Alan Turing
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this wholly appropriate debate during the centenary of one of the greatest Britons. I apologise if I cover a little of the same ground about Turing’s achievements. Such is their scale that, like my hon. Friend, I will be giving only headlines in the time available. I am also grateful to Alan Turing’s biographer, Andrew Hodges, for helping my officials and me to get it right. Any mistakes will be entirely mine.
The perspective of history can be a wonderful thing. Decades later, the profound legacy of a brilliant and original mind largely unknown to his contemporaries can be referenced by the President of the United States in Westminster Hall, as Alan Turing was by President Obama last year. Year by year, our understanding grows of how important his contribution has been to our society. It is an astonishing legacy of global importance. One can only feel awe at the brilliance of his intellect and admiration for the magnitude of his achievements. They throw into the sharpest relief the appalling way he was treated by his own contemporary society, a fate he shared with tens of thousands of other gay men of his era. However, the shame, anger and embarrassment properly felt by today’s society at the extreme contrast between his service and his oppression, recorded in the previous Prime Minister’s unprecedented formal apology, still leaves us wanting to find ways to atone and to recognise his awesome achievements. A number of hon. Members have expressed their desire to do so in different ways. I was delighted to learn that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) has been able to do so by naming Alan Turing way. I am delighted that when the opportunity presented itself, it was Alan Turing whom he chose to honour.
Turing was one of the top mathematical minds of all time. He successfully applied his mathematical genius to numerous other scientific disciplines while throwing in the unique ability to combine successful practical application with brilliant theoretical understanding. Turing was a fellow of King’s college, Cambridge in 1935, and his time at Princeton from 1936 to 1938 has been appreciated properly by our American cousins. His 1936 paper invented the concept of the universal machine, which underpins the computing revolution. Turing’s success in America makes all the more impressive his decision to return to England in 1938. He understood the threat that his country faced and, critically, the contribution that he could make to our defence through encryption and code-breaking.
From 1939 to 1944, Turing was almost totally engaged in the mastery of the German enciphering machine Enigma and other cryptological investigations at Bletchley Park. Turing made a unique logical contribution to the decryption of Enigma and became the chief scientific figure, with a particular responsibility for reading U-boat communications. Turing’s contribution was undoubtedly crucial. I endorse the analysis of his importance made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart); the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) made similar points. I do not demur from any of them.
In March 1944, Turing’s principal focus moved to encryption and voice scrambling with the Foreign Office at Hanslope Park, enabling secure communications between the Heads of Government directing the war. That work contributed directly to his development of electronic computing at the National Physical Laboratory and the university of Manchester, including the design of the Pilot ACE, the first modern computer in this country, delivered in parallel with computer development in the United States.
In his free time, Turing became a notable marathon runner, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned. But for an injury, he would probably have been invited to be a member of the British team for the London-based Olympics in 1948. His personal time of two hours and 46 minutes was barely 11 minutes slower than that of that year’s gold medallist. That rather lesser-known achievement is particularly apposite, as we are holding this debate in a year when the Olympics return to London for the first time since 1948.
Alan Turing continued to serve his country at what had become GCHQ, but after his conviction for gross indecency, he was categorised as a security risk and excluded from doing the nationally important work that must have given him great satisfaction. It is difficult to imagine the devastation that he would have experienced as his country switched from seeing him as a profound national asset to seeing him as a serious liability. By today’s standards, the security policy applied to Alan Turing seems criminally stupid, but in the atmosphere of the time—there was the defection of Maclean and Burgess, and the McCarthy witch hunts in the United States of America—it was tragically unexceptional. The atmosphere in both countries is relevant, as Turing had been an emissary to the United States in November 1942, possibly charged with assisting the Americans to address their cipher challenges and the U-boat menace then threatening their coastline. He was probably also involved in the security of transatlantic communications between Roosevelt and Churchill. That Britain possessed such impressive skills was due not least to Turing’s own efforts. Given that such extraordinary abilities existed in one man, one can but imagine the hysterics of the security apparat on both sides of the Atlantic, reinforced by the profound, ignorant and accepted commonplace prejudice of the time.
In what were to prove the final years of his life, Alan Turing used his understanding of mathematics and interest in process to develop a new and ground-breaking theory, the mathematical theory of morphogenesis: the theory of growth and form in biology. His writing on this, published in 1951, is regarded as the founding paper of modern non-linear dynamical theory. My hon. Friend might have been able to elucidate that if he had the time, but I am certainly not able to do so. Some of the theories the publication contained about the occurrence of the Fibonacci sequence in sunflowers are now being tested on a huge scale in the Manchester Turing sunflower project.
Alan Turing’s achievements have rightly earned him the description of the father of computing and artificial intelligence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South and others have said, we have no way of knowing what further advances he might have made had his life not been cut short. His achievements make him utterly unique and, as such, he warrants singling out in the way that we are doing in this debate.
That his exceptional public service should have been rewarded with what appears to us to be a grotesquely unjust conviction for gross indecency has led to the question of whether our sympathy should take the form of a retrospective, posthumous pardon. I will discuss that in more detail in a moment.
That the then offence was in private, consensual and revealed to the police by Turing himself, who had been a victim of real crime, reinforces the appalling unfairness he suffered. The only victim of Turing’s “crime” was Turing himself. The first point is that the law has been changed—indeed, it was first changed 45 years ago—but the conduct that led to Alan Turing’s conviction was only deemed to no longer be an offence after Edwina Currie’s amendment became law in 1994. When Alan Turing was arrested, he is said to have stated that he expected a
“Royal Commission to legalise it”.
It has taken a very long time. Progress over the past two decades has been immense, but more remains to be done.
In fulfilment of our coalition agreement, the Government introduced the disregard provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They are designed to let individuals get on with their lives, free from having to disclose convictions for homosexual activity where it was consensual and the other person was over 16. There are certain other circumstances in which convictions for those offences have to be disclosed under vetting checks, even though the activity is no longer a criminal offence. The Act allows individuals who have such convictions or cautions to apply to the Home Office for them to be disregarded, thus removing their practical effects from their lives and allowing them to move forward without the burden that the records currently impose.
The provisions are specifically designed to give practical assistance to the living, whose daily lives and, indeed, employment prospects may be affected by the record of a conviction on the police national computer. Extending them to the deceased would be impractical and serve no purpose. In truth, we could be looking for records going back to the 1800s. In many cases, those records may not be held, or may not provide enough information to make sure that the person in question would qualify for a disregard. There is also the question of the impact that disregarding posthumous convictions would have. It would be an attempt to rewrite history. Would it involve changing officially held records? Should we destroy historical evidence of the unjust suffering that many underwent, which would hinder academic research? Those concerns apply to a general pardon of all those, living and dead, who have such convictions. That is why the Government followed the path of a disregard in the Protection of Freedoms Act.
That brings us to the question of a pardon, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and addressed in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech). Free pardons under the royal prerogative of mercy were formerly the usual means of recognising that there had been a miscarriage of justice and that the convicted person was innocent. Over the past century, however, developments in legislative avenues of appeal have significantly reduced the need to resort to the royal prerogative. Generally, applicants or, in the case of the deceased, their families, have the right to appeal to the relevant appeal court and can also ask the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review their case. The grant of pardons under the royal prerogative is now extremely rare.
It is the long-standing policy not to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy where a person was correctly convicted under the laws that existed at the time. The applicant must be technically and morally innocent, as my hon. Friend has said. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South has said that we should clear Alan Turing’s name. A pardon under the royal prerogative of mercy would not actually affect Alan Turing’s conviction; only a court can quash a conviction and, in that sense, clear someone’s name.
Much as we now feel it outrageous that Alan Turing’s behaviour was treated as a criminal offence, he was guilty of the contemporary offence. To grant him a pardon under the royal prerogative would change the basis on which such pardons are normally given.
