prison officers and probation officers. I was delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend has committed to recruiting 1,000 more probation officers. That will certainly help to address issues that arise among people who are on licence after serving half of their sentence. We need to clear the backlog of cases in the Crown court to allow remand prisoners to be dealt with sooner, and we also need to address the root causes of both offending and reoffending. Finally, we need to deal with IPP prisoners, and see what can be done to release those who are over tariff.

I hope that the motion will pass today; it is a very good start to tackling the Gordian knot that we face. Still more work needs to be done, but I have every confidence that the Lord Chancellor and her team will deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Prison Capacity

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I welcome the shadow Lord Chancellor to his place; we have always worked constructively together wherever appropriate, and I look forward to continuing to do so while he is in post. He made a heroic attempt to gloss over many years of failure in planning by the previous Government. I was surprised that he managed to say it all with a straight face. He knows full well that for many years the previous Government struggled to get such measures past many of their Back-Benchers, not all of whom have returned post the general election, but some of whom remain here, and remain implacable opponents of any kind of planning developments in their constituency. They think that national infrastructure is a good thing as long as it is elsewhere. I look forward to seeing whether there is a change of heart among those on the Opposition Benches. It would be welcome, because this Government will not allow the planning system to prevent our country from having either the prison places or the national infrastructure that we so desperately need. He also knows full well that of the 20,000 places that were supposed to have been provided by the previous Government by 2025, only 6,000 have been delivered.

I am concerned about the position relating to prisoners on remand. The shadow Lord Chancellor rightly notes that the number of those on remand in our prison estate is around 16,000. Of course, judges need to be able to remand people to prison for public protection reasons. That will not change. He will know, given his former role in the Department, that there are no immediate solutions, because many of those individuals will in the end be sentenced to custody. I am considering all options available to me for driving that number down as much as possible. In the end, we will need our 10-year capacity plan to take account of what we expect the sentenced population to look like.

On the sentences that are covered by this measure, the shadow Lord Chancellor will know that in order to make a change by means of a statutory instrument, it has to relate to specific offences. That is why we have taken every precaution and every option available to us to exclude sentences connected to domestic abuse. He knows that those will include—I am sure that he has seen the draft statutory instrument—offences related to the breaching of a non-molestation order; stalking, which I mentioned in my statement, including stalking involving the fear of violence, serious alarm or distress; strangulation or suffocation; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship; the breaching of a restraining order; and a breach of a domestic abuse protection order. The common offences that we know are connected to domestic abuse are caught in the statutory instrument. On multiple and repeat offences, he will know that the decision relies on the combination that is reviewed when the sentencing calculation is done.

As I said in my statement, I will return in 18 months to update the House. We want to remove this temporary measure as quickly as possible, and we will be transparent throughout. The shadow Lord Chancellor will not need to chase me around this building trying to find out what is happening, as I had to when I was in his position and we were considering the previous Government’s early release scheme. We will be transparent in a way that the previous Government simply were not. We will do a quarterly release of all the data, and we will update the House regularly.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman followed the announcement on Friday closely, so he will know that the announcement on probation does not involve new money. It is a re-prioritisation of resources, because strengthening probation to make sure that it is in the strongest possible position to deal with the early release scheme is incredibly important to us.

On Dartmoor, the right hon. Gentleman knows the history very well. Safety is our No. 1 priority, and after close monitoring of the situation at HMP Dartmoor, it has been decided that prison will be temporarily closed. I will update the House as the situation develops. I say to him gently that we have committed to a 10-year capacity strategy. We recognise that we need to make sure that this country has the prison places that it needs. We will deliver where the previous Government failed, and we will never allow the planning process to get in the way of having the prisons that we need in this country.

