Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Friday 4th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I shall begin with the usual courtesy of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on her success in the ballot and on introducing a proposal that has produced an interesting and thought-provoking debate. I applaud in particular her commitment to this issue, which is founded on a depth of relevant experience and genuine concern about the damage that inappropriate or excessive media coverage can do under certain circumstances. Very few hon. Members have her combination of qualifications and experience to address the issue with such authority, so it is not surprising that her success in the ballot should result in her introducing this Bill.

Before I come to the substance of the Government’s position, I shall reflect on the debate. We heard an admirably concise contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who made clear his support for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) made his usual learned contribution on the law in this area, and made an excellent contribution to our debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) is no longer in the Chamber, but he made it clear that the subject ought to receive consideration. Indeed, it received such consideration from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who made what I understand is his usual contribution to the examination of matters on a Friday.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), made clear his concern about the Bill. On reflection, he may reconsider the wisdom of taking interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe in future. We saw the first part of his argument exploded because of his misunderstanding of the Worboys case. Rather unwisely, he decided to take a another intervention on the point that he was making about the role of a bereaved family in an active case and the possibility of them having direct influence on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe delivered a one-two to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I shall not provoke her too much in the course of my remarks, or ever find myself on the wrong end of a cross-examination by her if she returns to being a barrister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made an admirably liberal contribution—wholly commendable though, from my point of view, marginally unexpected, and with admirable regard for the need to respect the fiscal position of the Government and the taxpayers’ interest. He, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, made clear the attachment to the principle of open justice. I noted the attachment of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley to full transparency, public knowledge and the need to avoid

“inaccurate and uninformed comment about proceedings.”

I may return to that later.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe explained, her Bill aims to protect members of the public from media reporting where they have been arrested but not charged with an offence. This proposal responds to public concern about an issue highlighted in a recent high-profile case. Clearly, the Bill touches on a controversial area of law and policy, with potentially wide implications for the way in which our press, our courts and our wider justice system work. It is the sort of area that, I am sure Members will agree, needs to be approached with some caution, forethought and careful deliberation.

With that in mind, I want to respond to my hon. Friend’s proposals in a thorough and structured way. I will look first at the current legal position, which is more complicated and detailed than is sometimes realised. I will examine in more depth previous proposals to change the law, which are highly relevant to the Bill. These include previous measures explored by the coalition to address the vexed issue of anonymity in rape cases. I will then turn to the substance of the matter—the general issues raised by the Bill, and its evidence base. In conclusion I will say a little about its detailed contents and make the Government’s position clear.

Let me say now that we do not at this time think that we can support a statutory prohibition on the reporting of arrests pre-charge, but I will go on to say what measures we will be taking, and I hope that they will provide my hon. Friend and her supporters with a degree of comfort.

Under the present law, the media are broadly free to report the identity of suspects at all stages of the criminal process—when they are under investigation, when they are arrested, and when they are charged. The media are free also to report criminal trials, subject to a range of statutory and common-law reporting restrictions, which are designed to protect the integrity of criminal proceedings. There are protections in the law to try to stop individuals being pilloried in the press, including libel provisions and, where comment may be prejudicial to any future proceedings, contempt.

Taken together, these arrangements reflect our long and proud common law tradition of open justice and article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees the open justice principle. In its words, in

“the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly”.

However, article 6 permits exceptions to the general rule of open reporting, as follows:

“the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice”.

It has long been the statutory position under our law in cases involving national security, for example, that the judge has the power to exclude the public and media from the courtroom during the trial.

There have been a number of proposals for changing the law in modern times, and this is one of those areas of recurring interest to Parliament. The real starting point was section 6 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which granted anonymity to defendants in rape cases. Of course, that measure applied only after charge, whereas the present Bill would grant anonymity between arrest and charge. The 1976 Act does, however, usefully flag up at the outset the fact that different options are available where the timing of the anonymity is concerned, and I will return to that subject later.

The 1976 Act’s provisions were duly repealed in 1988 and one has to jump forward 11 years, to 1999, for the next important developments. In that year the previous Administration enacted the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, section 44 of which imposed anonymity at the pre-charge stage to persons under 18 years old who are involved in criminal investigations, including suspects. Thus, the 1999 Act provides a statutory precedent to the measures in the Bill—a precedent expressly limited to children and young persons—but it is also important to understand that this legislation has never been brought into force.

It was also in 1999 that I introduced the Sexual Offences (Anonymity of Defendants) Bill. As I reminded the House last summer, I have some form in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred to it, but in the context of the debate about rape anonymity, and as I will come to reflect on, we have proposals that achieve the objective that I set out in the Education Bill that is before the House. The purpose of my Bill was to protect teachers from the consequences of accusations by children who have anonymity, and from the subsequent reporting of such allegations. As some hon. Members may recall, my Bill was prompted by the suicide of a constituent, Nick Drewett, a teacher who took his own life after being accused of behaving improperly with pupils in his care. This was a tragic example of the cost of unfounded allegations. The headmaster who was accused alongside him was subsequently acquitted. My experience here is one reason why I am delighted that the coalition is bringing forward legislation to deal with the problem of false allegations against teachers.

The subject was then debated in great depth during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Even before those debates developed, the Home Affairs Committee had recommended granting pre-charge anonymity to suspects in sexual offence cases. It will be noted that on this occasion the anonymity would have dealt with a narrow class of offences where there was thought to be particular difficulty—namely, sexual offences—and would not have applied to all criminal offences as the present Bill does.

The subject was debated in very great depth in this House and in the other place during the passage of the Act. As I hope some hon. Members will recall, matters began on that occasion when the Cross Bencher, Lord Ackner, the late former Law Lord, tabled an amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill in the other place. Lord Ackner's view was that defendant anonymity in rape cases had worked well between 1976 and 1988. He had, as he said,

“heard nothing to suggest that during those 12 years there were occasions when it worked to the disadvantage of justice. I have not limited my request to pre-trial because pre-trial is only part of the issue.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. 1095.]

The anonymity proposed by Lord Ackner would, in terms of his amendment, have been the same as that enjoyed by the complainant. It would therefore have applied from the point of the allegation for life, unless of course the defendant was convicted.

There was then, as I say, considerable debate in both Houses, not least about the point at which the anonymity should apply, pre or post-charge. The Government of the day accepted the desirability of pre-charge anonymity in sexual offence cases in principle, but preferred a non-legislative solution. Concerns raised during the passage of the Bill about media reporting in certain cases did not lead to a substantive change to the editors’ code of practice, which continues to contain no steer against pre-charge reporting of the identity of those suspected but not charged. The media’s guidelines accordingly differ somewhat from the approach taken in the guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers, which makes it clear that police officers should not normally disclose the identity of suspects under investigation. That remains the position today. There has been some development in that guidance. ACPO’s media advisory group produced clear guidance and advice in December 2000 and in 2002, paragraph 1.1 of which states:

“Generally people under investigation should not be named but they can and will, with certain exceptions, be identified once they have been charged. This approach balances the principle of open justice with the rights of the individual to privacy, a fair trial and damage to the reputation of an individual if no charge is made against them”.

ACPO, in conjunction with the media, has produced an updated statement on the position today. It does not contain that paragraph, but that is because it is really a statement of what the position is. I have been careful to take advice and want to make it clear that the guidance to police remains exactly as it was in 2000 and 2002.

Most recently, our coalition programme for government contained two commitments on anonymity: first, to extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants; and, secondly, to give anonymity to teachers accused by pupils and to take other measures to protect against false allegations. The first was of course the subject of much debate inside and outside the House, and the question of the timing of anonymity in criminal cases again came to the forefront, as did the kinds of offences to which anonymity might apply.