If Alan Turing were pardoned, there would be tens of thousands of other people in respect of whom demands for like treatment could be made. Those persons could include about 16,000 living individuals with convictions for homosexuality, and many times that number of deceased victims. The living can benefit from the Home Office’s recent disregard provisions, but both they and the families of those who are deceased, or others on their behalf, could seek a pardon, too.
Mr Blunt
The Department’s problem is that it is extremely difficult to make a sensible analysis that could be relied on. The living can apply to have their convictions disregarded, but I would think that more than 100,000 people have been convicted of these crimes over two centuries, so the potential scale of applications is enormous.
There is also the question of justice. The sex offences of which Alan Turing was convicted are still capable of being offences in certain circumstances where the other party was under age or the sex was non-consensual. In such circumstances, a pardon would be not only inappropriate, but wrong. The records for some older cases would no longer be available, and the way such offences were recorded would make it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a pardon was in fact justified. It is to avoid that problem that the Government have gone down the route of a disregard by application.
It is also worth noting that the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy has changed over time. Centuries ago it was exercised by the monarch in an unfettered way. In modern times, however, the exercise of the prerogative is not exercised by Her Majesty personally but on the advice and recommendation of a Secretary of State, and it is therefore subject to judicial oversight. Whenever someone makes qualitative judgments on such issues, the prospect of review of the reasonableness of a decision is opened up.
Robert Flello
I appreciate that the Minister is in a difficult position. The advice he received from his officials will have gone through the reasons why it is difficult to follow the routes proposed, but I wonder—I put this to the Minister in a genuine spirit of finding a way through—whether he could instruct his officials to find an alternative way to reach the same conclusion. Turning the issue on its head, perhaps the Minister will consider, at a later date, talking to his officials to ask them to find an alternative route.
Mr Blunt
It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, but Ministers in the Ministry of Justice and a number of other senior Ministers in the Government have given their personal attention to the issue. We share exactly the same desire of every hon. Member present to find a way of making atonement and recognising the unique and singular achievements of Alan Turing. The formula that the previous Administration alighted on was the formal apology from the Prime Minister. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South himself remarked, it is for Parliament to set legal precedent, and opportunities for Members of Parliament in either House to take their own measures were alluded to.
I am trying to make clear to the House the issues that every Administration have had to wrestle with, and the possible consequences of different courses of action. I assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members present that the matter has received the closest possible attention from Ministers and officials; it continues to do so and will continue to do so in the light of the debate today and the contributions of hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South drew the parallel with the Armed Forces Act 2006, which pardoned a group of first world war servicemen, but that was itself a carefully considered response to an unusual situation. The legislation expressly leaves conviction and sentence unaffected, and specifically states that the prerogative of mercy is not affected.
It has been a privilege for me to reply on behalf of the Government in the debate. It has been of particular importance to me, because my mother served at Bletchley Park during the war. When she finally felt able to speak of her work—like everyone else of her generation, she took her duty of secrecy seriously, and it was only when watching documentaries on Bletchley Park on television that she felt that she might be able to share with her family some of her own experiences—she bore first-hand testimony to me and other members of my family of Alan Turing’s importance. The truth is, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and my hon. Friend made clear, that everyone in the Chamber and in this country owes Alan Turing a profound debt of gratitude for our political freedom. In my case, that debt is personal, albeit indirectly.
The debate has been an excellent way in which to pay tribute to the great Alan Turing on his centenary. All of us want to find more ways of marking his enormous achievement and service to our country and of continuing to atone for the disgraceful way in which the society of the time treated him.
Mesothelioma (Legal Aid Reform)
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I apologise for the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), to whom this debate would normally fall, but he is serving on the Committee that is considering the Defamation Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this timely debate. He asked wholly appropriate questions and I hope to be able to give him some of the satisfaction that he seeks, and some guidance for claimants and their families on the circumstances that we are in.
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I slightly regretted the tone of his speech. To suggest that concern about the issue is located on one side of the House and not the other is a little wide—
Mr Blunt
I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I need time to put on record all the things that I think are important for mesothelioma sufferers, for whom concern is, very properly, universal.
Mesothelioma is a terrible disease. We recognise its devastating impact on sufferers and their families, and we take extremely seriously the plight of sufferers and their right to claim compensation for negligently caused personal injury. As was clear from the way in which the hon. Member for Sefton Central spoke, this is an emotive subject. This debate highlights the importance of the issue, and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) also made that clear.
I will deal briefly with three main issues: first, why our reforms to conditional fee arrangements are the right way forward; secondly, why we are taking an exceptional course in respect of mesothelioma claims, and the circumstances in which that exceptional course will be managed once we have improved the position for sufferers who cannot trace their employer’s insurer; and, thirdly, how some reforms have lowered the barriers for claimants in recent years.
On the rationale for conditional fee arrangement reform, it is important to make it clear that our current legal aid reforms do not affect mesothelioma cases, as legal aid is not generally available. The Access to Justice Act 1999 removed legal aid for the majority of personal injury cases, including mesothelioma cases, where alternative forms of funding such as conditional fee arrangements were available. As the hon. Member for Sefton Central will be aware, the Government are implementing the recommendations in Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs, and particularly a fundamental reform of no win, no fee CFAs. Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 implements those reforms.
Lord Justice Jackson concluded that the current arrangements, under which success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums are payable by the losing side, in addition to standard legal costs, are a major contributor to the high costs of civil litigation, and that it was right in principle to change the arrangements across the board. The truth is that the current system is indefensible. It has turned out to be a racket for lawyers, which is why it is changing. The new system will assist the execution of meritorious claims rather than supporting a claims-management industry.
The Government are committed to addressing disproportionate costs throughout the whole of civil litigation, and the provisions in part 2 of the Act will deal with the unfairness that currently exists in the system between claimants and defendants. These important reforms will ensure that meritorious claims can still be pursued, but at a more proportionate cost. As part of the reforms, earlier settlement will be encouraged and damages for non-pecuniary loss, such as pain suffered and loss of amenity, will be increased by 10%. In time, the reforms will apply to all areas of civil litigation—that was what Lord Justice Jackson recommended, and the Government agree.
The Government are certainly not suggesting that mesothelioma claims are brought inappropriately. Indeed, such claims are often among the easiest in which to establish base merit. I want to be absolutely clear, in response to the tone of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central, that these claims are, of course, not part of the compensation culture—no one has suggested that they are. They are, however, part of a process of civil litigation that has to be reformed.
On the temporary exception from conditional fee arrangement reforms for mesothelioma claims, we announced that the relevant provisions in part 2 will come into force in April 2013. In particular, sections 44 and 46 abolish the recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance costs from the losing side in all categories of case in which they are currently used. We are, however, deferring implementation in relation to mesothelioma claims until we are satisfied on the way forward for those who are unable to trace their employer’s insurer. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the crucial importance of that.
A number of reforms in recent years have improved the position of mesothelioma sufferers by lowering the barriers to bringing claims. In particular, the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, which was introduced in April 2011, is designed to be a comprehensive online resource of current and historical employers’ liability policies, thus making it easier for claimants to find the relevant insurer. The database is updated with the results of any new traces, so its size and utility continue to increase. We recognise, however, that there remains a gap where sufferers cannot trace their employer’s insurer. The Department for Work and Pensions is therefore in discussions about the way forward for stakeholders. Primary legislation might be required, but I anticipate that my noble friend Lord Freud, who is working on the matter, will make a statement before the summer recess. If primary legislation is required, however, the hon. Member for Sefton Central and other hon. Members will understand that that will take a considerable period of time.
I can give a commitment that we will consider all the factors raised today when we come to set out the review’s terms of reference. I cannot, however, set out those terms of reference or a timetable, because any review may not happen until we have identified any primary legislation that might be required. Additionally—the hon. Gentleman made this point, and it has also been made by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—that means that the review will occur against the backdrop of a substantially changed conditional fee arrangement market, so we will of course consider the effect of those changes as part of the review.
I have rather more to say, but I regret that I will not be able to do so, given that, understandably, the hon. Gentleman took interventions during his speech. Nevertheless, I have put on the record the substantive responses that he was seeking from the Government.