Longer term, however, we will also look at driving down reoffending, because the entrenched cycle of reoffending creates more victims and more crime, and it has big impacts on our ability to have the capacity that we need in our prison estate. That is why this Government will make it a key priority to drive down reoffending. That is a strategy for creating better citizens, not better criminals. It is a strategy for cutting crime, and in the long term, it will deal with our capacity problems for years to come.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place on the Government Front Bench. The imprisonment for public protection prison population is more than 2,700; 99% of those people are over tariff, and more than 700 prisoners are now 10 years over their original tariff. Can she accelerate the Ministry of Justice’s refreshed IPP action plan to help to reduce the prison population and right that wrong?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The situation with IPP prisoners is of great concern, and I know that huge numbers of Members on both sides of this House care about it deeply. I share that concern. IPP prisoners are not caught in the changes that we are putting forward; those are indeterminate sentences, not standard determinate sentences. We supported the previous Government in what we thought were sensible changes to the licence period and the action plan, and we will continue that work. However, any changes made have to account for public protection risks, first and foremost. We want to make progress with that cohort of prisoners, but not in a way that impacts public protection.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so assiduous in raising this important matter on behalf of her constituents. We are investing heavily in the family system to deal with precisely these issues. If something has gone wrong in that specific case, perhaps she will be kind enough to come to see me so that we can discuss it further.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

T7. There are 2,796 prisoners with indeterminate sentences for public protection languishing in our prisons, 705 of whom are 10 years over their original tariff and 112 of whom had a tariff of less than two years and are now over tariff by 15 years or more. The MOJ’s refreshed IPP action plan clearly is not working, so what does the Secretary of State plan to do to fix this dire situation?

[Alex Chalk]

The total number of IPPs is slightly higher than that but, looking into the data, the really significant factor is that, whereas there were some 6,000 IPP prisoners in 2012, the number who have not been released is down to around 1,200. Our action plan tries to address that. Our reforms are designed to ensure that, when IPP prisoners are released, they do not face a licence period of 10 years, which can lead to them being recalled at any time. Reducing it to three years is a humane and sensible way of trying to erase this stain on the conscience of our justice system.

Family Court Reform and CAFCASS

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and family court reform.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins.

Family breakdown is never easy. Disputes are inevitable and often bitter. Children are caught in the middle of a tug of war between parents. In those conflicts, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, or CAFCASS, plays a key role. Child arrangements orders, prohibited steps orders and a host of other key rulings in the family courts often hinge on the reports provided by CAFCASS and the assessments carried out by its workforce. CAFCASS is in desperate need of reform, and it requires funding to protect children subject to care proceedings.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 stated clearly the role of CAFCASS. First and foremost, it has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children affected by family courts proceedings, yet it is falling far short of the standards required. In 2020, the Ministry of Justice published a damning report on the performance of CAFCASS. The findings were shocking, including failures running deep into every area of the organisation’s work, poor handling of domestic abuse allegations, wilful disregard of children’s voices and an obsessive pro-contact culture that puts unfit parents’ demands ahead of children’s best interests. That was the Government’s own verdict.

The reality is that that is simply an exacerbation of a problem that has engulfed the family courts since 2010. The Government’s cruel decision to remove legal aid from the majority of such cases has led to ugly and disordered scenes in courtrooms nationwide, as parents are forced to represent themselves without sufficient support or understanding of how the system is supposed to function.

Diminishing access to legal aid has only caused further delays in the courts, and denies victims justice. To address the backlog, the Government should properly fund civil legal aid and restore legal aid for early advice for family cases, so cases can be resolved more efficiently.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

There is often a financial disparity between parties. Sometimes, parties use the issue of parental alienation to drag things out longer and to add more expense to the disadvantaged party in those proceedings. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that CAFCASS, the courts and judges were better trained in the issue of parental alienation and how it is used as a tactic to prevent court cases dragging on longer than they need to?

[Taiwo Owatemi]

I absolutely agree, and parental alienation is an issue I will come to later in my speech. Reform is desperately needed.

Will the Minister outline what steps the Ministry of Justice is taking to increase the funding of legal aid? Will he update us on when we can expect the civil legal aid review?

--- Later in debate ---

[Taiwo Owatemi]

Absolutely. Proper legal representation needs to be available to everyone in the United Kingdom.

The large backlogs in the family court are creating delays and uncertainty for families and, most alarmingly of all, for vulnerable children. No child should have to witness this sort of conflict, anger and grief played out before a judge. The children caught up in these cases are now suffering as a result of constant failings in leadership from Ministers in this Government.