Very properly, the examination in Parliament of our coalition agreement proposal helped to trigger a careful re-examination of the evidence base for the proposition set out in the election programmes of both coalition parties, and the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe in that debate was not insignificant, as was made clear in her excellent speech of 8 July. It was a very good debate, showing the House at its best. Using the resources of the excellent team of analysts in the Ministry of Justice, we reached the conclusion, which I announced to Parliament on 12 November, that the evidence base was not strong enough for the Government to proceed with the proposals.

However, our commitment to giving anonymity to teachers is being taken forward in the Education Bill, which I hope Members on both sides of the House will welcome. On that subject, we have said:

“We will give teachers the strongest possible protection from false accusations. We will give anonymity to teachers facing accusations from pupils. This Government want to put an end to rumours and malicious gossip about innocent teachers which can ruin careers and even lives.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 12WS.]

In the case of the Education Bill, the anonymity will apply from the point of allegation to the point of charge, so again there is a difference from what my hon. Friend’s Bill proposes. The anonymity set out in the Education Bill applies to only a limited range of offences that are particularly likely to attract false allegations against teachers. Again, that represents quite a difference from my hon. Friend’s Bill.

Having summarised the somewhat convoluted background, I believe that it casts important light on the Bill in a number of areas. First, there is the question of the evidence base. Some people will no doubt argue that recent events, about which I will make no specific comment, prove that there is a case for replacing media self-regulation in this area with a statutory prohibition, such as that set out in the Bill. My hon. Friend herself has been quoted in the press as saying that

“since the media don’t seem able to regulate themselves, Parliament should do something about it”,

which puts the point with commendable directness.

I urge a degree of caution. The Government only recently withdrew our commitment set out in the coalition programme to grant anonymity in rape cases to defendants, having discovered on closer examination that there was insufficient evidence either for or against the proposal. That ought to alert us to the sensitivities of intervening in this area. We need to be a little wary of assuming that individual hard cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, however hard or egregious they might seem, constitute evidence of a widespread or pressing social problem sufficient to justify interference with long-standing freedoms.

This country has a long and proud tradition of media independence, an important part of which is self-regulation. It is not impossible to question how effectively that self-regulation is operating, but we should not interfere with it lightly. Any interventions on the subject need significant reflection and widespread consultation, and they should proceed as far as possible on the basis of consensus.

Secondly, it is noticeable that, compared with previous initiatives, the Bill imposes anonymity on an all-crime basis, applying to all criminal offences alike, including purely summary offences. That represents a departure from the view, evident in previous proposals, that anonymity may be justified only to address specific difficulties—for example, where particular kinds of offence are concerned.

Thirdly, on timing, the Bill applies the anonymity from the point of arrest to the point of charge only. That interesting approach has received little if any attention in the past, and I shall reflect on the detailed contents of the Bill by looking more closely at the issue of timing.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has explained, the Bill’s intention is to impose a general restriction on reporting from the point of arrest to the point of charge. The choice of the point of arrest as the starting point for anonymity means that a person who attends the police voluntarily for interview will not be subject to reporting restrictions, whereas there will be a media blackout for a suspect who is arrested. At first sight, the comparison is a little worrying, and it certainly prompts further thought.

Perhaps more importantly, as I have noted, the Bill prohibits the reporting of any arrested person’s identity, whatever the offence, without a court order. That is perhaps the greatest question raised by the Bill’s contents: whether there should be a prohibition on purely factual reporting merely by virtue of the fact that it concerns an arrest. There is clearly an argument that, in some cases at least, the media should have the right to report the facts unless there is a court order to the contrary. Again, we would like to reflect further and deliberate fully ahead of taking action on a clear issue of general principle.

I commend my hon. Friend for the safeguards that she has incorporated in her Bill. Clause 2 enables the restrictions to be waived either by the court itself or on an application by the person who has been arrested, the police, a prosecutor or any other person with a sufficient interest, which we take to include the media. That helps to address the admirable liberal arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) advanced in an intervention concerning potential police access. I am looking to see whether he is in his place, but he is not, which is a shame, because I have one or two things to say about another of his interventions, in that case on our hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, which was not quite as helpful or as accurate.

Reflecting on the determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley to avoid inaccurate or uninformed comment about proceedings, I want to put on the record the fact that his statement about the Government being in the business of releasing prisoners before they have ended their sentence is wholly and woefully inaccurate. He has misunderstood the admirable speech in June by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who made clear the inefficacy of short sentences in rehabilitating offenders. It led him to the conclusion that we would not have short sentences at all and all those people would otherwise be released. That is wholly and woefully wide of the mark.

If one is going to try to avoid—in some circumstances—short sentences, one is going to be taken in two directions. One will need more effective community punishment, with more public confidence in the idea that people can be punished effectively and rehabilitated more effectively in the community; but at the same time one might need longer sentences, particularly for the sort of people to whom my hon. Friend referred. That does not mean I spend my time in the Ministry of Justice signing Executive release orders to drive the prison population down. That is not the case.

We estimate that by the end of this Parliament the prison population will be 3,000 lower than it is now. I want to make it clear that that is an estimate, not a target. This Government will continue to incarcerate those whom the courts send to prison. I hope that that clarification will serve my hon. Friend well when he reads it in the record, and that we will not hear any more of the inaccurate nonsense suggesting that our proposals on offender management—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I have given the Minister a bit of latitude, but could he now get back to the Bill?

[Mr Blunt]

I am extremely grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that our policy is so widely misrepresented, I intend to take every opportunity to make it clear what our actual policy is until not only am I bored rigid by it, but so is everybody else.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley expressed concern about the cost to the courts and the Prison Service of all the people who would be arrested and locked up under the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. I am happy to say that that is not one of the Government’s objections. However, these are very difficult times economically, and we would want to consider carefully the practical implications of the application procedure and whether the Crown court or the magistrates court would be the appropriate venue.

The criteria for lifting the restrictions on a case-by-case basis, as set out in clause 2, are very broadly drawn. They would enable the restrictions to be lifted on human rights grounds, in the interests of justice, or in the public interest. The fact that the exceptions to the reporting restriction are so broadly drawn highlights once again the central question of principle—that of whether the default position of a prohibition on factual reporting is the right one. Again, we would like to reflect further on that.

Turning to the territorial extent of the provisions, the Bill would apply to England and Wales only. This point was made by my hon. Friends the Member for Bury North and for Carshalton and Wallington. The more usual position is for legislation imposing reporting restrictions to apply on a UK-wide basis. It is a question of enforceability, as we heard repeatedly during the debate, and also of policy consistency between the three jurisdictions.

Clause 3 raises the interesting question of consent. It would require the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office or the director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions to give their consent before anybody could be charged with an offence under the Bill. Other legislation gives the power to consent to certain highly sensitive prosecutions to the Attorney-General, and the coalition would need to take its own view on which the appropriate consenting authority should be.

In summary, I warmly welcome the debate that this Bill has prompted on a matter about which I recognise there has been recent public concern. However, I think that Members will not be surprised to hear my overall conclusion. Largely for the reasons I have set out, I regret that the Government are unable to lend the Bill their support. This is, in part, a matter of the detail of the proposals, be it on timing or on the precise nature of the safeguards. More substantively, it prompts the question of whether the use of legislative solutions is the right answer or whether more proportionate approaches are available.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe shares my concerns about the quantity of legislation that has been passed here in the past 13 years. There have been 21 criminal justice Acts of one sort or another in that period. Of all the people in this House, my hon. Friend, as a former practising criminal barrister, will have been the victim of all the changes imposed on the law and will have kept up to date with it. I am sure that she would wish it had been otherwise.