Economic Crime Committed by Commercial Organisations (Enforcement Tool)
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Today the Solicitor-General and I are launching the “Consultation on a new enforcement tool to deal with economic crime committed by commercial organisations: Deferred prosecution agreements” (Cm 8348), which has been developed jointly by the Ministry of Justice and the Law Officers’ Departments.
Treating economic crime more seriously and taking steps to combat it more effectively are key commitments in the coalition agreement. We need to develop new tools for prosecutors to use alongside existing methods, to give them the flexibility to secure appropriate penalties for wrongdoing, at the same time as achieving better outcomes for victims. We believe that these proposals will enable prosecutors to take more effective action against commercial organisations which commit economic crimes.
The Government are clear that more needs to be done and that white collar crime should be treated as seriously as any other kind of offending. That is why we are consulting on a new enforcement tool: deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs).
Under a DPA, a prosecutor would lay but would not immediately proceed with criminal charges against a commercial organisation pending successful compliance with tough requirements such as financial penalties, restitution for victims, confiscation of the profits of wrongdoing and measures to prevent future offending.
DPAs would contribute to a just outcome, securing appropriate penalties for and the surrendering of the proceeds of wrongdoing, and benefits for victims in a way that is sanctioned by a judge, without the uncertainty, expense, complexity or time of a full criminal trial. They would enable commercial organisations to be held to account—but without unfairly affecting employees, customers, pensioners, suppliers and investors who were not involved in the behaviour that is to be penalised. And the process will be transparent: as DPAs will be public, the public will always know what wrongdoing has taken place, and the penalty that has been paid.
Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. The document is also available online, at:
www.justice.gov.uk/consultations.
The consultation will run until 9 August 2012. A response paper is scheduled to be published in October 2012.
Oral Answers to Questions
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
1. Whether he has made an assessment of any correlation between the size of the prison population and the crime rate; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
May I first offer to the House the apologies of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice? My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is on a visit to Russia, where he will be speaking at the international legal forum to promote United Kingdom legal services overseas. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is attending the Police Federation conference. Those engagements were made before the changed dates for departmental oral questions became clear following Prorogation.
Turning to Question 1, the evidence report that we published alongside the “Breaking the Cycle” Green Paper shows that there is no clear consensus among experts about the link between the size of the prison population and crime levels. A further Government assessment of the evidence for a correlation illustrates that the causes of crime are complex and that there is no simple link between prison population size and crime levels. We will publish that assessment in due course.
Philip Davies
I thank the Minister for that answer and congratulate him on pursuing a traditional Conservative agenda. In 2010-11, the crime rate dropped by 3%. At the same time, the prison population rose from 84,700 to 86,000. If the Minister is looking for a justification for following that strategy, I commend to him the House of Commons Library. I asked it to track the prison population and the crime rate since the war. Its conclusion was that the charts suggest that in England and Wales increases in prison population have tended to occur at a similar time to falls in levels of recorded crime.
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend has made himself an authority in this area. He will know, therefore, that international experience is different from what he has described. The relationship between the level of crime and the level of incarceration differs across the world. The experience of countries such as Germany, Spain, Finland, Netherlands and Canada, and the state of New York, tends to contradict his analysis, while the experience of Florida and Denmark tends to support it. There is no clear evidence of such a simple relationship as he suggests.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
How many prisoners who come under the category of “prisoners protesting innocence” have gone way over their tariff, with the Parole Board refusing to release them because they refuse to admit that they were guilty, even though some of them may have served 25 years?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I do not know the precise answer and suspect that it would be difficult to get the precise data to analyse the problem. There is such a problem, not least with sex offenders, who are often reluctant to engage with the system and often protest their innocence when they are not innocent. It is a problem to get such people to engage with offender behaviour programmes. The hon. Lady is right that there is a class of prisoner who does not engage in that way, rightly or wrongly, and who presents the system with particular problems. I will follow up that matter.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Presuming that, even under the prescription of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), most prisoners will eventually be released, is there not a danger that putting massive expenditure into an ever-increasing prison population would mean cutting expenditure to ensure that when people are released, they do not commit more crimes?
Mr Blunt
My right hon. Friend is, of course, correct. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is fond of the American experience, where 2 million people are in prison. The logical result of that is the experience in California, where the prison system has become so overcrowded and inhumane that the Supreme Court of the United States has ordered the Californians to release 30,000 prisoners within two years to sort out the prison system. We certainly do not want to find ourselves in that situation.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) to the Front Bench to answer Justice questions. It is surely only a matter of time before the Prime Minister makes the move permanent. As has been said, half the ministerial team are not here today. For our part, we are flattered that both the Justice Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice are running scared. Let us wait and see whether it makes a difference to the Front Benchers’ performance.
I will begin with an easy one. Do this Conservative-led Government still have a target of reducing the prison population by 3,000 from what it was in May 2010?
Mr Blunt
First, I am gratified by the confidence that the Justice Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice have in the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), and in my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), our departmental Whip, who is also responding as a Minister.
We have never had a target. We have an estimate of what is happening and an estimate of the consequences of our policies.
Sadiq Khan
Sir David Latham, the former chairman of the Parole Board and Court of Appeal judge, who retired last month, has warned that due to decisions made by this Government, the only way to prevent a backlog of those who have completed their sentence is to change how the Parole Board reaches decisions, which means it
“may not actually be as effective in protecting the public”.
Does the Minister accept that by abolishing indeterminate sentences for public protection the Government are removing from the Parole Board the responsibility to deal properly with the most violent and serious offenders and taking a risk with public safety?
Mr Blunt
Absolutely not. The right hon. Gentleman’s attempt to juxtapose Sir David Latham’s points with the conduct of the current Government is pretty rich, given that the problem that we inherited came from the shambles of the administration of IPPs. The Labour Government estimated that there would be 900 such sentences, but we now have about 6,500 people in the prison system on IPPs, more than half of them beyond tariff. That presents the Parole Board with a huge problem, which his party’s Administration did not address in delivering its resources until far too late. The current Administration are now gripping all of that.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
2. What progress he has made on reforming no win, no fee arrangements.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
12. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on ensuring quality services for victims after the election of police and crime commissioners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Our consultation, “Getting it right for victims and witnesses” closed on 22 April. We are considering the responses to it, which included views on quality, and aim to publish the Government’s response soon. The Home Secretary and her Department are engaged with all stages of the process.
Diana Johnson
Mervyn Bishop of Victim Support in Hull recently told me of his concerns about the White Paper proposals, to which the Under-Secretary just referred, to devolve victim support services to police and crime commissioners, with an additional cost of £21 million. With some victims of crime who are now defined as “not in the greatest need” being no longer eligible for support after a crime, what will the Under-Secretary do to ensure that PCCs will target effectively those who are in the greatest need?
Mr Blunt
That is why we are in the process of considering all the responses to the consultation. Victim Support has a particular set of organisational interests, because it is a national organisation and most victim services are commissioned nationally. However, I do not recognise the figure of £20 million. We should remember that we are raising another £50 million to add to the £66 million already paid for victim services. That money will come from offenders, which is where it ought to come from. The environment for delivering victim services will be considerably improved, whatever cast one puts on it.
Nick Smith
Does that mean that the Ministry of Justice will ring-fence funding for police and crime commissioners to provide support for victims and witnesses?
Mr Blunt
The hon. Gentleman, like everyone else, will have to wait for our response to the consultation. [Interruption.] As the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) knows perfectly well, we have gone through an entirely proper process and we will publish it for the House when we are ready and have fully considered all the responses to the consultation, which include answers to questions such as the hon. Gentleman’s.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Which crimes does the Under-Secretary consider to be so serious that they will require a minimum guaranteed level of support to victims from the police and crime commissioners?