The most damning aspect of our family court system is false accusations of parental alienation. Too often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) says, a wealthy parent can, in effect, purchase custody of a child through certain legal loopholes. Denounced by the United Nations as a “regressive pseudo-theory”, parental alienation is an argument whereby one parent claims that another is making false abuse claims or is otherwise manipulating the child’s view out of hostility towards their ex-partner. The concept has little to no evidence to support it, but is none the less often accepted, resulting in children being placed with an abusive parent.

I pay tribute to the team at the University of Manchester, whose recent research has revealed the dark and rotten roots of that commonly employed tactic. It was invented 40 years ago as a means of aiding perpetrators to cover up the physical and sexual violence to which they had subjected their spouses and children, yet in Britain the strategy is being given free rein in our family courts. Not only are utterly unqualified individuals being allowed to testify as supposed experts in such cases, but CAFCASS has overseen the rise in such false allegations.

I have spoken with many constituents about their treatment by the family courts. One case summarises everything that is wrong with CAFCASS: the dangers of parental alienation and the risks posed by a blind insistence on contact even when a parent is evidently unfit to have any responsibility over a child. My constituent married a foreign national a decade ago. They had one son, who is now eight years old. Until recently, he was being brought up by his mother in the comfort of a loving, caring home alongside his extended family. Having had the courage to escape the sexual and physical domestic abuse inflicted by her ex-husband, my constituent was granted sole custody of her son. Occasional contact with the father was enforced by the court and complied with by my constituent, despite the clear distress that those sessions caused to the child, yet, when the arrangements broke down, the father was able to launch false alienation proceedings against his ex-wife to remove the boy from her custody. That was supported every step of the way by CAFCASS. He has now succeeded in depriving my constituent of her only child, despite the rigorous investigations by social services at Coventry City Council that concluded that she was an exemplary mother.

Thanks to the deeply imbedded pro-contact culture of CAFCASS, long since identified but allowed to run unreformed for years, an eight-year-old boy is now in the clutches of a man who beat and sexually assaulted my constituent throughout their marriage. Despite mountains of evidence proving his unfitness to have custody of the child, everything was pushed and CAFCASS took his side, placing the blame on the boy’s mother.

What is perhaps most concerning is that despite the child’s distress, a litany of domestic abuse and the detailed reports compiled by Coventry City Council in support of my constituent’s parenting were all cast aside in the family courts. Deploying parental alienation allegations as his chief legal tactic, the boy’s father has now won sole custody, leaving my constituent utterly bereft.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The interests of the child should be paramount—that was written into the Children Act 1989, many years ago—but there seems to have been a clear failure of that policy. Allegations of parental alienation often cause great distress not just for the parent, but for the child at the centre of the case. Does my hon. Friend agree that in cases such as the one she describes, CAFCASS needs to return to focusing on the paramount interests of the child?

[Taiwo Owatemi]

Absolutely. The role of CAFCASS is to protect the child during family proceedings, but it seems to be failing in that role.

The tragedy is being multiplied in the thousands nationwide. A self-reported survey suggests that allegations of parental alienation are made in up to 70% of family court cases in England and Wales. The scandal has been allowed to go on for far too long. It is time for CAFCASS and the family courts to be held accountable. When will the Government legislate to bar unqualified so-called experts from the family courts? When will guidance be published for judges on the admissibility of family alienation allegations as evidence in these cases?

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Ali. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate, which seems to have prompted the Government to make today’s announcement about the opening of the Afghan citizen resettlement scheme. I welcome that, but I believe it should have happened months ago. The announcement of the opening of the scheme still leaves many questions unanswered, and I hope that the Minister can answer some of them when she responds.

There are three Chevening alumni scholars who have a connection to my constituency and who were eligible for the emergency evacuation by the Foreign Office back in August, but given the chaos that ensured at Kabul airport and the lack of response from the Foreign Office, they were unable to board the flights to the UK. The three Chevening alumni scholars remain in Afghanistan and have been lying low to avoid the Taliban, and I am pleased that the Minister has stated that there will be a third route to the scheme that will prioritise Chevening alumni and others, but I would welcome the Minister’s explaining to me how the scheme will work in practice to locate the alumni, and whether it will also allow those who are eligible to bring their families with them. During the statement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) stressed the need for family reunion to be part and parcel of the resettlement scheme, because the one thing that we do not want to happen is to see family members embarking on dangerous crossings to the UK in order to be with their families who have secured places on the resettlement scheme.