The question was posed as to how many thousands of new criminal offences have been created in the past 13 years. I fear I must tell the House that there have been so many thousand new criminal offences coming from so many different Government Departments of one sort or another that it is difficult to get a wholly and reliably accurate answer about the exact number that have been put on to the statute book. It is tricky getting it to the nearest one or two when there are so many thousands, particularly as they come from all sorts of different legislation brought to Parliament by several different Departments. I am reminded of St Bernard’s maxim, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Perhaps another relevant aphorism is, “Legislate in haste, repeal at leisure.”

Although I thank my hon. Friend for airing these issues, we cannot support them today. What is at stake is the balance between competing interests and we need to get that right. I support the idea that we need to avoid unfounded slurs and speculation damaging the lives of innocent people. Punishments before and without trial are wrong. Equally, the media have raised the prospect of a world of

“secret arrests and anonymised justice”.

That is not where we would like to end up either.

What I can say, which I hope will offer a degree of reassurance to my hon. Friend, is that the Government do not intend to ignore the issues she has raised. We intend to consider whether the laws on contempt and pre-charge reporting contain gaps that may impede justice. I note the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North and for South Swindon on the operation of the Contempt of Court Act. The laws on contempt and pre-charge reporting merit further consideration because of the complexity of the regulation in this area and the interests that need to be balanced carefully. This debate is important enough to deserve clarity, not confusion. That may take some time. I know that there are strong views on all sides of this debate and I look forward to debating them further in due course, having had the benefit of further consideration by the Attorney-General.

[Anna Soubry]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, even those who could not support the Bill.

I want to make it clear that the Bill was not born of the events in Bristol. It received its First Reading last summer. It was born of the debate on the anonymity of people accused of rape. I have heard all the arguments today, and I am not afraid to say when something does not fit the situation or circumstances. I accept that there are flaws in the Bill and that it therefore does not address the problem, which has been so accurately identified by Government and Opposition Members.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and, obviously, to the Minister. It is clear from the debate that we want to ensure that what happened in Bristol does not happen again. I am happy to hear about the review of the Contempt of Court Act that the Government will undertake, and about the thoughts and feelings of the Attorney-General on this matter, which I know he takes seriously.

[Mr Blunt]

I want to make it quite clear that we are not proposing a formal review. The Attorney-General will examine this area and we will see what the fruits of that examination are. I am not undertaking to the House that there will be a formal process. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend shares my confidence that the matters will be considered properly by the Attorney-General.

[Anna Soubry]

I am exceptionally grateful to the Minister for making that clear. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.

Don and Anita Horton

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Friday 4th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for the way in which he has helped me and my officials prepare for the debate, so that I can give him as constructive an answer and advice as possible. I understand the restrictions that apply to my dealing with an individual case, but his constituents are extremely well served by the way in which he has raised their case. They have an extremely doughty champion acting on their behalf.

My hon. Friend raised a number of issues, including criminal evidence, the handling of witness statements made for the purposes of criminal proceedings and the protection of witnesses from intimidation and harassment. I will respond to those points in my capacity as the Minister responsible for criminal justice issues. He also mentioned the process followed by the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the investigation of benefit fraud and expressed concern about the processes adopted by the Information Commissioner in dealing with allegations of the mishandling of data. I will deal with those two points later.

It is not appropriate for me, as a Minister, to comment on any particular case, but I wish to make it absolutely clear that I wholly share my hon. Friend’s concern that those who perform a public duty by informing on people who commit benefit fraud or any offence should not be subjected to harassment. Society depends on courageous people who witness crime coming forward, reporting it and giving evidence. Witnesses are vital to our criminal justice system, and it is crucial that they receive appropriate support when they give evidence in criminal proceedings to ensure that justice is done.

However, justice also requires us to ensure that the defendant has a fair trial. When someone gives evidence about an alleged offence, they may be asked to make a signed witness statement, which will contain their name and address. Once the statement has been made, what happens to it depends on whether anyone is charged with an offence and prosecuted in the courts. I understand that when taking a witness statement, DWP investigators explain to those giving it that they may be asked or required to give evidence in court. The signed statement includes wording to that effect.

If no charge is brought, the matter will go no further, but if someone is charged, the prosecutor may wish to use the witness’s evidence as part of the case against the accused. In those circumstances, the prosecutor must give copies of all the prosecution evidence to the defence in advance of the trial. Any witness statements will have the address of the witness removed, but not their name. That reflects the general long-standing principle of English common law that defendants have the right to know the identity of their accusers and to challenge the evidence against them.

The Government take the issue of witness intimidation very seriously. It is a criminal offence under section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, punishable on conviction in the Crown court with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. On conviction in a magistrates court, the maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both.

It is also an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for someone to pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows, or ought to know, amounts to that. The offence is punishable on conviction by a maximum of six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. There is also a separate, more serious offence that is committed when the offender pursues a course of conduct that he knows, or ought to know, will cause the victim to fear violence. That carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. A court sentencing someone convicted of either offence may also impose a restraining order prohibiting specified forms of behaviour such as deliberate communication with the victim, and breach of a restraining order is a criminal offence also punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.

However, a civil remedy, which enables a victim of harassment to seek an injunction against the person harassing them, is also available under the Act. That can be obtained without securing a conviction for harassment. Investigation of allegations of intimidation or harassment is, of course, a matter for the police. Any decision to prosecute is the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service.

When witnesses fear intimidation and harassment, they can be supported in several other ways before and during the trial. Before the trial, intimidation should be reported to the police, who can provide appropriate advice and support. Police forces can arrange for a witness and their family to relocate temporarily or permanently to a different neighbourhood in the area through the local housing authority. When witnesses remain in their homes, several target-hardening measures are available to improve home and personal security. They include additional locks, alarms, sensors, fire-proof letter boxes, panic alarms, CCTV cameras and mobile phones.

In addition to the criminal offences that I have mentioned, bail conditions can be imposed to prevent the accused from approaching any witness. In appropriate cases, police forces can apply to the court to grant an injunction or an antisocial behaviour order against anyone intimidating a witness.

We have invested in a programme of training that is available to all officers, and the victim’s code and the witness charter require all agencies to identify vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, and to work together to provide them with an enhanced service. If the witness is asked to give evidence orally in court, and he or she considers that he or she needs assistance when giving oral evidence because they are in fear of testifying or in distress, the prosecutor may apply to the court before the trial for special measures to enable them to give their best evidence.

Special measures include giving evidence by live link from outside the courtroom or giving evidence with a screen round the witness box. Both measures prevent the witness from viewing the defendant. In cases of intimidation, an application may also be made for the public gallery to be cleared so that witnesses can give evidence in private. Decisions on special measures are a matter for the court, after taking the witness’s views into account.

When a witness fears that they will be harassed and intimidated in the court building, if the court is notified in advance of the particular needs of the victim or witness, it will endeavour to meet those needs wherever physically possible—for example, by arranging for them to enter the court by a different entrance from the public, and providing separate seating inside and outside the courtroom.

If certain criteria set out in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 are met, the court may permit a witness to give oral evidence anonymously. The defendant retains the right to cross-examine the witness to test their evidence, but the identity of the witness is concealed. The legislation imposes three strict conditions before a witness anonymity order may be made. They are: that the measures are necessary to protect the safety of the witness or another person; to prevent serious damage to property or real harm to the public interest; and that they are consistent with a fair trial, and an interests of justice test.

Additionally, before making an order, the court is required to take into consideration the general right of a defendant to know the identity of a witness. Although the legislation does not stipulate that witness anonymity is an “exceptional measure”, in practice it is considered to be so. The Court of Appeal in the case of R v. Mayers explicitly refers to

“the exceptional circumstances permitted by the Act.”

I hope that my hon. Friend can see that the Ministry of Justice takes witness protection very seriously. I appreciate that the measures that I have described did not come into play, because the case that he described did not proceed to trial. However, I hope that it gives his constituents some reassurance to know that witness intimidation and witness protection is taken seriously and that we have significant powers to try to provide that protection.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks so far. However, will he confirm on the record that he agrees that it was wrong that the details of my constituents, who had reported what was going on, were subsequently handed to the accused?

