Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Robert Flello

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Throughout the debate, we have heard a catalogue of problems and failures in respect of the scheme, as well as some cases of terrible suffering. We have heard the Minister state how important victims are to the new Justice Ministers, and we have heard about a back-of-the-envelope hardship fund that will help perhaps 1,000 innocent victims, instead of the tens of thousands of blameless victims who are being denied financial support by the cuts these same Justice Ministers are forcing through.

Very few Conservative and no Liberal Democrat Back Benchers have spoken in defence of these cuts. The architect of the scheme, the former Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), told us that the real reason for what is happening is to make cuts, rather than to help to support victims or provide more resources. He has told us the truth today. We also heard from a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and a single, solitary Tory Back Bencher. Conversely, from the Labour Benches we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson).

We have heard plenty of contributions about the real impact of these cuts, so let me explain simply to the House what Justice Ministers are proposing. Let us suppose a thug mugs the little old lady who lives on our street. If the thug breaks her finger, her jaw or her ribs, or puts out a cigarette on her, or if she suffers impairment to her speech from the callous battering the thug metes out—or if she endures all of those—under this scheme she will be entitled to zero criminal injuries compensation. Is that really what Government Members came into politics to do?

What happens to the have-a-go hero Dad who races out of his home to protect his son from being beaten up—or worse—by the local louts but instead finds himself on the receiving end? He may be stabbed in the ensuing scuffle and be rushed to hospital, where dedicated NHS staff save his life. When he applies for financial compensation to cover the lost wages while he has been off work, he will find that, because he has been made redundant a few times during the past three years and has had a few weeks out of work while seeking a new job, he will receive no compensation for loss of earnings from the scheme. Is that what Government Members came into this House to do?

I recall the Justice Secretary talking about the young soldier beaten up by hoodlums. What happens to serving soldier Mr Kent who suffered a fractured jaw with a single punch from a yob after a disturbance last year in York and required repeated hospital surgery? Under the Justice Secretary’s new scheme, Mr Kent would be entitled to zero financial recompense following the mindless attack he suffered—so much for the Justice Secretary’s concerns about our soldiers. Surely Government Members must be starting to realise that what Justice Ministers are doing is wrong.

What happens to the young child savaged by a neighbour’s dog? Children under the age of 10 are more likely than any other age group to suffer severe injuries after being attacked and to require plastic surgery. What happens to six-year-old Rebecca who was mauled by a dog while playing near her home in Byker, Newcastle? She was left terrified and pouring with blood. She was rushed to hospital and had surgery for wounds around her eyes, nose, cheek and mouth. Under the new scheme, irrespective of the seriousness of the injuries—even if the victim dies—there is no financial help from the scheme for victims of dog attacks, unless the dog was used deliberately. Perhaps that is what Conservative and Lib Dem Members came into politics to do.

A judge from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal has commented on the proposals, using phrases such as:

“potentially brutal and will lead to gross injustices.”

Another phrase used was:

“I confidently predict”—

that they will—

“lead to a substantial increase in challenges to decisions and gross unfairness.”

The judge has also called the proposals “astonishingly vague” and said:

“If the government believes it is saving money...it is gravely mistaken.”

Finally, the judge said that the proposals were

“perverse and grossly unfair to victims of crimes of violence.”

That is what an expert has said about the proposed new scheme.

Between the end of the year and the 2015 election, on average, in each constituency, more than 100 seriously injured victims of crime will see their criminal injuries compensation abolished or severely cut if the Government’s proposals are passed. Every MP meets, and is sympathetic to, victims of crime who have suffered. Do Government Members really want to have to explain to more than 100 seriously injured constituents and their families why their desperately needed compensation payment was targeted, as we have heard, by the Government for cuts?

Let me spend a moment dispelling any myths that might have been fostered in the minds of Government Members. We have heard that the scheme is unsustainable and unaffordable—that is untrue. The tariff scheme is sustainable and stable at current budget. The high cost in 2011-12 was for 78 victims from the pre-1996 scheme—so their cases really have to penalise 90% of future victims? The pre-tariff liabilities have been reduced to 35 cases as at 30 Sept 2012, with estimated liabilities under £100 million, and will soon be cleared. Tariff bands 1 to 5 are supposedly there to deal with minor injuries that do not need compensation—that is not the case. They are there for injuries that have a disabling effect for at least six weeks and are therefore not minor. We have heard that money will be focused on the most seriously injured—that is not the case. No victim of crime will receive a penny more from the new scheme. Many of those most seriously injured will lose out the most, because of drastic cuts to compensation for loss of earnings, the exclusion of dog attack victims and the tighter conditions on reporting and co-operating.