In August and September, some people felt that their lives were threatened by the Taliban due to their roles as activists for women’s rights or in law enforcement, or because they were from religious minorities or were part of the LGBTQ community. They managed to escape to third countries. They, too, will need to access the ACRS, but from a third country. Could the Minister let me know whether they will be able to access the scheme from third countries? I note that in her statement earlier today, she spoke about the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees playing a role in referring refugees in need of resettlement who fled Afghanistan, but I am interested to know how that would work, because some of them may have fled to places such as Tajikistan, Iran and other countries, where it may be a bit more difficult for UNHCR to assist them.

If the scheme is to be a success, the Government also need to consider what they need to do to ensure that there is integration when people have been settled in the UK. I note that Barnardo’s has advised that there is a need to help children to be resettled in the UK. It has advised that children should be given a particular focus when considering integration, because the needs of refugee children, and the impact that they have on the entire family, must be considered in order to ensure that integration is successful. Families need to be supported in the environment in which they are most comfortable—for instance, key workers can best build relationships with refugee families in informal settings, such as their home environment. Things like that also need to be considered.

Barnardo’s also argues that integration is a two-way process, so local communities must be encouraged and supported to better understand the nature and trauma of those seeking asylum and resettlement in another country. I ask the Minister to take into account the expertise of organisations such as Barnardo’s in dealing with resettlement, particularly of children. I note the references that the Minister made in her statement earlier today about integration, but I would welcome her thoughts on the issue of integrating children into the system.

Local councils will also be at the centre of supporting communities and people who have been resettled under the scheme. They cannot be left alone to deal with the challenges of the scheme without proper support—both financial and strategic—from central Government. I would very much welcome information from the Minister about how local government will be supported in hosting communities and vulnerable individuals through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.

In August and September, many of us received emails, telephone calls or visits from constituents in relation to their concerns about family members in Afghanistan. Although we were able to give responses with the information we had had from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, those updates stopped in September. I have already had a couple of inquiries from constituents who are concerned about their family members. I invite the Minister to advise us on what support will be received from the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the MOD, so that we can respond to those inquiries from constituents whose family members may be eligible for the scheme. That needs to be addressed.

I have made only a short speech because I thought the debate would be oversubscribed, but clearly the earlier statement has dealt with a number of concerns that people have about the resettlement scheme. I will end by saying that the chaotic scenes during the UK’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 must be one of the lowest points of the Government’s foreign policy. We now have a moral duty to support those who have helped the UK and who have a strong connection with our nation. Although I welcome the opening of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, it has to be implemented properly so that it does what it was intended to do. I am very keen for the scheme to be a success because we must not let the Afghan people down again.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I can certainly provide my right hon. Friend with that assurance. We want to get this right, which is why it is taking us a bit of time. I understand the concerns of colleagues, and also, as she said, the real concerns of Afghans already in this country. I have met many, and every one has raised concerns about their families and friends left behind. I understand that, but it will take a bit of time, and I ask the House to bear with us while we try to ensure we get it right.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I echo the concerns raised so far. It has been two months since the Kabul airlift, and as we know, many of those who needed to be evacuated, having been accepted as high risk, were left behind in Afghanistan and now face persecution under Taliban rule. I share the frustrations of many about the slow progress of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, and we are still waiting for details from the Home Office about how that scheme will operate in practice. The Government’s website offering guidance on the scheme has not been updated since 13 September. At the same time, there have been increasing reports of violence against women and girls, and members of the LGBTI community in Afghanistan, and efforts must be made to step up help for those in desperate need.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned Chevening scholars, and my office has raised concerns on behalf of Chevening scholars who remain at high risk in Afghanistan due to their links with the UK. They were eligible for evacuation but were not called forward, and since raising those cases I have had no response from the Government. Will the Minister provide an update on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, and inform the House what measures have been taken to ensure that those most at risk are guaranteed safe passage and access to neighbouring countries? What support will former Chevening scholars who are a priority for assistance and still in Afghanistan be eligible to receive, and through which mechanism? I am not sure whether the Minister answered the question about whether they will be guaranteed a place under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. What steps will she take to speed up the community sponsorship scheme to help those in Afghanistan who may not qualify for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme?