[Mr Blunt]

That is a probing intervention, so let me deal with issues that are related to that. The Department for Work and Pensions operates a scheme whereby members of the public can report benefit fraud anonymously. That can be done online or by telephoning the national benefit fraud hotline.

The Department for Work and Pensions does not disclose the details of people who report fraud but make it clear that they wish to remain anonymous. They are treated as informants and their identities will be revealed only if the court orders disclosure. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern for his constituents. They feel that they have suffered as a consequence of their willingness to perform a public duty. I am very sorry if they feel that they have experienced profound difficulties and understand their concerns about the way in which they believe that the Department for Work and Pensions has dealt with their case. Of course, this disappointment will be redoubled by the fact that Mrs Horton was a former employee.

If anyone is not satisfied with how Jobcentre Plus has dealt with their case, it is open to them to contact the independent case examiner for a review of the case. The independent case examiner acts as an independent referee for people who feel that a number of Government agencies or businesses have not treated them fairly or dealt with complaints in a satisfactory manner. These agencies or businesses include Jobcentre Plus. If the independent case examiner accepts the complaint for action, and if it cannot be addressed without full examination, an investigation undertakes a review of the paper evidence provided by the agency or the business concerned. The officer then considers whether the complaint can be settled through mediation. If mediation is not appropriate, a report is submitted to the independent case examiner, who will consider whether there is any evidence of maladministration. If there is evidence of maladministration and the agency or business concerned did not offer redress before the referral to the examiner, the complaint will be upheld.

Complainants must approach the independent case examiner within six months of receiving a final reply to their complaint from the agency or business they consider to be unsatisfactory. In the case of my hon. Friend’s constituents, I understand that the final letter was sent by the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus on 31 August last year. This letter explained that the independent case examiner offers a free, impartial resolution service and gave details of how it may be contacted. Therefore, his constituents have until the end of the month to initiate the complaints procedure, should they wish to do so. If a complaint is made, and should the examiner find that there was maladministration by Jobcentre Plus that caused them hardship or suffering, I understand that the agency can consider making an ex gratia payment.

My hon. Friend also complained about how the Information Commissioner’s Office responded to allegations of breaches of data protection legislation and about how information about his constituents was handled by Jobcentre Plus. The Government take the protection of personal data and the effectiveness of public bodies, such as the ICO, very seriously. However, the ICO is an independent public body set up to uphold information rights in the public interest. Because of its independence, it would be inappropriate for me, on behalf of the Government, to comment on the ICO’s handling of any particular case.

If having exhausted the ICO case review and his own service complaints procedure, however, a member of the public remains dissatisfied with the ICO’s handling of a case, the parliamentary and health service ombudsman has responsibility for undertaking independent investigations into complaints about Government Departments and a range of public bodies that include the ICO. It is open to my hon. Friend and his constituents, therefore, to pursue his concerns about the ICO with the ombudsman. Complaints procedures may appear formal, but they provide a way for members of the public to have their complaints against the actions of public organisations and agencies reviewed by public bodies.

I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will feel that they are still able to pursue their complaints through those routes, and that those opportunities will be of some comfort and use to them. I understand from the difficulties that his constituents have faced; the heart of anyone hearing those stories will obviously go out to them. However, they are fortunate enough to enjoy the good advice of my hon. Friend, and I am quite sure that, whatever course of action he and they deem appropriate, he will pursue the matter with his customary vigour and skill.

Question put and agreed to.

Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Several errors have been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on 23 November 2010, Official Report, column 290W. The correct answer is as follows:

The following table shows the number of minor injuries sustained during the use of restraint procedures in each month in 2008-09 in secure training centres (STCs). Data for injuries are not available by gender. It is a contractual requirement for any young person within a STC who has been restrained to be visited by a registered nurse within 30 minutes following the use of restraint.

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

5. What his most recent estimate is of the incidence of repeat offending for shoplifting offences; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

In 2008, the rate of reconviction within one year for adults convicted of offences related to shoplifting was 78.3%. That is an unacceptably high rate and, as set out in the Green Paper on sentencing and rehabilitation, we are committed to punishing and rehabilitating criminals and turning them away from a life of crime.

[Miss McIntosh]

Does my hon. Friend agree that every crime of theft is a crime against society—big society and small society—and that the fixed penalty notices introduced by the previous Government are simply not working to address the issues? Will the Government focus on rehabilitating those who reoffend, particularly if they have a known substance abuse?

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate her on her efforts in this area, which led to the police guidance being strengthened in July 2009 to restrict the issuing of penalty notices for retail theft to first-time offenders who are not substance misusers and where the value of goods does not exceed £100. She is right to point out that shoplifting is usually associated with drug addiction, and I draw her attention and that of the rest of the House to our proposals on delivering effective payment-by-results schemes to deal with drug addiction in the community.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The last year for which figures are available show that 12,500 people are serving a jail sentence of under six months for shoplifting offences. Does the Minister expect his Green Paper to increase or decrease that number next year?

[Mr Blunt]

I sincerely hope that over the course of the Parliament and by the time we get full implementation of an effective payment-by-results scheme on drug addiction, which will address the principal driver of shoplifting, those numbers will begin to decrease significantly.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In 2009—the last year for which figures are available—241 people with more than 101 previous convictions and 13 people with more than 200 previous convictions were convicted of shoplifting but were not sent to prison. Does my hon. Friend think that people with that many previous convictions should not be sent to prison? If so, how many crimes should people commit before anyone thinks about sending these creatures to prison?

[Mr Blunt]

Plainly I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s proposition. Prison is there for prolific and serious offenders and, by any judgment, the examples he has given are of prolific offenders. I would need some explanation of why there are such cases, where people simply have not responded to the treatments available, particularly in the new environment where we can deliver effective rehabilitation. If such people fail to address that and pick up the services that are made available, they should expect to go to prison.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had on research into the effect of imprisonment on reoffending rates among women.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The Ministry of Justice recently published research showing that reoffending for women offenders under probation supervision was 6 percentage points lower than for similar women who served short-term prison sentences. We also publish a statistical report on women in the criminal justice system that is informed by an independent advisory group. This group has expressed interest in looking at whether reoffending rates for women vary by sentence length in the same way as it does for men.

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will know from Baroness Corston’s 2007 report that much can be achieved to prevent female ex-prisoners from reoffending by proper intervention that addresses drug use, prostitution and domestic violence. Chepstow House in my constituency, which is run by the Brighter Futures housing association, does exactly that—cutting reoffending rates and saving taxpayers’ money. Will the Minister agree to visit Chepstow House in the coming year to show his support for a charity that is putting some of the principles behind breaking the cycle into action?

[Mr Blunt]

I would hope to have the opportunity to do so, but I cannot promise to do so. I have yet to visit a substantial amount of the prison estate and a number of probation trusts, but I would certainly like the opportunity to visit. I suspect what is underlying the hon. Gentleman’s question is the funding issue. On funding for centres such as Chepstow House, what I can say at this stage is that we have identified funding to sustain those projects that have demonstrated effective performance and we will make an announcement shortly about what will replace the current funding arrangements.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

With regard to imprisonment and reoffending, can the Minister tell the House how the National Offender Management Service is performing and what has happened to the C-NOMIS data system, which was supposed to assist it and cost £161 million prior to 2007?