Mr Blunt
We are looking at local commissioning of victim support services by police and crime commissioners. Then we must make a decision about which victim support services are commissioned locally and which remain to be commissioned nationally. The homicide service and rape support centres are currently commissioned nationally. After the consultation, we will consider the matter and reach our decision about whether those services should be retained nationally.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Does the Under-Secretary agree that one of the greatest needs for victims beyond seeking justice is timely information—what Louise Casey has called “relentless information”? Will my hon. Friend assure me that all steps are being taken with the Home Office to ensure that victims are treated not as an afterthought, but as a priority when information is released?
Mr Blunt
I can definitely say yes to my hon. Friend. There has been a steady improvement in services to victims and witnesses in the past two decades. The resources that we are making available from offenders and the move to restorative justice are part of a much wider process of engaging victims much more centrally in the criminal justice system. I am therefore very happy to give my hon. Friend a positive response.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Government’s plans to break up the national infrastructure that supports victims and witnesses has been described as “unworkable, damaging and dangerous.” We are just a few months away from elections, yet the Government’s approach to victims’ services is a shambles. Given how unpopular transferring victims’ services to PCCs is proving to be, when will the Justice Secretary—wherever he is—set out exactly what services will be maintained nationally, what will go out to local commissioning, and what safeguards will be in place to avoid the damaging and dangerous break-up of crucial support for victims? We need to know now, not in months to come.
Mr Blunt
We need to know, and the House will know, when we have come to a considered view, answered all these questions and gone through the normal processes and assessments of government. That is entirely normal. The hon. Gentleman will get the answers to all his questions when we publish our confirmed proposals.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of progress in reforming the operation of the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
18. What progress he has made on reform of probation services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
On 27 March the Government published a consultation entitled “Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services”, which is looking at a wide range of options for service improvements. Alongside it is a consultation on the overhaul of community sentences, aimed at delivering effective and credible punishments. We will publish our response to both consultations in the autumn.
Heidi Alexander
According to recent press reports, the London Probation Trust is due to run a research project later this year that would require offenders in Bexley and Bromley to report to electronic kiosks, as opposed to trained probation staff. What reassurance can the Minister give me that the trial will not endanger the public, and how can he be sure that the machines will be as capable as human beings are of detecting the early warning signs that offenders may be posing an increased risk to the public?
Mrs Glindon
Northumbria Probation Trust has received the best inspection result of any trust from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation. How will the Secretary of State ensure that probation trusts continue to be effective in protecting the public and reducing reoffending following the probation review, which proposes that offender management be fragmented across a wider range of providers?
Mr Blunt
Improvement of offender management for all our offenders is absolutely at the heart of the probation review. With the proposed reorganisation of probation we will be getting much greater offender management, with a focus by the probation service on reducing reoffending among those receiving community sentences. The outcome of our proposals will therefore be a very much improved offender management picture right across the country.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The Prison Service spends time and taxpayers’ money detoxing those who enter our prisons with alcohol and drug problems. However, I was shocked to find that taxpayers’ money is then spent on retoxing prisoners for their eventual release at the end of their sentences. Does the Minister agree that funding a drug habit—which is often the cause of an offender’s entering prison in the first place—makes the probation service’s job so much more difficult and is not a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She will be as pleased as I am to hear that there has been a change in the clinical policy within prisons in regard to how detoxification is undertaken, resulting in a much stronger emphasis on abstinence than on maintenance. We now need to get right the transition of drug-addicted offenders from custody to the community.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
7. Whether he plans to extend the use of private companies in the management of prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Our plans for competing custodial services are set out in the “Competition Strategy for Offender Services”, published in July 2011. That involves the competing of eight prisons, seven of which are currently in the public sector. We are considering bids from seven providers, including the public sector Prison Service, which has partnered with Mitie and with the Shaw Trust and Working Links in the third sector. That means that even if the public sector-led bid wins all the contracts, the use of private company management will have been extended as a result of this round of competition. We will announce the services selected for phase 3 of the prisons competition in November this year.
Mr Ruffley
I congratulate Ministers on introducing private sector disciplines into the Prison Service faster than any of their predecessors. Payment by results will mean that contractors will be rewarded if they cut reoffending rates when prisoners leave jail, and penalised if they do not do so. When does the Minister expect the first benefits of that policy to be seen?
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend has finely summed up the positive benefits of our policy. The first benefits are already being seen in the payment-by-results programmes in the Peterborough and Doncaster prisons. We should remember that the Doncaster prison proposal came forward from Serco, which is rebidding to manage a prison that it already runs. It is proposing to put part of its contract price at risk against its performance in driving down the reoffending rate.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Is there a maximum number or percentage of prisons that the Government are willing to have run by the private sector?
Mr Blunt
We have said that we do not intend to compete in the high-security estate. There is a limit on how fast the private sector could absorb new prisons and on the capacity of the Ministry of Justice to compete prisons. There is no stated policy, but there are practical restrictions on the speed with which we can increase private sector provision.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to reform the role of small claims courts.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
13. What measures are in place to encourage the teaching of literacy in prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
The basic skills of English and mathematics underpin almost all other learning. Assessing prisoners’ learning needs, and then meeting them, is at the heart of the reforms set out in “Making Prisons Work: Skills for Rehabilitation”, the new offender learning strategy published jointly last year with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Neil Carmichael
Given that a large number of prisoners do not accept the formal education system within the prison, what measures can the Minister use to encourage the Shannon trust’s “toe-by-toe” mentoring scheme?
Mr Blunt
I recently met David Ahern, the chief executive of the Shannon Trust, and I assured him that we will continue to support his excellent scheme. I would be surprised if the new arrangements we have put in place for getting the commissioning of offender learning much closer to prisons and the institutions themselves did not see a much greater take-up of schemes such as toe-by-toe.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In view of the very poor performance in Ofsted inspections of provision by A4e, which provides much of the education in prisons, what conversations has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about how, when the contract is re-let, the quality of provision and the achievements of the prisoners will be at the fore of decision making about who should provide it?
Mr Blunt
I understand that a written ministerial statement has been made today by the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of A4e, which will be of interest to the hon. Lady and the House. In addition, a review of offender learning has been undertaken by the Skills Funding Agency. It was organised by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I am happy to say that its findings have been positive as far as A4e is concerned—I know that will be of interest to the House. As for the future provision of offender learning, we are going through a re-tendering process, whereby prison governors involved in clusters of prisons that represent the offender’s journey through the system are able to ensure that they are satisfied with what is being commissioned into their prisons. That will mean a much more satisfactory state of affairs than we have had before.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
14. What steps he plans to take to promote training in prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Following the joint Ministry of Justice and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills review of offender learning, we are enabling prison governors to determine jointly with the Skills Funding Agency the procurement of training in their prisons. The relative priority for that, set against a falling overall budget for the MOJ and BIS, is shown by the fact that funding is being maintained at £154 million per academic year for the programme.
Gordon Henderson
I recently visited Standford Hill prison in my constituency, where I saw inmates being trained to make optical lenses by Tanjit Singh Dosanjh, who undertakes the training on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately, Mr Dosanjh will not be able to offer that service free of charge indefinitely, so will my hon. Friend consider formalising Mr Dosanjh’s scheme to enable it to continue?
Mr Blunt
We are always keen to support work and training initiatives in prison and with offenders. A significant number of policy initiatives are now coming forward that might be able to incorporate the kind of service and training that Mr Dosanjh is offering, and I will ask my officials to contact him to see what might be possible.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
15. Whether he plans to bring forward proposals to enable magistrates to sit in community centres and police stations.
Mr Wilson
At Reading prison this morning, I played football with fellow MPs from across the House against members of National Grid’s young offender scheme, which reports reoffending rates of just 6% compared with a national average of more than 70%. Given the widely recognised success of the programme, what is the Minister doing to encourage more companies to get involved and help slash reoffending rates?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
The National Grid scheme is a good example of good practice and Mary Harris, who is the lead force behind it, has very properly been honoured for her contribution. National Grid has been running the scheme for some time and getting a large number of other businesses engaged. The scheme is extremely important for the resettlement of offenders. Equally, it needs to sit alongside our proposals for work in prisons, all of which will assist in the rehabilitation of offenders with, we hope, the scale of success that the National Grid scheme has seen.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is no longer in his place and that is a shame, as he and I have rather a lot in common. For example, we both used to work for Asda, where we were told that the quality of a department can be judged on how it performs when the boss is away. Today, we have had at least five elegantly given “Don’t knows” from Ministers. Let us see whether Minister can answer this: does he know, and can he explain, why a written answer from his Department shows that almost 20% fewer inmates completed drug treatment courses in prisons last year than did so two years ago?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
T3. What action are the Government taking to help rape victims?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We have invested £10.5 million in moving from 65 to 80 rape support centres across the country, examining the areas where there are gaps in provision to make sure we get the best possible national coverage so there is access to advice and support for victims of rape across the country.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
T2. Further to the question from my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), will the Minister comment on the relationship between health care and resettlement given that from April next year offenders in prison will receive health care that is commissioned centrally, whereas when they are released from prison back into the community those health services will be commissioned by the local clinical commissioning group?