We have heard that £50 million will be provided by offenders for victims, but there is no link between offenders contributing more and this scheme. Government Members need to appreciate on what we will vote this evening. Will they vote to defend the defenceless—those blameless victims injured through no fault of their own —or will they vote to wipe out payments on tariffs 1 to 5, to cut loss of earnings payments and to punish children who are subjected to horrific dog attacks?

[Mr Blunt]

The shadow Minister must come back to basics. If he does not support the statutory instrument and wants the full expenditure to continue—I assume that he also wants all the other victims’ money that we are having to find—he will have to suggest what else will go. Otherwise, he will have to do the same as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who was honest enough to say that taxes will have to go up.

[Robert Flello]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why 90% of future victims will have to lose their compensation because of the 35 pre-1996 cases. Is he suggesting—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) wants me to answer, he should give me a chance to do so rather than heckling from a sedentary position.

The hon. Member for Reigate was the architect of this appalling scheme. He has confessed to the House today that it is about cuts and nothing else. We heard from him about the financial situation, and he asked where the money will come from. It is quite simple. We will work alongside the Government to look at ways to address this—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish? To put it quite simply, saying to some of the most innocent, blameless and hard-up members of our communities that they must dig into their pockets to pay for this is outrageous. We have heard the hon. Gentleman’s view, so let me return to what Government Members must do.

Before they vote this evening, Government Members must think carefully about whether, in good conscience, they can oppose the motion. If Members, like those on the original Committee, feel that victims of violent crime deserve better and that cutting payments to the vulnerable, injured and incapacitated is wholly unacceptable, they should be brave enough to vote with their conscience. This is a shameful scheme, hellbent on adding financial insult to injury.

We are talking not about figures and statistics but about real people who will be significantly affected by today’s decision—people in our constituencies who are seriously injured and look to us to help them through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We heard from colleagues on the Opposition Benches that compensation for loss of earnings will be reduced from a maximum of £750 a week to just £85 a week. We heard about Frankie, who was stabbed and robbed, and about the counselling that was needed. We heard about the financial stability of the scheme. We heard about Andy Parish, a postman, and the issue of dog attacks, and we heard that victims of crime will have to find £50 of their own money to obtain medical records. Somebody who has been attacked and been out of work as a result will now have to find £50 even to start the process—incredible. The few Government Members who took part—only one of whom is not part of the payroll or had not formerly been part of the payroll—kept muddling some of the issues.

We heard Members ask where the detail of the hardship fund was. That is a good question. Where is the detail? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East said, it all fits into the Tory template: exaggerate costs, mix the issues, use some standard language about floors and targeting and then set up a hardship fund.

In the words of Lord Dilhorne, “Sympathy is not enough.” We will work with the Government, but I urge Members from all parties to reject this appalling scheme and vote for the motion this evening. In doing so, they will send a message to Justice Ministers that paying off the deficits from the pockets of the poorest, most vulnerable and most blameless is not acceptable and not what right hon. and hon. Members came into Parliament to do.

Alan Turing

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Robert Flello

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Robert Flello

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Robert Flello

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

We want victims’ personal statements to be living documents that will play a full role, particularly in advising the courts on the sentence following the consequences of the crime.

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

Once police commissioners are in place, we could have 41 different standards of victim support across the country. The service that someone living, working and travelling across the midlands receives could depend on one of four or more areas, depending on where the crime is committed. Given the real concerns being raised by victims groups about the potential mess that could arise as a result of the Justice Secretary’s policies, will there be an individual—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister would care to listen to the question before deciding to heckle from the Front Bench. Given the real concerns being raised by victims groups about the potential mess, which he should be aware of, will an individual or an organisation be charged with enforcing a minimum standard that victims of crime can expect, regardless of geography—a newly appointed victims commissioner perhaps?