[Mr Blunt]

The C-NOMIS information technology system was one of the greater disasters that surrounded the provision of IT under the previous Administration. Rescued out of that has been the P-NOMIS system, which does not deliver quite the co-ordination between probation services and the Prison Service that was intended of C-NOMIS. However, we will continue to work to ensure that we make the proper connections as far and as best we possibly can to ensure that IT properly supports our management of offenders.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) spoke about the excellent work done with women offenders by Brighter Futures. I know of the valuable work that is also done by the Saltbox chaplaincy project, which has cut reoffending rates to just 12% even among prolific offenders. However, these fantastic providers, along with many others in the third sector, are at risk of having to cease their effective work because of this Government’s ill-thought-through change to the payment-by-results scheme, which is still in consultation. I welcome what the Minister has said, but before third sector organisations with a track record of success on reoffending rates have to end those services up and down the country and make key staff redundant, is he prepared to give much greater reassurance that programmes will not come crashing to an end this coming March, with the loss of all that good work?

[Mr Blunt]

As I said, we have identified funding to sustain those projects that have demonstrated effective performance, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the Department is not in a position to sustain funding on the current level. A total of £10 million was put aside to set these schemes up, whereupon they were then meant to move to local commissioning. There will be continuing support for the schemes from the Ministry of Justice, but we will be looking to them to win the support of local commissioners. They also have access to the Government’s £100 million transition fund, which is precisely designed to bridge that gap, as well as potential access to the big society bank.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to increase the standard of appointments to the Bench in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

15. What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Corston report on women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Our plans are set out in our Green Paper on sentencing and rehabilitation, which was published in December, and they include identifying individuals with mental health problems at an early stage in the criminal justice process. The aim is to ensure that liaison and diversion services are available in police custody suites and at courts by 2014. We continue to develop our approach to meet the distinct and complex needs of women in the criminal justice system.

[Karl Turner]

Given the progress made in implementing the Corston report by the previous Government’s ministerial champion for women in prison, can the Minister explain why the Government seemingly still have no plans to appoint a Justice Minister specifically tasked with dealing with women’s issues?

[Mr Blunt]

I am specifically tasked with dealing with offenders, and my responsibilities extend to dealing with all people with proper priority. That is how we will continue.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

On that note, the Minister told the House on 20 July that

“a network of women-only community provision is being developed to support…community sentences.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 163.]

Can he tell the House now what that community provision consists of, where it is and how secure is its financial future?

[Mr Blunt]

I fear that I will not be able to explain the whole network without irritating you, Mr Speaker, but the Ministry of Justice has funded 44 separate projects in conjunction with the Corston independent funders. I have already answered the question about what will happen to the funding after March. We will continue a degree of funding—not on the scale that has happened before, but we are identifying the projects that are working best, which we will wish to continue to support.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of the effects on public protection of releasing those with indeterminate prison sentences who have completed their minimum tariff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

16. What the reoffending rates were for those sentenced to jail terms of (a) one year, (b) five years and (c) 10 years in the latest period for which figures are available.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

In 2008, the rate of reconviction within one year for adults discharged from custody after a sentence of less than a year was 61.1%; it was 31.0% for those given sentences of one to five years, 17.5% for offenders given sentences of five to 10 years, and 6.4% for 10 years or more. The Government’s Green Paper on rehabilitation and sentencing sets out our proposals to punish and rehabilitate offenders.

[Mr Hollobone]

Does the Minister agree that the figures suggest that prison actually works, and that the longer prisoners spend in prison the greater the chance of ensuring their effective rehabilitation before being released?

[Mr Blunt]

That is why we have to address the appalling reoffending rates of those people sentenced to short terms in prison. There were 60,000 of those in the past year, and I am afraid that the option of sending them all to prison for 10 years does not exist, so we have to make a success of rehabilitation. We have to ensure that longer sentences are given to recidivist offenders and that we effectively rehabilitate people and break the cycle of crime through the proposals that we have presented in the Green Paper to drive that number down.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T2. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that releasing prisoners with £46 in their pocket, nowhere to stay and a delay of one to six weeks before they can get jobseeker’s allowance makes it more likely that they will reoffend? Will he seek to reach an arrangement with the Department for Work and Pensions so that benefits can start promptly on release?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

My hon. Friend alights on a significant problem. I am in discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions and I hope that we will be able to bring forward proposals that will address that issue.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In view of the serious riot at Ford open prison, does the Minister wish to revise the statement issued by the Ministry of Justice when announcing its public spending cuts—including a reduction of 10,000 in the number of front-line staff—which said that by taking such “tough decisions” it will be able to

“punish and rehabilitate offenders more effectively”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

T3. Will the Minister confirm whether the Department is still contracting with Clearsprings to provide accommodation for ex-offenders? The policy undertaken by the previous Government attracted a lot of ex-offenders to my constituency because of our low rental costs, and actually caused an increase in our deprivation issues and social problems.

[Mr Blunt]

The contract with Clearsprings to provide private rented accommodation to defendants on bail and prisoners released on home detention curfews who are otherwise without an address expired on 17 June 2010. A new three-year contract to provide a similar service was competitively tendered and awarded to Stonham, a registered housing charity. That contract commenced on 18 June 2010. Stonham does not manage any properties under that contract in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify whether the homicide victims fund is still in operation, and if so, what size is the pot and when will Ministers be giving charitable organisations the green light to put in a bid?

[Mr Blunt]

The homicide victims fund is still in operation. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the precise number and the details of how it will be funded next year.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

T4. The plight and vulnerability of many of the UK’s sex workers and prostitutes was highlighted for the people of Suffolk by the tragic events surrounding the Ipswich prostitute murders. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that we have in place a proper strategy to help the rehabilitation of sex workers when they are released from prison, particularly to break the cycles of abuse and drug and alcohol dependency, and to support those people with mental health problems? Will he also visit my—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his first question was perfectly good enough. One will do.

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend is right. These are extremely important issues, and the successfully piloted sex workers custody and community training course will be rolled out across the women’s prison estate with the aim of enabling staff to support the resettlement needs of women engaged in street-based sex work. Working in partnership with sex workers to support projects, it aims to assist women by breaking down barriers that may prevent them from accessing support.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Following the Minister’s decision to close Rochdale magistrates court, will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) to discuss the matter further?

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

T5. Will Ministers take the opportunity to look at the latest report by Citizens Advice on civil recovery and consider how we can stop the use and abuse of civil recovery against shoplifters by many retailers up and down the land?

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that suggestion, and we will examine the issue.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In view of the case involving six defendants that was dropped yesterday, is the Secretary of State aware that there is a lot of disquiet about the crossing of the line from a police constable going undercover for seven years and his inciting illegal action? Would it not be appropriate for a senior Minister, be it him or the Home Secretary, to make a statement to the House? As I have said, there is a good deal of concern and disquiet about what has occurred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

T7. Can the Minister please tell me what steps his Department is taking to tackle the levels of drugs that are available in our prisons and the levels of drug addiction among prisoners?

[Mr Blunt]

We announced proposals in the Green Paper on drug-free wings and drug-recovery wings, which will work in conjunction with the wider application of the payment-by-results scheme in the community. That sits alongside all the efforts to police prisons effectively and to keep drugs out of prisons, through the effective use of all the resources available to the Prison Service and the police.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Tomorrow I will be meeting representatives from my local citizens advice bureaux, Merseyside Employment Law and Merseyside Welfare Rights, who are part of the Justice for All lobby of Parliament. They will be raising their deep concerns about the severe impact that the cuts to legal aid will have on people in my constituency who are disabled, have low incomes or are unemployed. Will any of the Ministers here today be meeting anyone from the Justice for All lobby tomorrow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree, that, according to the “polluter pays” principle, the best punishment for the people who caused the fire at Ford open prison would be to require them to take part in repairing the damage?

[Mr Blunt]

I am not entirely sure how welcome the return to Ford of those prisoners will be to the inmates who remain there and who have just seen their community facilities entirely destroyed. On a wider point, we want to move towards establishing proper recompense for victims, although I do not think that we will be recompensing prisoners in that institution. Restorative justice will now be a principle that we shall adopt extremely strongly.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

As part of the consultation for the Green Paper, the Justice Secretary has just announced public meetings in Leeds, London, Nottingham, Bristol and Manchester. Birmingham has the largest legal community outside London, and the west midlands is the largest conurbation, so I am just wondering what he has against Birmingham.