Mr Blunt
The right hon. Gentleman is on to the very important issue of the continuity of care that is required, particularly for drug and alcohol addicted offenders, from custody into the community. I am delighted to say that the Department of Health’s drug treatment pilots look likely to be a vehicle by which we will be able to identify to areas when prisoners are being discharged to their area, so that they will know when a drug-addicted offender is being discharged to them. We will see how those pilots go, but I think we will have a much more effective system of ensuring that we deal with the gap in provision between when people are in custody and when they are in the community.
Mr Blunt
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, which goes to the heart of our proposals in relation to the panels themselves, the development of restorative justice and the more effective delivery of community justice. Magistrates are the communities’ representatives in the delivery of justice and I would very much welcome their engagement in neighbourhood justice panels and their taking part in the training of restorative justice practitioners, for which we are putting in nearly £2 million. Those are proper roles for a modern magistracy representing the community in the delivery of justice.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
T8. Given that there is no replacement in sight for the victims commissioner, does not that send out entirely the wrong message to victims about the importance that the Government place on their needs?
Mr Blunt
I fear that the hon. Lady will share the frustration of the Opposition Front-Bench team. We will make clear the position on the victims commissioner along with all the other victims and witness issues when we properly respond to the consultation that we have just engaged with on our policies.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
T7. Will the Minister say when the review of the justice needs of Gloucestershire will be finished? Given that both the Crown and the magistrates courts in Gloucester are top of the list for replacement in the south-west of England, will he confirm that his Department will look closely at the proposal, which he knows I strongly advocate, for a new justice centre that brings together courts, tribunal and police station in the heart of Gloucester’s Barbican site?
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the investment that the Government have made in rape centres. Can the Minister tell me when the sexual assault and rape centre is going to open in North Yorkshire and whether all the partners are signed up to it?
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2004 Robert Levy, aged 16, was killed in Hackney. His parents, Ian and Pat Levy, will be receiving support from the probation trust to help them give a victim statement at the parole hearing, which is due next year, but their rights are limited. There is no guarantee that they will appear in person and there will be no cross-examination of them about the impact on their lives. Will the Minister look again at this element of victim impact and tell us what he is doing?
Mr Blunt
We have done so in the course of our consideration of our policy for victims and witnesses, and I hope the hon. Lady will be able to look forward to the conclusions that we take from that, in particular on the future rule of the victim personal statement. I agree with her about its importance. It is another vehicle for getting victims properly engaged in the exercise of justice.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Eleven thousand, one hundred and twenty-seven—the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails is down slightly from the peak of 11,546 under the previous Government at the end of 2009. What further progress can we expect from the Government to send these people back to prison in their own countries?
Mr Blunt
I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter, which continues to spur the Government into action. As he knows because he understands the subject, it is a difficult and multifaceted exercise to get serving prisoners to return to their own country. Every avenue is being explored, from entry into the system, through examination of conditional cautions and the individual bilateral relationships that we have with countries, to the operation of the European Union prisoner transfer arrangements and the European Council’s protocol on the subject. No effort will be spared between us and the UK Border Agency to achieve success and improve performance in this area.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Constituents of mine who are interpreters have given me a dossier about Applied Language Solutions and its failings. Court hearings have been adjourned and costs have been incurred. Will the Minister update the House on what action he is taking against ALS—for breach of contract?
Mr Blunt
On 24 May, we will publish a full statistical analysis of the performance of ALS up to 30 April. Since the contract went national after a successful regional pilot in the north-west on 30 January, there were significant problems with the exercise of that contract, both related to the administration by ALS and to the attitude of interpreters engaging with ALS. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that the performance of ALS and its owner Capita has considerably improved in this area. The position has improved further since 30 April, and it is achieving very nearly now the performance required under the contract.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Minister rule out the use of closed material proceedings in inquest cases and cases that do not involve national security?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
What progress has been made in tackling the issue of the number of drivers who continue to drive legally with more than 12 points on their licence, now numbering more than 10,000 people?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
David Parfitt killed my constituent Ged Walker, who was a serving police officer. Parfitt was released from custody a few months ago after a long sentence. We understand that he appeared in Lincoln magistrates court charged with a new offence, but my constituent’s widow has not been given the details of that offence. Does the Minister agree that as a victim of crime, she is entitled to know if he has reoffended, and if he has, in what way?
Mr Blunt
I will want to examine the precise duties that the House and the Government have placed on the victim liaison services, both in the probation service and in the police, with respect to that case. The duties of the system to victims have improved, are improving and must continue to do so. They must feel very central to the exercise and administration of criminal justice.
Diana Johnson
I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. In light of the impact that sexual assault referral centres can have on rape convictions, should sexual assault referral centres have their funding ring-fenced, both from the NHS and from the police?
Mr Blunt
Of course, our Administration is generally against ring-fencing, and it can be accepted only in very exceptional cases. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office are looking carefully at the whole area, and the case for ring-fencing is being strongly made. When we have reached a conclusion, I will report it to the House.
Prisoners: Ex-servicemen
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Blunt
Meetings for prisoners who are former armed service personnel take place in prisons where an identified need exists, usually as part of the Veterans in Custody Scheme which operates in approximately 120 prison establishments. The delivery or frequency of these meetings is not centrally mandated by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).
The Veterans in Custody Scheme offers support to prisoners who are former armed service personnel and liaises with relevant service-based charities to ensure that this group of prisoners has access to the full range of services that are available. Certain Probation Trusts are implementing similar schemes, so that support and links to service-based charities are also available to offenders in the community.
NOMS has not provided additional funding to deliver this area of work as it is part of offender management which is already centrally funded.
Data on the number of former armed services personnel who are resident in Approved Premises in England and Wales is not centrally collated and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by analysing information held on offender files or on local data systems, validating it, and then collating it in a common format in order to provide a response.
The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice announced in a written ministerial statement on 6 January 2010, Official Report, column 7WS, the findings of an initial study by the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) which estimated that, by analysing a database of prisoners aged 18 years and over on 6 November 2009, 3% of the prison population in England and Wales (2,207 prisoners) are ex-Regular service personnel.
In September 2010, DASA revised the estimate of ex-Regular service personnel to 3.5% of the prison population in England and Wales (2,280 prisoners) to take into account the incompleteness of their service leavers database, which did not previously include reliable data for those who had left the services prior to 1979 (Navy), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF).
The initial report and the updated estimate are available via the following links:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub=VETERANS-IN_PRISON_INIT1AL_REPORT
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub-VETERANS_IN_PRISON
In a third report, published in March 2011, DASA estimated, by analysing a database of offenders aged 18 years and over who were supervised by probation trusts on 30 September 2009, that there were 5,860 former members of the armed forces on probation in England and Wales. This equates to 3.4% of the probation caseload and is roughly in line with the percentage in prison—3.5%.
This report is available via the following link:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub=VETERANS_ON_PROBATION
The estimate of 5,860 includes an upward adjustment of 499 former service personnel to take into account the incompleteness of DASA's service leavers database which did not capture reliable data for all those who left the services prior to 1979 (Naval Service), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF). Therefore, only a total of 5,361 (or 3.1%) were actually matched to a supervision record.