[Mr Blunt]

The hon. Gentleman has pointed out the problems that can come with enfranchising people at a local level, but the Government believe in localism and it is our view that police and crime commissioners will have the best appreciation of the victim services that are required in their local area. We look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to the consultation to see precisely what his view is. We have noticed that he is against a localist approach, but this Government are not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Robert Flello

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Last week, there were two tragic deaths of young people in custody: Jake Hardy, a 17-year-old held at Hindley, and 15-year-old Alex Kelly, a prisoner at Cookham Wood. Although, rightly, there will be investigations and inquests, urgent questions need to be answered. Had mental health assessments been undertaken? Were the boys receiving treatment? Had there been any fighting involving these children? Were any forms of restraint used? Will the Secretary of State make urgent inquiries into the circumstances of the deaths to address concerns that this may be a new systemic problem, and inform the House?

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

Yes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that four separate types of inquiry are to be conducted. Later today I will meet the chairman and chief executive of the Youth Justice Board and discuss those cases.

Common European Sales Law

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Robert Flello

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me reply to the points raised in the course of this debate. I have taken careful note of all the points raised and they will of course further guide our work as we consult on this proposal in the next phase. As the House is aware we will have a proper public consultation on the proposed regulation in the new year. I know, however, that our general approach to this dossier has to date been supported by the scrutiny Committees in both Houses.

Let me pick up the particular points that have been made this afternoon. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and his Committee for the work that they have done on this instrument. I particularly welcome his contribution to the debate today. He drew attention to the contributions that have already been made by Consumer Focus, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Law Society. I want to answer the Opposition spokesman’s characterisation of the position—he said that absolutely no one out there thinks there is any merit in this measure apart from the Lord Chancellor—which is wrong on both counts. However, I will return to that and correct him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made a substantive point in an intervention on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who confirmed that he was entirely right to say that if article 352 were used, the European Union Act 2011 would require an Act of Parliament before a Minister could agree to it. The legal base is therefore important, and I have made clear the Government’s views, including our doubts about whether article 114 applies, which is an entirely open question.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked whether the Government had assessed whether the new law would be more complex than that which currently exists, whether businesses could choose to opt into the process and whether that would leave them in a better position. There is a concern that having two alternative regimes could lead to confusion. It might also be too complex for many consumer transactions. The existing common law emphasises certainty—a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—but the law proposed in this case does not appear to have that emphasis. Again, this is an area where we need detailed legal analysis, which is ongoing. We will consider the views of interested parties, many of whom have significant expertise in this area.

That is an appropriate note on which to turn to my hon. and learned Friend. He drew on the remarks of the remembrancer of the City of London, who has suggested that the proposed measure might be the thin end of a wedge intended to introduce European contract law, thereby undermining the universality of English contract law. It is important to draw attention today—when Her Majesty is opening the Rolls building, a new and impressive commercial court—to the extremely extensive service that the legal profession in London provides to the entire world of commerce. That point ought to be given importance in our consideration of this matter.

As to whether this measure is the thin end of the contract wedge, I should point out that the scope of the draft regulation has been narrowed since the initial discussions began some years ago. The proposal that we are discussing covers the sale of goods and does not extend more widely into contract law. We would have to address any such proposals carefully, and will watch extremely closely if any proposals are made to widen the scope. Each will be considered on its merits. I can also reassure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who spoke for the Opposition, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I—and, indeed, the whole of Her Majesty’s Government—see no need for a general system of European contract law.

The tenor of the argument produced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was extremely clear, as was the expertise that he used to make it. He made a powerful point about the potential for increased transactional costs, not least because lawyers would face considerable difficulties in giving clear advice to small and medium-sized enterprises. He very properly pointed out to the House that if the measure were introduced, the cost of growing case law in this area to provide the necessary certainty would lead to a process that might take decades. The businesses using this form of law would bear the costs, as they would find out—either to their cost or otherwise—through the legal process of testing its bounds.

Finally, let me repeat, so as to make it perfectly clear, that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South wholly misrepresented the views of the Lord Chancellor. [Interruption.] I am grateful to hear the hon. Gentleman’s sedentary reassurances on that point, but it would be a service to the House if in future he did not seek to misrepresent positions that he plainly does not appreciate or understand. He then said that absolutely nobody was in any way positive about this measure. He was wrong about that as well.

[Robert Flello]

I am sure that the Minister normally follows every word I say very closely, but sadly he must have been distracted when I said that there was very little support outside. I did not say that there was no support, because the Federation of Small Businesses has said that it supports the measure. However, I reiterate the point that only 18% of people think that it would make a difference.