[Mr Blunt]

I have absolutely nothing against Birmingham, and I will take that as a bid for a public meeting there. I will write to the hon. Lady to see whether we can effect one.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Before any decision is made to withdraw legal aid for families dealing with special educational needs tribunals, will my right hon. and hon. Friends work with the Department for Education, particularly in the light of its proposed Green Paper on the reform of SEN procedure, to ensure that the families of children with SEN get all the help and support that they deserve?

Prisoner Transfer Agreement (Libya)

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I would like to follow the usual courtesies and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this debate. The prisoner transfer agreement with Libya has attracted significant parliamentary and media attention since the negotiations began in 2007, and I know that since his arrival in the House, he has sought information relating to those negotiations and the subsequent release by the Scottish Executive of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. I hope during the course of my remarks to address a number of the points that he made, and I hope that I will have some satisfactory news about the Scottish Cabinet Secretary at their conclusion.

Let us be clear: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of causing the largest peacetime loss of life on British territory. His actions and those of his backers resulted in the death of 190 Americans, 43 Britons and 19 people of other nationalities. Shortly before Christmas, families and friends of the innocent victims commemorated the 22nd anniversary of their murder. I am sure that their pain is still great, and that the memory of what happened that night will live with them always. The release of al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds can only have added to that pain. In that sense, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) at the conclusion of his remarks.

Al-Megrahi’s release from custody was a decision made solely by Scottish Ministers in accordance with Scots law. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will be aware that the Scottish First Minister and the Scottish Minister for Justice responsible for the decision have made that clear in their public statements, and that the Scottish Minister for Justice has also set out publicly the reasons for reaching that decision. Many hon. Members disagreed with it. At the time, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both condemned the decision to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, and described it as wrong and misguided. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that the decision to release al-Megrahi was a legitimate decision for the Scottish Executive to make.

I now turn to the negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement, but I should first make it clear, as my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Folkestone and Hythe did, that it was not the means used to facilitate the release of al-Megrahi. Indeed, his request for a transfer to a Libyan prison was refused by Scottish Ministers, in line with the terms of the agreement.

Hon. Members will be aware that in May 2007, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, visited Libya for discussions with the President, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and that during the course of that visit a memorandum of understanding was signed between the United Kingdom and Libya which provided for the negotiation of four agreements in the field of judicial co-operation. The agreements related to extradition, criminal and civil law, mutual legal assistance and prisoner transfers. They were intended, in part, to mark the return of Libya to the international community following its renunciation of support for international terrorism and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. That was an important policy objective of the UK Government and their European partners at the time.

Responsibility for the negotiation of prisoner transfer agreements on behalf of the UK rests with the Ministry of Justice. Since 1985, the UK has negotiated 23 bilateral prisoner transfer agreements, including the one with Libya. In addition, it is a signatory to two multi-party prisoner transfer agreements. In all, the UK has prisoner transfer agreements with more than 100 countries and territories, so the essence of the fact that there are only 20 Libyans in our prisons is not necessarily unique in terms of the arrangements that we have with other countries. There are not that many Rwandans in our prisons either; again, we have a prisoner transfer agreement with Rwanda.

Negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya was conducted over several months by a small team of officials from the National Offender Management Service with the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is normal practice. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), then the Secretary of State for Justice, was the Minister responsible for the negotiations. The officials responsible for negotiating the prisoner transfer agreement did so on the basis of a negotiating mandate agreed at each stage with Ministers. At the outset, it included a remit to exclude from the prisoner transfer agreement al-Megrahi and anyone connected with the Lockerbie bombing.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will understand that I am bound by convention in what I can say about the actions of a previous Administration. That is particularly the case in describing the motives of the previous Government in seeking to conclude a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, and their subsequent decision not to insist on a clause that would exclude al-Megrahi from it. In that sense, I am unable to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow about its being a secret deal, with devolution being a fig leaf.

The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), then the Foreign Secretary, made a statement to the House on 12 October 2009 in which he stated:

“In May 2007, Prime Minister Tony Blair made his second visit to Libya. His summit with Colonel Gaddafi at Sirte covered the full range of our interests with Libya. Mr. Blair signed a defence accord and witnessed the public signature of a major BP exploration contract. Also agreed was a memorandum of understanding on negotiations for a judicial co-operation package, including a prisoner transfer agreement and agreements on mutual legal assistance, extradition, and civil and commercial law.

The UK had a model agreement, based on Council of Europe arrangements, that was the starting point for negotiation on our prisoner transfer agreements with any country and that provided the starting point for negotiations with the Libyans. Four points are relevant. First, a PTA provides for prisoner transfer, not prisoner release. Secondly, it provides a framework for transfer, not a right to transfer. Thirdly, a PTA cannot be used when appeals, including by the prosecuting authority, are outstanding, as in this case. Fourthly, Ministers in the sentencing jurisdiction—in this case Scotland—have an absolute right to veto any transfer.

This standard draft had no provision for any carve-out for any named prisoner. However, the Scottish Executive made strong representations for us to seek to alter the standard PTA so as specifically to exclude Mr. Megrahi. The UK negotiation team, led by the Ministry of Justice, sought in good faith to achieve this goal.

The Libyans insisted that the only PTA that they would sign was a PTA without any exclusions. So the Government had a clear choice. We could agree to a standard PTA with no exclusions, retaining for Scottish Ministers an absolute veto over any request for prisoner transfer in the case of Megrahi—a veto which they used in August this year”—

August 2009—

“or we could have ended the negotiations to prevent an application for prisoner transfer. This would have set back our wider national and commercial interests that flowed from normalised relations, as the Justice Secretary has made clear.”

I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe that some of his disappointment with the actions of the previous Administration is caused by the fact that they were not prepared to be clear about the interests at stake. The then Foreign Secretary continued:

“Since the PTA involved no prejudice to the rights of the Scottish Executive, nor pressure on the Scottish Executive, the Government decided it was right to go ahead. The PTA finally took effect in April 2009.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 30-31.]

On whether that decision was correct, I do not think I can add anything to the description of the negotiating process.

There has been speculation surrounding the role that commercial interests—primarily those of BP—played in the decision not to seek the exclusion of al-Megrahi from the terms of the PTA. In July 2010, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to Senator Kerry, chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, setting out the extent of BP’s involvement. During the several months of discussion in 2007 about Libyan opposition to the possible exclusion in the PTA, there were a number of conversations between BP and the then UK Government. Specifically, there were three discussions between BP and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, or his office, between October and November 2007; at least two contacts in the same period between BP and the then Prime Minister’s foreign policy adviser; and contacts with Her Majesty’s ambassador in Tripoli. During those discussions, the progress of negotiations on the UK-Libya transfer agreement and the likely timing of the agreement being signed were discussed. As BP made clear in its statement on 15 July 2010, it had been made aware by the Libyans that failure to agree the PTA could have an impact on UK commercial interests, including Libyan ratification of the BP exploration agreement signed in May 2007, and it wished to bring that fact to the attention of the UK Government.

[Damian Collins]

For the record, I want to make it clear that the contact of Sir Mark Allen of BP with the right hon. Member for Blackburn coincided with the change in the British negotiating position on the PTA and the decision to withdraw the exclusion of al-Megrahi.

[Mr Blunt]

I confess that I have insufficient detail on the times and dates of all the contacts between BP and the various parts of the Government to be able to agree with my hon. Friend, but I imagine that what he says is probably broadly correct and probably not a matter of dispute. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear to Senator Kerry, it was perfectly normal and legitimate practice for a British company to draw to the attention of the UK Government the interests at stake.