Of the 5,361 veterans matched to a supervision records, 1,038 (19%) had a post-release licence and 4,331 (81%) had either a community order or a suspended sentence.
Note:
Please note that it is possible for an individual to have matched to more than one type of supervision record.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Blunt
Meetings for prisoners who are former armed service personnel take place in prisons where an identified need exists, usually as part of the Veterans in Custody Scheme which operates in approximately 120 prison establishments. The delivery or frequency of these meetings is not centrally mandated by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).
The Veterans in Custody Scheme offers support to prisoners who are former armed service personnel and liaises with relevant service-based charities to ensure that this group of prisoners has access to the full range of services that are available. Certain Probation Trusts are implementing similar schemes, so that support and links to service-based charities are also available to offenders in the community.
NOMS has not provided additional funding to deliver this area of work as it is part of offender management which is already centrally funded.
Data on the number of former armed services personnel who are resident in Approved Premises in England and Wales is not centrally collated and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by analysing information held on offender files or on local data systems, validating it, and then collating it in a common format in order to provide a response.
The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice announced in a written ministerial statement on 6 January 2010, Official Report, column 7WS, the findings of an initial study by the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) which estimated that, by analysing a database of prisoners aged 18 years and over on 6 November 2009, 3% of the prison population in England and Wales (2,207 prisoners) are ex-Regular service personnel.
In September 2010, DASA revised the estimate of ex-Regular service personnel to 3.5% of the prison population in England and Wales (2,820 prisoners) to take into account the incompleteness of their service leavers database, which did not previously include reliable data for those who had left the services prior to 1979 (Navy), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF).
The initial report and the updated estimate are available via the following links:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub=VETERANS-IN_PRISON_INIT1AL_REPORT
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub-VETERANS_IN_PRISON
In a third report, published in March 2011, DASA estimated, by analysing a database of offenders aged 18 years and over who were supervised by probation trusts on 30 September 2009, that there were 5,860 former members of the armed forces on probation in England and Wales. This equates to 3.4% of the probation caseload and is roughly in line with the percentage in prison—3.5%.
This report is available via the following link:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php?pub=VETERANS_ON_PROBATION
The estimate of 5,860 includes an upward adjustment of 499 former service personnel to take into account the incompleteness of DASA's service leavers database which did not capture reliable data for all those who left the services prior to 1979 (Naval Service), 1973 (Army) and 1969 (RAF). Therefore, only a total of 5,361 (or 3.1%) were actually matched to a supervision record.
Of the 5,361 veterans matched to a supervision records, 1,038 (19%) had a post-release licence and 4,331 (81%) had either a community order or a suspended sentence.
Note:
Please note that it is possible for an individual to have matched to more than one type of supervision record.
Prisoners: Ex-Servicemen
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Llwyd
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will conduct a study involving (a) all prisons or (b) more than one prison to ascertain how many former military personnel are in the prison system.
[Official Report, 15 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 1339W.]
Letter of correction from Crispin Blunt:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on 15 September 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Blunt
In September 2010, MOJ and Defence Analytical Services Advice (DASA) published the results of joint work to determine the number of regular ex-service personnel in prison in England and Wales. The report provided a figure of 2,280 ex-service personnel that were serving a sentence in prison in England and Wales.
This remains the most comprehensive and reliable piece of research on this matter to date and we have no current plans to repeat the exercise as there is no evidence to suggest that the proportion of veterans within the prison population has changed significantly.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Blunt
In September 2010, MOJ and Defence Analytical Services Advice (DASA) published the results of joint work to determine the number of regular ex-service personnel in prison in England and Wales. The report provided a figure of 2,820 ex-service personnel that were serving a sentence in prison in England and Wales.
This remains the most comprehensive and reliable piece of research on this matter to date and we have no current plans to repeat the exercise as there is no evidence to suggest that the proportion of veterans within the prison population has changed significantly.
Prison Service Pay Review Body
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I am pleased to announce that the Prime Minister has appointed Ann Jarvis as a member of the Prison Service Pay Review Body for three years commencing April 2012. The appointment has been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice on appointments to public bodies.
Data Protection in the Areas of Police and Criminal Justice (EU Directive)
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5833/12 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a Draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data; and supports the Government’s recommendation not to exercise its right to opt out of this draft Directive under Protocol 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (The Schengen Protocol).
The motion stands on the Order Paper in my name and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the proposed data protection directive, which the European Commission published on 25 January. The directive would repeal and replace the 2008 framework decision on data protection in the police and criminal justice sector. It is an important instrument for law enforcement in this country and across the European Union, and it is right that this House is given the opportunity to consider the effect of the proposals on both the security and the freedoms of UK citizens. The debate fulfils the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to seek Parliament’s views on an opt-in decision in justice and home affairs matters, as well as opt-out decisions under the Schengen protocol, and I am keen to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In the Ministry of Justice’s impact analysis, the summary is that the overall impact is
“likely to be substantially negative”.
Given that, can the Minister explain why he does not want to opt out?
Mr Blunt
I will deal with that, but in deciding whether to exercise the opt-out, the Government looked at the most pessimistic reading of events. The conclusion to which my right hon. Friend refers has been before the European Scrutiny Committee, but that impact assessment does not take into account some of the consequences that would flow if we exercised an opt-out. I shall talk about those consequences later in my speech, but they include negotiating all the bilateral data protection arrangements that would be required were we not party to the directive.
Having held the responsibility of Europe Minister, my right hon. Friend, of all people in this House, will understand the complexity of the legal basis—complexity that has increased considerably since he and I were serving in the Foreign Office together, I as a special adviser and he as a Minister. If he will forgive me, I will get my arguments on the record, give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to contribute in the light of that, then respond to their remarks at the end of the debate. I will therefore resist taking too many interventions. This area is complex enough without adding further to that complexity—
Mr Blunt
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, let me get our position on the measure on the record, then I will be able to respond to interventions and points made in a more disciplined way.
It is the Government’s view that the proposed data protection directive can be classified as a Schengen building measure; therefore, under protocol 19 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which governs how the Schengen acquis are integrated into the UK framework, the UK does have the option of opting-out of the directive. The deadline for notifying the Council of the European Union of an opt-out decision is 14 May.
The Government's position is that the continued ability to share information on crime and justice matters between nations is of fundamental importance. In an increasingly globalised world, crime does not stop at national borders, but reaches across jurisdictions and involves people of many different nationalities. The Government therefore support proportionate, clear and coherent data protection rules that keep personal data safe, protect the rights of citizens and enable our police to pursue criminals to protect the lives and interests of our citizens.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Minister give way to the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee for that point, but I will have to take advice on what was received and when before replying to him. I am trying to explain that, in this area, there is considerable confusion between opt-ins and opt-outs, so if he will forgive me, I shall try to explain this complicated matter and its consequences in as simple terms as I can, as much for my own benefit as for anyone else’s.
To address specifically the subject of debate this evening, we support the transfer of data across borders and between organisations where it improves our ability to prevent crime, increase security and keep our citizens safe. We must therefore protect the arrangements that have allowed EU member states to share information about suspected criminal activity in a regulated and proportionate manner. The challenge of the directive is that, although parts of it are welcome and will help in the fight against crime, some of the provisions are excessively bureaucratic and unwieldy. As it is drafted, we have concerns about the costs it would impose on UK law enforcement agencies. We are particularly concerned about the fact that it has been drafted so as to apply to internal processing of data—that is, information being shared by police forces or other criminal justice authorities within the borders of one country.
The Government's approach to the directive has been to establish the best way of securing the benefits of continued data sharing with EU member states, while minimising any resultant costs. Having gone through this analysis, our judgment is that, despite concerns about the current text, we should not opt out of the directive. There are three main reasons for this. First, the directive is at a very early stage of negotiation. There is substantial room for improvement, and it is clear that the UK has significant allies within the Council of Ministers who share our concerns. We believe that we can secure a more effective deal by working with our partners than by going it alone.