[Victoria Atkins]

I can deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point on Chevening scholars. The scheme has not been launched yet. We want to get this right, so I am afraid that I will have to give him the holding answer, which is that we are working on the scheme. I know that he would not expect me to give details, thoughts or running commentary on how the policy is being developed before we have, as a Government, come to a collective agreement on it so that we can best ensure that the policy meets the very real needs that many in this House have raised.

I imagine that only today, we will hear not just about Chevening scholars but, for example, about religious minorities, about people who are LGBT+ and about extraordinary women who have done extraordinary things in Afghanistan in the last 20 years in pursuit of equality and the rights of women before the law. Those are all categories of people that we have set out in the policy statement that we want to help, but we have to do this in a managed and measured way so that we get the scheme right and, over the coming years, it delivers the sorts of changes and help that everyone in the House expects.

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate 2 December 2020: House of Commons
Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

The first is after coming into prison from the community. We know that 90% of people who come into prison from outside and who go on to access treatment are into the treatment programme within three weeks, and 61% access it immediately. That sounds to me like a good statistic, but among people who are moving from one secure setting to another the numbers are a little worse: 41% of those who eventually access treatment after a transfer took more than three weeks to do so, which cannot be good, and just 15% started treatment immediately after their transfer. There is clearly a problem, and I really would like to hear from the Minister what she feels can be done to improve things.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

[Ms Brown]

The hon. Lady asked what we will use the evidence we gather for. The key objective of the mandatory drug testing programme is to provide a means of identifying prisoners with ongoing drug problems to ensure that they are offered the appropriate treatment, and I would like to detail some of the work that we are doing on that. However, it is also right, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who has such experience, that we need to tackle those who traffic, distribute and use illegal and illicit drugs, and prison governors should have appropriate sanctions available to them to discourage such offending. The hon. Member for West Ham is right that we need to treat people with drug use, but prisons must take a balanced approach that is consistent with that, and it is important that they have the tools available to them in appropriate places.

[Bambos Charalambous]

[Lucy Frazer]

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

The first is after coming into prison from the community. We know that 90% of people who come into prison from outside and who go on to access treatment are into the treatment programme within three weeks, and 61% access it immediately. That sounds to me like a good statistic, but among people who are moving from one secure setting to another the numbers are a little worse: 41% of those who eventually access treatment after a transfer took more than three weeks to do so, which cannot be good, and just 15% started treatment immediately after their transfer. There is clearly a problem, and I really would like to hear from the Minister what she feels can be done to improve things.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I had the pleasure of visiting HMP Cardiff a couple of years ago with the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee. That prison was getting prisoners from Bristol visiting them who were under different regimes—under a different nation’s schemes. That had an impact on the prisoners from Bristol and other areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a more joined-up approach in dealing with this?

[Ms Brown]

I absolutely do. It is quite clear that once someone is on a treatment programme it needs to continue seamlessly, because we all want people, when they leave prison and go back into our communities, to be able to do so free from drugs and addiction, and to start a fresh life. My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for bringing that to our attention.

I gently suggest that the statistics, and Government policy more broadly, might be improved if we stop pretending that prisoners do not start taking drugs while in prison, rather than always going into prison with an addiction. That is the truth of it. The whole system at the moment seems to be geared to discovering who has a pre-existing dependence on drugs and ensuring that they are in treatment, which is good. Do not get me wrong, that is essential, but for drugs such as spice, which has been very common in prisons, it is not the whole story.

There is a third pathway to treatment that we need to ensure is available: a pathway for those people who did not have a drug problem when they entered prison but who, tragically and unacceptably, acquired one while inside. They are the people the system is failing most—the people for whom the boredom and difficulties of prison life are alleviated by short oblivion through illicit drugs obtained inside. I am genuinely hopeful that the Bill will enable treatment for those people. If it does, that will be a massive benefit to communities and families.

I will quickly explore one other issue. The transition between custody and community is often a revolving door, especially for those with drug abuse problems. It may be especially important for spice users. It is very evident that spice is disproportionately used by two populations: prisoners and rough sleepers. We know from last week’s Public Health England substance misuse statistics that in 2019 almost half of those entering treatment for misuse of an NPS had a housing problem—the highest proportion for any category of substances. I suspect that if we accounted for those who use spice but who are not in treatment as well as for those who are, the proportion with a housing problem would be even higher. It is incredibly difficult to hold down a job, maintain positive relationships and a family life, and to keep the mind and body healthy while living on the street. That contributes to higher levels of imprisonment among those who sleep rough.