A significant amount of information relating to the negotiation of the PTA, including correspondence between the then Justice Secretary and Scottish Ministers, has already been made public, and I have drawn upon it in my remarks this afternoon. However, to ensure the fullest possible explanation of the circumstances surrounding the decision, the Prime Minister has instructed the Cabinet Secretary to review the papers to see if more needs to be published about the background to the decision. I know that my hon. Friends eagerly anticipate that report. I can tell them, in civil service language, that it will be published “very shortly”, so I hope that they will not have to wait very long for more information to be placed at their disposal and to see whether it brings new matters to our attention.

I am limited by convention on what can be said about a previous Administration. My hon. Friends have properly drawn the matter to the attention of the House.

[Damian Collins]

The report of the US Senate suggested that the UK Government had legal authority to intervene in the matter. In my remarks, I asked whether that was the view of the Ministry of Justice.

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful for that intervention; I meant to pick up on my hon. Friend’s point. I am advised that, no, it is not a matter on which the UK Government would be in a position to intervene. It is properly a matter for the sentencing authority—in this case, that is Scottish Ministers—to make the decision. They cannot be second-guessed by the UK Government exercising a different authority under the agreement.

My hon. Friend also asked about judicial review of the Scottish decision. The truth is that any prisoner could seek judicial review, and the outcome would be up to the judge who heard the review, but I am advised that it is very difficult to see how a review in those circumstances would meet the test for judicial review or for a decision to be overturned.

Following the request from the Prime Minister, we can look forward to more information from the Cabinet Secretary in a short time. I note that my hon. Friends have urged that the review be brought to a rapid conclusion, and I am confident that their request will be noted and accepted.

Justice

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Lisa Nandy]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many probation service employees of each grade there were in probation areas on 31 December (a) 2006, (b) 2007, (c) 2008 and (d) 2009; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 25 November 2010, Vol. 519, c. 456-58W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on 25 November 2010. Unfortunately, there was a problem with the locally purchased extract tool not extracting all of the staff in post figures; in Teesside it excluded one team; in Durham it did not identify when hours of work, and therefore full-time equivalence (FTE), had changed slightly. Therefore, some of the staff in post figures provided for Teesside and Durham within the national figures for December 2009 were incorrect. The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Blunt]

The staff in post figures for the probation service by job group at 31 December 2006-2009 are shown in the following table.

The table shows that there was an overall decrease in staff in post over the period of 1,339.26 FTE (down 6.3%).

[Mr Blunt]

The staff in post figures for the probation service by job group at 31 December 2006-09 are shown in the following table.

The table shows that there was an overall decrease in staff in post over the period of 1,315.99 FTE (down 6.2%).

Probation Service: Employment

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Ministerial Corrections

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Blunt]

The total staff in post for Durham Probation Area on 31 December 2009 was 268.65 FTE (full-time equivalent), and for Teesside Probation Area this was 292.06 FTE.

The total staff in post in Durham Tees Valley Probation Trust on 30 June 2010 was 572.27 FTE (full-time equivalent).

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Blunt]

The total staff in post for Durham Probation Area on 31 December 2009 was 271.94 FTE (full-time equivalent), and for Teesside Probation Area this was 313.26 FTE.

The total staff in post in Durham Tees Valley Probation Trust on 30 June 2010 was 565.84 FTE (full-time equivalent).

Oral Answers to Questions

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

5. What recent progress he has made on reviewing his Department’s policy on unduly lenient sentences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The powers of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General to refer certain Crown court sentences to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency are working well.

[Sarah Newton]

I am particularly concerned with the sentencing of people convicted of paedophilia and believe that the policy review should be based on evidence. What assurance can the Minister provide that data that the Ministry of Justice collects will separate crimes of paedophilia from all sexual offences as currently recorded? Without that data it will be difficult to review the appropriateness or otherwise of current sentencing policy.

[Mr Blunt]

I can well understand my hon. Friend’s concern. All offences of sufficient seriousness to be tried only in the Crown court can be referred through the unduly lenient sentences process to the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General; and 17 of the 31 offences that are triable either way and listed in statutory instrument 2006/1116 refer to offences against children, which reflects how seriously the House takes the matter.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that on three occasions over the past two weeks the Secretary of State for Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister’s deputy—the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)—have come to the Chamber and essentially repeated from the Dispatch Box announcements already made in the media.

I want to ask the Minister about reports in this Sunday’s papers on the Department’s sentencing plans. The current Prime Minister in March, the Conservative party manifesto in April and the Secretary of State in June all said words to the effect: “We will introduce a system where the courts will specify minimum and maximum sentences for certain offenders. These prisoners will only be able to leave jail after their minimum sentence is served by having earned their release, not simply by right.” Will the sentencing review ditch that policy or keep it?

[Mr Blunt]

I am afraid the shadow Secretary of State will have to wait until we produce the policy. It is entirely appropriate that it be presented to the House first.

[Sadiq Khan]

It is outrageous that we have to buy The Times and read The Daily Telegraph to see what the Government are planning. That is not new politics, that is not the way to do things, and the Secretary of State, who has been an MP for 40 years and served in three Cabinets, should know better.

The Minister ducked the previous question, but he and, indeed, the Secretary of State know that knife-crime cases cause real and lasting misery to the victims, to bereaved families and to communities. Before the general election and in their manifesto, the Conservatives were quite clear, because they said that

“anyone convicted of a knife crime can expect to face a prison sentence.”

We know what the press say their Government will do, but what will the Minister do in the sentencing review to be published next week?

[Mr Blunt]

This may be slightly tedious, but I must say again that the shadow Secretary of State will have to wait until the proposals are presented in a comprehensive fashion to the House. Of course, knife crime is an extremely serious offence, as we have acknowledged, but, as far as the precise proposals are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman, like everyone else, will have to wait until they are presented in a coherent fashion to the House first, as is appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to increase the number of prison places.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Our current plan is to build the prisons to which we are contractually committed. On the basis of current policies, we expect prisoner numbers to rise from about 85,393 last Friday to about 88,000 in 2015, and we expect the implementation of the proposals that will be outlined in the forthcoming Green Paper to reduce that number to about 3,000 fewer than today’s figure. We will always provide enough prison places for those who the courts judge should receive a custodial sentence.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Notwithstanding the Government’s efforts to stabilise the prison population, will the Minister assure us that those who commit crimes and deserve to go to prison will continue to do so?

[Mr Blunt]

Yes.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Minister will know that it is a basic human right for people to be incarcerated as near as possible to where they reside. When will the Government comply with that basic requirement by providing a prison facility for north Wales, especially as we understand that Shrewsbury prison is to be closed? Such a prison would serve the whole of mid-Wales as well as north Wales, and, as the Minister knows, its establishment is long overdue.

[Mr Blunt]

I am not sure that I recognise that as a basic human right, but it is certainly operationally sensible. Providing support for prisoners when they are incarcerated away from their families is an important part of assisting their rehabilitation into society. However, speculation about which prisons might or might not close in future is not appropriate at this stage. We will conduct a review of prison capacity in the light of the Green Paper and the responses to it, and only at that stage—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that we have the drift of the Minister’s answer. We are grateful.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Surely the reoffending rate is a critical factor affecting the number of prison places that are required. Restorative justice programmes such as that of the Sycamore Tree foundation, which operates at Haverigg prison in Cumbria, are both inexpensive and highly effective in reducing reoffending. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the number of restorative justice programmes in Britain’s prisons?

[Mr Blunt]

I suggest to my hon. Friend that he can look forward to the Green Paper with great interest.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

According to the latest figures, more than half the prisons in England and Wales are officially overcrowded. If the Minister is ultimately successful in reducing the number of prisoners, what will his priority be—to close prisons or to reduce overcrowding?