Mr Blunt
No. Secondly, the legal base of the measure gives the UK an effective exemption on the issue about which we are most concerned: internal processing of data. The directive is based on article 16 of the TFEU—the new data protection competence created under the Lisbon treaty. Under article 6a of protocol 21, which gives the UK and Ireland particular provisions and protections in the areas of freedoms, security and justice, the UK has what we believe to be a firm protection that provisions on internal processing will not apply to us.
Mr Blunt
No. My intention was to respond to the intervention made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but he is no longer in his place, so I shall come back to it later.
Thirdly, and most important, exercising the opt-out would endanger our continued ability to share information across borders without necessarily freeing us from the bureaucratic and unwelcome obligations potentially created by the new directive. That is because in the absence of the directive, the UK would have to negotiate new data-sharing arrangements bilaterally with each of the other member states in the European economic area. Notwithstanding the significant time and cost of those separate negotiations, the fact is that each of the member states with which we would be negotiating would be bound by the terms of the new directive, and of course would press the UK to adopt similar requirements to their own. The effect would be that we would end up taking on similar obligations to those of a directive that we had not participated in negotiating, and whose content we had not had the opportunity to influence.
The Schengen instruments contain their own specific and extensive data protection provisions, which will not be affected by the directive and will continue to operate, so in effect we would be opting out of very little, with little potential benefit for the United Kingdom, but potentially to our detriment. Furthermore, there are broader consequences to an opt-out.
Mr Blunt
If we were outside the directive, our ability to negotiate essential data-sharing agreements, such as we are in the process of doing on the passenger name records directive and the European Union third-country passenger name records agreements, could be significantly undermined. Equally fundamental, exercising our opt-out on this measure could throw our participation in other, broader Schengen measures into question and the Council could take the decision not allow us to continue to participate in valuable data-sharing arrangements under the police co-operation provisions of Schengen. This would be a serious problem for our law enforcement agencies, which benefit from the sharing of criminal data under Schengen.
It is therefore our careful collective judgment, based on the most pessimistic view of costs and benefits, shared with the European Scrutiny Committee, that our national interests are best served by participating in this directive so that we are party to the framework governing data-sharing for policing and criminal justice across the European Union.
Mr Blunt
I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The directive is important for the security of our citizens. I will go on to give an example of the kind of co-operation that we wish to protect under these arrangements. If we are not party to these arrangements, we will have to start negotiating at least 27 bilateral arrangements, which would take us to precisely the same place as the directive, without the benefit of negotiating under the directive.
Mr Blunt
Let us be clear about what is at stake here. Rules enabling the sharing of data have made a tangible difference to the United Kingdom, and we take steps that imperil them at our risk and at risk to our citizens. Let me give an example, which concerned a 32-year-old Romanian national who was arrested in the United Kingdom on suspicion of raping two women within the Metropolitan area. A request for conviction data identified that the suspect had a previous conviction for rape in Romania. Just prior to the trial, the individual disputed the Romanian conviction, but through close liaison with the central authority and the police liaison officer at the Romanian embassy in London, a set of fingerprints relating to the Romanian rape conviction was obtained and proved the conviction beyond doubt when they matched the suspect.
An application to use the previous conviction as bad character evidence was made by the prosecuting counsel and was granted by the judge, allowing the Romanian rape conviction to be put before the jury. The defendant was convicted of four counts of rape and other offences at the Inner London Crown court in July 2010. The defendant was given an indeterminate prison sentence, with a recommendation that he serve at least 11 years in jail as he presents a “high risk” of further sexual offences. The investigating officer on the case said:
“The use of foreign conviction data can be of great importance to police investigations. In my case, by working with the UK Central Authority I was able to draw on their professionalism and expertise to secure details of”—
the individual’s—
“previous conviction for rape in Romania which was put before the court and used as bad character evidence. This information undoubtedly assisted in providing a successful outcome, convicting a dangerous offender who will now spend a considerable number of years behind bars.”
Perhaps I hope that under European Union and Council of Europe prisoner transfer agreements, a good proportion of those years will be spent behind Romanian bars, but if I follow that up, I may be diverging from the immediate subject of the debate.
Mr Blunt
That case is far from unique. We should be clear that the Government want to remain within the directive precisely to enable such practical, common-sense sharing of data. It is not because we do not have concerns about the precise details or think it cannot be improved. It is because we make the judgment that we stand a much better chance of securing a sensible deal within the tent than outside it, and without risking the likelihood that by having to negotiate dozens of bilateral deals, we would endanger co-operation that the public depend upon.
It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that press coverage has warned about new rights for criminals under this measure. Let me set the record straight. All UK citizens under current law are able to know what information the state holds about them and can ask for data to be erased. But the ability of criminals to enjoy this right is, for obvious reasons, qualified. Put simply, the rights of the law-abiding public to security come first. Nothing in this proposed directive creates any new right for criminals or for anyone else.
Mr Raab
On that point. May I quote to the Minister directly from paragraph 50 of the impact assessment? It says that criminal justice sector agencies may also be prosecuted directly or via the Information Commissioner’s Office if they fail to protect personal data. This will represent a cost to them in terms of defending themselves in court and in paying fines and/or compensation that may result from these cases. Does that not conflict directly with what he has just told the House?
Mr Blunt
No, because these rights already exist. The suggestion in the newspapers yesterday, which I am sure my hon. Friend had nothing to do with, was about whether we were creating some new set of rights for criminals under the directive. No new set of rights is being created, any more than exist now under our own data protection laws.
Mr Blunt
No. Let me turn to the substantial content of the proposed directive and the policy issues that are raised. We want to see a system that allows police and judicial authorities to continue to protect and serve the public effectively and which also allows individuals to be confident that their privacy, safety and freedom will be safeguarded. The Government believe that these two objectives are not contradictory, but may be achieved in tandem, by creating a data protection framework that is founded on the principles of necessity and proportionality.
In the light of this position, there are legitimate concerns regarding the content of the directive. The United Kingdom believes in a principles-based approach that allows the necessary amount of flexibility in processing data. In some areas, the proposed directive seems far too prescriptive to meet this requirement.
Mr Blunt
Our priority in negotiations will be to resist the application of the directive to all domestic processing—that is, data sent between two United Kingdom agencies. Although article 6a of protocol 21 means that this will not apply to us, we feel that it is important to remove this expansion as such data processing should not be the subject of European Union rules. We will seek to remove that for all European Union countries.
As further examples, the proposal lays down new obligations for data controllers regarding the documentation and records that they must keep and the consultations that they must hold with the Information Commissioner’s Office in order for the processing to be considered compliant with the rules. We also have reservations about the compulsory appointment of data protection officers, a role that will need to be filled ostensibly to ensure that data controllers fulfil the various obligations presented to them, including those that I just outlined.
We already expect robust data protection governance as a matter of course in public authorities. However, we question the necessity of having the European Union telling us how to create, organise and run these arrangements. The more prescriptive and burdensome aspects of the directive are opposed by the Government and we will seek to remove or mitigate them during negotiations in the Council of the European Union. This is the beginning of a lengthy process of negotiating new data protection legislation, not the end. The UK will seek to influence negotiations in order to bring about outcomes that are more in line with our policy objectives, which is to end up with an effective but proportionate framework.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) could put the question on costs better than I could.
Sir Peter Bottomley
You are right to correct me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think that I am also right in saying that every word in “Erskine May” may create a new precedent. My question, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dover would have put better, is this: will my hon. Friend the Minister start talking about costs at some stage during his very good speech?
Mr Blunt
I will not. I am unable to, because work is still ongoing on the impact assessment to try better to identify the precise costs of each measure. If my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the impact assessment, he will have noted that much of the assessment in this area is based on fairly tentative criteria. What are not included in the impact assessment are the benefits of a successful negotiation or the costs that would be inflicted on us if we chose to opt out and had to live with the consequences.