Homelessness for prison leavers, and what the charity Nacro calls cell, street, repeat, is a priority for us, and I am led to believe that it will be a priority for the Government to reduce reoffending rates in coming years. However, we need to understand how these issues are connected; how many people come into prison with a history of rough sleeping and associated use of spice in a year; how many receive treatment for substance misuse while inside; how many are still accessing spice or other harmful substances while they are inside; how many of these people, when released, go straight back to rough sleeping; and how many are going straight back to spice use if they managed to get clean inside. I hope the Minister will offer to take this issue away and consider whether there is a need for further research, which the Ministry could commission, and how it might best be achieved.

The other important transition is when people leave prison. We need to ensure that leaving prison means starting a new, changed life. It is good for the whole of our community that prisoners, when released, do not come out and reoffend. It is also important for the prisoner that they get a true second chance. Substance misuse treatment is a massive part of ensuring that that can happen. We need to ensure that information about people’s needs travels with them as they leave prison and that treatment is immediate and consistent when they arrive in the community.

There is, unfortunately, little point in people getting clean or stable inside prison if they immediately relapse when they are out, without enough support, in the chaos and confusion of the outside world again. In fact, as we know, after release is the most dangerous time for those using illicit drugs, with appalling proportions of overdose deaths occurring in the first few days after leaving prison, just when we are wanting people to have a sense of hope and rebirth. A Norwegian study found that 85% of all deaths in prison leavers in the first week after release were due to overdoses. A US study found that the risk of an overdose death was 12.7 times higher for a prison leaver in the first two weeks after release from the general population.

Most of these deaths after leaving prison are the result of opiate use—heroin, or even more, drugs such as fentanyl—rather than an NPS. People in prison with an opiate dependence are generally on a regulated dose of a replacement drug as a medication, but when they come out, if they do not have immediate access to continue that treatment, they turn to the black market. At that point, much higher and less reliable doses are sold, which can quickly overwhelm the body, and people die. So getting transitions from custody to community right is a matter of life and death for some, and an essential part of treatment.

A few weeks ago, I met with some amazing NHS staff who work with armed services veterans in custody at HMP Wandsworth. I was delighted to hear that the staff in the substance misuse team leave the prison when those in their care are released, and go with them to their first appointment for community treatment. That is exactly the kind of integrated working that we need, but we all know that it is far from universal.

Can the Minister tell us more about what the Government are doing to improve treatment through the gate, following the recommendations in the report from the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs on custody to community transitions last year? I fully appreciate that she is unlikely to have detailed answers to all my questions at her fingertips, but I think that we, as parliamentarians, could do with them to help to design and monitor effective policy on issues that mean enough to us that we are sat here this morning.

This is an excellent Bill, whose purpose we support, but if it is not accompanied by effective, well-resourced Government policy its benefits will be limited. I am fairly certain that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham would not be impressed by that at all. I will say more when we come to the new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Lady asked what we will use the evidence we gather for. The key objective of the mandatory drug testing programme is to provide a means of identifying prisoners with ongoing drug problems to ensure that they are offered the appropriate treatment, and I would like to detail some of the work that we are doing on that. However, it is also right, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who has such experience, that we need to tackle those who traffic, distribute and use illegal and illicit drugs, and prison governors should have appropriate sanctions available to them to discourage such offending. The hon. Member for West Ham is right that we need to treat people with drug use, but prisons must take a balanced approach that is consistent with that, and it is important that they have the tools available to them in appropriate places.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The Minister mentioned having a multifaceted approach to substance abuse in prison. A couple of years ago her predecessor mentioned that there was going to be a £10 million investment in scanners and other equipment to detect drugs going into prison—that is the other side of the equation. Could she give us any updates as to what the Government are doing on that? I am sure that is something we would all be interested in hearing about, because we want to make sure that drugs do not get into prisons in the first place.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. As he repeated, we do have a multifaceted approach, including limiting the supply—the measures he identified are to do that—limiting demand and providing treatment. He is right that we did a pilot programme in 10 prisons, and as a result of that and other work, we have put forward a £100 million security package, which includes the airport scanners to detect drugs that have been ingested before being brought into prisons. We also have enhanced gate security for visitors and staff, we have mobile phone blockers and we have beefed up investment in the investigation of crimes, so that we can bring people to justice if do the things the hon. Member for West Ham talked about so passionately. We need to stop the crime of supply within our prisons.