[Mr Blunt]

It is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to ask that question. As a former Prisons Minister, he bears part of the responsibility for the level of overcrowding that we have inherited.

Sadly, the answer is that we are not in a position to create enough prison places to be able to address the problem of overcrowding. That will probably have to wait for more economically propitious times. It will take us a while to get the economy into the shape that will enable us to deal with the prison overcrowding that we have inherited.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

8. How much was spent on legal aid for cases in respect of immigration appeals in the last 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

We want to help people who have suffered trauma as a result of a miscarriage of justice to access support that ought already to be available, for instance through the national health service. We will work with the Department of Health, other Departments and the voluntary sector to that end.

[Katy Clark]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I recently met the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, as constituents of mine have been affected by having been wrongly imprisoned for lengthy periods. I understand that under the previous Government, the Justice Ministry was looking at how better to provide support services to such people. Is that work still going on, and will the Minister be willing to meet me and other Members with constituents who have been similarly affected, because we are not dealing with this issue well enough at present?

[Mr Blunt]

I am afraid that we have concluded that, due to the extremely challenging financial climate, it no longer makes sense to go ahead with the work started by the last Government on identifying the unmet medical needs of those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice because there are not going to be additional funds to meet those needs.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Despite that answer, will the Minister still agree to meet those interested MPs, because in a previous answer he said the Government would ensure that services were available through the NHS, whereas the fact is that they are not? These particular needs can best be met—and most effectively and most cost-efficiently—by having a more discrete system, and it would pay the Minister and the Department to meet these MPs and MOJO.

[Mr Blunt]

I am, of course, very happy to meet parliamentary colleagues to discuss this issue. Meetings are due between Ministry of Justice officials and those in the Department of Health to see how matters can be improved. I am sure that those discussions will be improved by the knowledge that I will gain from colleagues, so I am happy to have the meetings.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

12. What steps he plans to take to fulfil the aspiration in the coalition agreement to increase the efficiency of the legal aid system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T4. A number of professionals have contacted me about their worries that, once the Youth Justice Board disappears, there will be a lack of co-ordination and an increase in reoffending by young people. Can the Secretary of State give any reassurance to those professionals that when their work disappears inside the Ministry of Justice, that co-ordination work will still be taken seriously?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As the Minister with responsibility for youth justice, I will make sure that the functions carried out by the Youth Justice Board will be properly executed within the Ministry of Justice. The Youth Justice Board has done good work, but now it is time for Ministers to take direct responsibility for the work.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T5. Families in Witham town are concerned about the presence of paedophiles and sex offenders, and the risk that they pose to children in our local community. What steps is the Secretary of State taking, in conjunction with other Government agencies, to ensure that my constituents are protected from those dangerous individuals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Every suicide is a tragedy, but particularly in prisons it is more harrowing for the family, other prisoners and the prison staff. With that in mind, can one of the Ministers give an update on the programme of installing safer cells?

[Mr Blunt]

About 6,200 safer cells have been provided since 2005. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s consistent interest in that. Our objective is to make sure that safer cells are available in all circumstances for offenders deemed to be vulnerable and to require such accommodation.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. It was as recently as 30 June, when the Government had had nearly two months to examine and find how unexpectedly bad the public finances were, that the Secretary of State said that he would explore “proposals to restore public trust through minimum/maximum sentencing”.Can he tell us what has changed since then?

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Recently, a group of Travellers was served with an eviction order from the site next to St Peter’s, a new school in my constituency of Filton and Bradley Stoke, only for another group of Travellers to move in as soon as the site was vacated. Will the Minister look at the law in question to see whether it can be changed so that it is site-specific, rather than applying to individuals in certain cases?

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. We are already looking at the law on squatting; this, in a sense, is an associated issue. I shall be happy to examine it as well.

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

T9. As part of the review that the Secretary of State is carrying out into implementing giving prisoners the right to vote, will he consider the issue as, in some ways, a positive opportunity to prepare them for reintegration into society? How is he approaching that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Government are rightly focused on getting more people who are out of work into work, but a particular group of concern is ex-offenders. Will the Government, as part of the big society, continue to support charitable organisations such as the Apex Trust, which does a wonderful job in getting those offenders back into work?

[Mr Blunt]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the mechanisms we will use is payment-by-results schemes to turn offenders into taxpayers. That means that there will be rewards both for stopping offenders reoffending and for getting offenders into employment.

Defendant Anonymity (Rape Cases)

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I have placed in the House Libraries copies of an independent assessment of research relevant to defendant anonymity in rape cases. This discharges an undertaking given in the summer.

The assessment has found insufficient reliable empirical evidence on which to base an informed decision on the value of providing anonymity to rape defendants. Evidence is lacking in a number of key areas, in particular, whether the inability to publicise a person’s identity will prevent further witnesses to a known offence from coming forward, or further unknown offences by the same person from coming to light.

The coalition Government made it clear from the outset that they would proceed with defendant anonymity in rape cases only if the evidence justifying it was clear and sound, and in the absence of any such finding they have reached the conclusion that the proposal does not stand on its merits. It will not, therefore, be proceeded with further.

The report we are publishing today will be of wider interest to those concerned with criminal justice policy, the offence of rape, and violence against women and girls.

The Government’s commitment to give anonymity to teachers accused by pupils, and take other measures to protect against false accusations, is separate. We will announce the outcome of that work, which is being led by the Department for Education, in due course.

Cookham Wood Secure Training Centre

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Tom Brake]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what (a) injuries and (b) injuries requiring external medical treatment were sustained during restraint incidents on girls held in Medway secure training centre in each month since 1998.

[Official Report, 14 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 983-984W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 14 September 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Blunt]

The YJB has collected data since April 2007 showing the number of injuries in each category, but this data is not broken down by gender.

The definitions for these categories are:

Minor injury requiring medical treatment

This includes cuts, scratches, grazes, blood noses, concussion, serious bruising and sprains where medical treatment is given by a member of staff or a nurse. Treatment could include cleaning and dressing wounds, providing pain relief, and monitoring symptoms by a health professional (e.g. in relation to concussion). This includes first aid administered by a staff member.

Serious injury requiring hospital treatment

This includes serious cuts, fractures, loss of consciousness and damage to internal organs. Where 24-hour health care is available the young person may remain onsite. At other establishments, the young person will be taken to a local hospital. Treatment will reflect the more serious nature of the injuries sustained and may include stitches, re-setting bones, operations and providing overnight observation.

It is currently a contractual requirement for any young person within an STC who has been restrained to be visited by a registered nurse within thirty minutes following the use of restraint.

The latest data available is for 2008-09 and is provided in the table as follows. The data from 2009-10 will be available following the publication of the 2009-10 annual YJB Workload statistics.

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time.

[Mr Blunt]

The YJB has collected data since April 2007 showing the number of injuries in each category, but this data is not broken down by gender.

The definitions for these categories are:

Minor injury requiring medical treatment

This includes cuts, scratches, grazes, blood noses, concussion, serious bruising and sprains where medical treatment is given by a member of staff or a nurse. Treatment could include cleaning and dressing wounds, providing pain relief, and monitoring symptoms by a health professional (e.g. in relation to concussion). This includes first aid administered by a staff member.

Serious injury requiring hospital treatment

This includes serious cuts, fractures, loss of consciousness and damage to internal organs. Where 24-hour health care is available the young person may remain onsite. At other establishments, the young person will be taken to a local hospital. Treatment will reflect the more serious nature of the injuries sustained and may include stitches, re-setting bones, operations and providing overnight observation.

It is currently a contractual requirement for any young person within an STC who has been restrained to be visited by a registered nurse within thirty minutes following the use of restraint.

The latest data available is for 2008-09 and is provided in the table as follows. The data from 2009-10 will be available following the publication of the 2009-10 annual YJB Workload statistics.

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time.