As I was saying, this is the beginning of a lengthy process of negotiating new data protection legislation, not the end. We will seek to influence negotiations in order to bring about outcomes that are more in line with our policy objective, which is to end up with an effective but proportionate framework. I note that every other member of the European Union faces that same challenge of finding the right balance between the two principal objectives: the privacy of our citizens and the protection of their data; and the protection of their interests through the operation of our police and criminal justice agencies. However, it is worth noting that the proposed directive is one part of a two-part package of revised data protection instruments that the Commission proposed in January; it also proposed a regulation that would cover general and commercial data processing by public and private bodies. The regulation is neither the trigger, nor the subject of this debate.
To return to the directive, which is the subject of today’s debate, let me summarise our position. We believe that an opt-out decision is a possibility for the Government but that it would be the wrong choice for the United Kingdom. We would need to replace the directive with bilateral agreements with each member state, which would be a time-consuming and tortuous process, and it is likely that in those negotiations we would find ourselves bound by aspects of the directive that we feel confident we can remove in negotiations.
The Government’s position, therefore, is clear: we want to be part of a European data protection framework that enables practical, common-sense sharing of data between member states’ law enforcement agencies engaged in the fight against international crime. We believe that the limiting effect of article 6a on the aspects of the directive that relate to data exchanges within the United Kingdom means that we should be content to be part of it, which will of course substantially reduce the costs identified in the impact assessment. Although there are areas of the proposal that the Government will seek to alter, I can unhesitatingly commend the motion to the House.
Mr Slaughter
I think I will take interventions a little later in my speech.
It is not my wish to speak for long. These debates, a number of which it has been my privilege to speak in over the past few months, are always animated, if only on the Government side of the House—indeed, sometimes I think mine is the last friendly voice the Minister hears.
Mr Slaughter
He is in a pretty desperate situation if that is true.
The animation in these debates often comes from what I might call the meta-issue of why we are discussing European law expansion at all, rather than the precise statutory powers being considered, or at least that is my observation. I intend neither to engage in that debate, nor—other than briefly—to discuss the matter of principle that the draft directive raises. In dealing with the matter of processing personal data for the purposes of preventing, detecting and prosecuting crime, there will always be a balancing act. On the one hand, the prevalence of cross-border crime, including serious and organised crime, crimes of violence, sexual crime and terrorism, is growing, and criminals and criminal gangs are becoming more organised and sophisticated and making better use of technology and information systems, so the police and prosecuting authorities must have the means to match them. On the other hand, the issue of data protection and privacy from the prying eyes of the state in particular is important, contentious and topical, from data storage to the Leveson inquiry.
In opposition, both Government parties set themselves up as opponents of data collection where it could be seen as intrusive, yet I read the following in today’s edition of The Guardian:
“Ministers are planning a shakeup of the law on the use of confidential personal data to make it far easier for government and public-sector organisations to share confidential information supplied by the public. Proposals to be published next month by the Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, are expected to include fast-track procedures for ministers to license the sharing of data in areas where it is currently prohibited.”
The Cabinet Office Minister said:
“In May we will publish the proposals that will make data sharing easier”.
The home affairs editor of The Guardian notes that
“databases continue to proliferate across Whitehall, even before the extension of data-sharing powers. Now the Cabinet Office minister…says government must be ‘smarter and more effective’ at sharing such sensitive data.”
It is not only the EU that has to undertake this tricky balancing of civil liberties with security and the pursuit of crime.
The issue before us is not one of principle, but whether the proposals achieve that balance. That question may be answered only in the further examination of the directive. As I have indicated, we do not oppose the Government’s decision today not to opt out, and I hope that that is clear.
Mr Blunt
After that contribution, it is clear that I owe my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) an apology for not having taken his intervention, not least because he welcomed the Government’s general objectives and the balances we are seeking to strike. However, he did then say that this was another villain’s charter from the EU—an argument that some in the press have also made.
The rights of United Kingdom citizens under our existing laws under the Data Protection Act—their rights to access information and for information to be erased—are pretty much the same as what is being proposed in this directive. The same rights of the authorities not to have to erase data that are important for criminal investigations will also continue to exist in the future.
Let me turn to the important question of process, and address the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I am perfectly happy to concede that these matters could have been handled better. One of the constraints we have placed on ourselves in the so-called Lidington debates is to bring the measures relating to opt-ins or opt-outs under the Schengen protocol to the House and give Members the opportunity to debate them. My hon. Friend pointed out that there is the small matter of prorogation. The decision on the opt-out must be taken on 14 May. [Interruption.] Well, that is what is in the treaties of the EU. The Government have to decide whether to opt-out by 14 May, and we are also committed to coming to the House and giving Members the opportunity to debate.
The information given to my hon. Friend—which was given within 10 days of the directive being published—made no reference to Schengen. I will examine why that was the case, but I am advised that whether or not the matter fell within Schengen was still under examination at the time. There is also an element of legal opinion as to whether or not the Schengen acquis can be correctly claimed by the Commission when it comes forward with these measures. There is an element of process to be applied, therefore, rather than our just taking at face value Commission statements on regulations and directives and whether measures are compliant with Schengen.
Mr Cash
When the Minister reads the transcript, he will see that the matter is specifically referred to in the framework decision recitals. I do not think there is any debate about this point, therefore. What I would like to know is whether the Minister for Europe consulted the Minister on this matter; after all, the Lidington debates are based on an assumption in the context of decisions taken by this House in the light of what the Minister himself specified.
Mr Blunt
No, I did not speak directly to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. Yes, it is in the recitals, but the regulation published by the European Commission in parallel with this also asserts some involvement with Schengen, which we dispute. These issues are not always very straightforward. On the timetable we have placed on ourselves to have this debate in time for the Government’s decision on the opt-out, which has to be taken, and on parliamentary arrangements, I accept that things could always have been done better—
Ex Gratia Payments to Victims of Overseas Terrorism
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I am announcing today the launch of an ex gratia scheme to make payments to victims of terrorism who were injured overseas on or after 1 January 2002 and who continue to have an ongoing disability as a direct result of the injuries they sustained. From today victims will be able to apply for a payment under this scheme.
The aim of the ex gratia scheme is to demonstrate solidarity with those in our community who have been affected by terrorist incidents overseas, taking into account the nature of terrorist attacks as a political statement and attack on our society.
We believe it is proportionate and necessary for the scheme to focus limited resources on those who have a clear and sufficient connection to the UK. Therefore, payments will be made to British, EU and EEA victims with a minimum of three years residence in the UK immediately prior to a terrorist attack that is designated for the purposes of the ex gratia scheme.
Responsibility for the designation of terrorist attacks for the purposes of the ex gratia scheme falls to the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary has designated the following incidents:
Bombings in Bali, Indonesia on 12 October 2002;
Bombings in Kusadasi, Turkey on 16 July 2005;
Attacks in tourist sites in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt 23 July 2005;
Bombings in Dahab, Egypt 24 April 2006;
Bombings in Marmaris, Turkey 27 August 2006;
Attacks in Mumbai, India 26 November 2008.
Later this year we intend to lay before Parliament a separate statutory scheme for compensating future victims of overseas terrorism, made under the Crime and Security Act 2010. That scheme will commence shortly after parliamentary approval has been received.
Secure Estate for Children and Young People (Response to Consultation)
Crispin Blunt Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Today we are publishing our response to the consultation on the “Strategy for the Secure Estate for Children and Young People for England and Wales” alongside plans for the secure estate until 2015.
Both are joint publications between the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board.
Custody is the appropriate sanction for those young people who commit the most persistent and most serious crimes. Custody is always a last resort but can help young people face up and address their offending behaviour. It is also an opportunity, if properly delivered, to set young people on a more constructive path.
The recent reduction in the number of young people in custody means that the secure estate is now going through a period of change. This has presented us with an opportunity to consider the most appropriate configuration of the estate and consider whether different regimes can deliver improved outcomes.
The response to the consultation and the future plans for the secure estate can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at: www.justice.gov.uk.