The hon. Member for West Ham rightly focused on how we limit demand and actually treat people in our prisons. We have a number of initiatives on that. She will know about Holme House—our first drug recovery prison. It is a £9 million project jointly funded by the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care. I am pleased to say that that programme will be evaluated early next year; the early signs are good, but the formal evaluation will take place next year. We also have that on a small scale in a number of prisons. We have enhanced drug-free wings. The hon. Lady rightly says that we should not be punishing and that we should be encouraging, and these drug-free units encourage and incentivise people to live a drug-free life. That is something we are very committed to increasing.

Treatment is very important, as the hon. Member for West Ham mentioned, and we need to help people get on treatment programmes. She rightly said that 90% of people coming into prison, where they are on those programmes, do have access to treatments within three weeks. In fact, 53,193 adults accessed drug and alcohol treatment services within prisons and secure settings between 2018 and 2019. I am pleased to say that 27% of those who were discharged after completing their treatment were free of dependence. The programmes that we are putting in place, having detected people who have problems, are therefore working, and I am pleased to say that that figure is an increase from the 24% who were successfully free of drugs two years earlier.

The hon. Member is right to point out that people sometimes turn to drugs in prison, when they have no hope and not much else to do. That is why we are committed to ensuring that we increase purposeful activity that will get people jobs when they come out. As evidence of that, she will know about our £2.5 billion spending programme for prison builds. We are absolutely committed to providing spaces where people can do good work and have good education in prisons.

Of course, we need to help those who unfortunately become addicted in prison. I do not shy away from the fact that that happens, but the measures in the Bill and all the other measures that I have identified will help us do that.

The hon. Member rightly talked about rough sleepers, and the link between them and prison. Around 60% of rough sleepers have been in prison in the last year, so there is a clear correlation between offending and homelessness. I have spoken previously about the close work that my Department is doing with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we take people out of rough sleeping and into homes. That will have an impact on turning around the lives of those people who would otherwise come into our institutions.

In the spending review, the hon. Member will have seen the commitment to £237 million that the Prime Minister announced for accommodation for up to 6,000 rough sleepers. She will also have seen a further £144 million for associated support services and £262 million for substance misuse treatment services, which, when fully deployed, are expected to help more than 11,000 people a year. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, through our joint work, is not only taking people off the street, but giving them the treatment they need for their addiction. That spending is a 60% increase on the 2019 SR.

The hon. Member talked about other transitions into the community and between prisons. She is right to identify those points. We are already doing a significant amount of work on transitions into the community. She mentioned the important work that is being done in Wandsworth. That is not one of our RECONNECT programmes, but she will know that we have a RECONNECT service that the NHS is rolling out across the country. That is doing exactly what she identifies: ensuring that those who leave prison engage with community health services and supporting them to make that transition easier. Having spoken to the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care regularly, I know they are committed to rolling that out in the coming years, in full, everywhere and to every prison in the country.

I agree that there is more work to do on transferring between prisons. That relates to healthcare, NHS records and the work that we need do in prisons, but we are committed across the board to joining up the prisoner journey, not only in healthcare, but in other areas such as education.

The hon. Member mentioned naloxone. That point rightly comes up often, because it is important that, when we release prisoners who are addicted, there are no drastic consequences. Public Health England monitors the number of eligible prisoners who are given naloxone. Currently, 17% of those who have an opiate dependency get naloxone, which is up on previous years. I recognise that it could be more and I know that PHE is doing a piece of work at the moment to monitor performance in relation to take-home naloxone across all prison establishments and to identify best practice. I have spoken to them and they have an ambition that everybody will get it.

I hope I have addressed the hon. Member’s points. The Government are pleased to support the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham promoted and that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham introduced today, and I commend it to the Committee.