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful for that intervention, because I had misheard the hon. Gentleman and would not want to mischaracterise his arguments. He makes the point that I was coming to, which is that the Federation of Small Businesses says in its submission that it sees an argument in principle for the measure, a point that was reflected in what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said. In a sense, it is axiomatic that, at the European level, there would be a case for such a measure. The FSB has made it clear that its support for a common European sales law is dependent on its being clear and simple for small and medium-sized enterprises to use, without placing unreasonable burdens on business. We will look closely at those details in the consultation.

I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that any development in the Government’s position on the dossier will be made on the basis of good evidence of need and a robust analysis of the impacts. The Government will pay particular consideration to whether the proposed regulation is a proportionate response to the problems envisaged by the Commission, whether that response complies with subsidiarity and whether the treaty base is appropriate for the measures proposed. We will work with all those most affected by the change, engaging with business and consumer groups in particular. I hope and expect that we will incorporate contributions from Governments in other member states and from the European Parliament.

Let me answer the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who suggested that Her Majesty’s Government should go around trying to encourage Parliaments in other member states to take an interest. We do not think it proper for Her Majesty’s Government to do that. Indeed, he will have heard the suggestion in my opening remarks to the effect that parliamentary groups and authorities should take up the challenge that he has thrown down to them. Given the law of unintended consequences, I fear that if the Government tried to do that, it might be less convincing than fellow parliamentarians trying to act on other national Parliaments, which might be rather more effective.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Robert Flello

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello]

I want to take the Minister back to the answer he gave the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Will he tell the House to whom the Youth Justice Board reports at the moment? Is it not the Minister?

[Mr Blunt]

I have instituted arrangements within the Department during this transitional period for the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board to come and see me regularly on a bilateral basis. That did not exist when I became the Minister with responsibility for youth justice, when accountability was through the chairman of the board. I think that we now have a much more satisfactory working practice—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) says that he does not really believe that. Well, I do believe it on the evidence of what has happened over the past 18 months. I will elaborate on that later in my remarks and tell him and the House why I have come to that conclusion.

The Justice Secretary recognises the need to strengthen the Ministry’s focus on youth justice by establishing a ministerial advisory group on youth justice. The group will provide timely advice to Ministers about delivery and the front line. That advice will inform the development of youth justice policy in the longer term. It will include advice on effective practice and what will work best to achieve the objectives that Ministers have set. The ministerial advisory group will be my key forum for providing external, expert oversight of operational youth justice practice to the Ministry of Justice. I will chair it as the Minister responsible for youth justice. It must consist of members who have expertise in the effective operation of the youth justice system; otherwise it will not be able to do the job that I need it to do and it will not have credibility with the informed youth justice lobby, which properly follows these matters with due care.

Finally, Dame Sue Street, a non-executive director at the Ministry of Justice, will take an active interest in youth justice within the Ministry. She has experience and knowledge of youth justice. Indeed, she undertook a review of the Youth Justice Board, but her remit did not include asking whether the Youth Justice Board should continue. Of course, as a non-executive member of the Ministry of Justice board, she will have a direct route to the permanent secretary and the Secretary of State. She is happy to take on those responsibilities as part of her role at the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Robert Flello

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I pay tribute to Victim Support, which plays an extremely valuable role in supporting victims and witnesses throughout the country. This year we agreed a funding deal with it, involving a grant of £38 million every year for three years, giving it greater financial security. Victim Support is also able to bid for additional money for local projects from the £18.5 million victims general fund, for which we invited bids this year. Overall, the Ministry of Justice is committing more money to the victims voluntary sector this year than last year, which of course, in the dreadful financial circumstances that we inherited from the previous Administration, shows our priorities.

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

The Government talk a really good game about supporting victims, but the reality is that under cover of a review the British Crime Survey is cutting questions on victims’ views, the witness and victim experience survey has ended and Her Majesty’s Courts Service’s court-users survey is coming to an end. We need to listen more to the victims of crime and put them at the heart of our judicial system, so can we have an assurance that the Secretary of State will reinstate survey questions or, indeed, improve on them, and not push under the carpet the experiences of victims and witnesses of how the British legal system operates?

[Mr Blunt]

There we have it—a demonstration of acquiring inputs, measurements and targets rather than focusing on outputs. The last thing that we do, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, is ignore victims. When we come forward with our strategy for victims and witnesses, he will see the extent of our commitment to ensuring that victims and witnesses are properly supported in the justice system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Crispin Blunt and Robert Flello

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

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

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

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

[Mr Blunt]

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