Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments.

I am also worried about some of the companies that might come into this. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and I challenged the big public sector providers that appeared before us recently on whether they would bid for contracts in areas where they had no experience. They all denied that they would, but we have seen, in the Public Accounts Committee, in other Committees and on the Floor of the House, example after example of companies that bid for contracts because they are good at bidding but that do not actually have a background in delivering the relevant service. They then have to backfill by recruiting people to take on those jobs. I have dealt with the Minister on constituency matters and know him to be assiduous, and I am sure that he will bear that point in mind, but I think that it is worth reiterating that it is a very serious matter. Companies should not be bidding for huge contracts in areas where they have no experience because that fragments the service.

Fragmentation can be good where there is specialism, where there are smaller contracts, perhaps run by specialist voluntary sector groups, or indeed by private companies if they have the necessary level of expertise, but they have to work together. We are in danger of seeing another approach whereby the MOJ and the Government put out big contracts and the smaller specialist providers simply do not get a look in. They might get the odd crumb from the big contractors’ table, but they will be squeezed out. That is particularly true in mental health, one of the local concerns in my constituency.

There is an important concern about local accountability. I am a great supporter of extending freedom of information in the first instance, even with limitations, to private sector companies that deliver public contracts paid for by the taxpayer. It should be the tax pound that determines whether there is freedom of information, not the nature of the delivery body. Most parties in the House support some degree of contracting out, but we need to ensure that transparency is built in. Companies have told the Public Accounts Committee that they are in favour of a much greater degree of transparency, so perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to challenge them to stand up for what they say and make that part of the bidding process.

New clause 4 is important—I will not repeat all the arguments Members have made—because we need proper scrutiny. If we look at reoffending as a whole, we see that there are other ways of looking at it, for example by looking at mental health support or the Work programme. We know that offenders who come out of prison with a job are less likely to reoffend, but does the Work programme, which is provided by another Government Department, go into prisons to ensure that offenders have jobs for when they leave? Perhaps we should be challenging them to step up to the mark and provide job opportunities as a major plank of what we all want to see: less reoffending, particularly by offenders given short-term sentences.

In summary, the Public Accounts Committee has seen far too many poorly managed large Government contracts. The Cabinet Office is pushing hard to see that procurement is done in a different way that allows smaller companies a bite of the Government contract cherry and to stop the big companies being able to snaffle public money without being held properly to account. This is an opportunity for the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, allowing something in the contract to ensure that the big companies are required to work effectively with the small companies and not, as many of them do, to dodge their responsibilities later by saying, “Actually, we can’t quite deliver what we promised, so we’ll do it differently, but we’ve taken it all on.” That is often how they get around that. That will need constant monitoring and an audit of what happens with the contract. If this is to go ahead, I urge the Minister to tell us how the Government plan to audit the impact and the delivery of the service.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I begin by echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) about our late colleague Paul Goggins. I followed him as a Justice Minister, doing the job he did when he was in the Home Office and had responsibility for probation, and I know how well respected he was in the sector, by officials and the community at large. I also had the pleasure of sharing time with him as a Northern Ireland Minister, where he was also well respected. This is my first opportunity to put that on the record in the House. I will attend his funeral on Thursday, along with many colleagues across the House, to pay my final respects to Paul for all his work.

I wanted to speak in this debate for several reasons. Nobody disagrees with the Government’s general premise for dealing with offenders sentenced to 12 months or less in prison. They are often prolific offenders who go on to reoffend. They are often tomorrow’s serious offenders. It was an aspiration we had when I served in the Ministry of Justice to try to reduce their reoffending. We need to involve the voluntary and private sectors in supporting rehabilitation work for individuals who go to prison and come out within 12 months. Housing associations, voluntary providers and employers all have a role to play. That can be done in a positive way by the voluntary and private sectors.

Let us therefore not have a debate today on the difference between the Government and the Opposition on the need to involve some elements of the voluntary and private sectors. Instead, I want to raise my concerns about the issues addressed by new clauses 1 and 4. New clause 1 would ensure that we put a parliamentary brake on reorganisation, pending proper parliamentary scrutiny, and new clause 4 would put in place a pilot to test some difficult and serious matters in relation to which mistakes—they will be made, because that is the nature of the business the Minister deals with—will have a real impact on the community at large.

New clause 1, which I fully support, would prevent the Government from selling off or restructuring the probation service unless the proposals had first been laid before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament. It is no secret that if the Government did that this year, they could put a Bill before Parliament and get it through before the general election. They could have it scrutinised and probably, because of the votes they have in this House, get their way. I object to the Government using the Offender Management Act 2007 to achieve that objective. I declare an interest, because I was the Minister who took that Act through the House. At the time I was pressed strongly by many Members on my own side, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), on whether it meant the privatisation and break-up of the probation service. I was pressed very hard about whether it meant, in practice, the abolition, ultimately, of probation trusts.

I gave assurances during the Bill’s passage through the House and I want to repeat them today, not because they have not been heard here before, but because they support what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington says in new clause 1 and are worthy of repetition. On 18 July 2007, I, as the Minister, said from the Dispatch Box:

“There will be a mixture of commissioning. Some will be at national level, because in certain cases and with certain contracts that will be the best way of securing a strong and efficient service. There will also be a strong role for those commissioning work at regional level. As my hon. Friend surely accepts, economies of scale will sometimes be necessary, and some services will be best purchased and commissioned at that level. However, there will also be a need for local probation trusts to act not just as service deliverers but as commissioners of services from the voluntary sector, or from others, providing a proper service to help prevent reoffending at local level.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 352-53.]

I said that in support of what my noble Friend Baroness Scotland and the then Lord Chancellor, my noble Friend Lord Falconer, said in another place when introducing the Offender Management Bill. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I am very pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) is present, because I said it in response to a Lords amendment that he supported and that sought to do exactly what the Minister is seeking to do now to the probation service. We rejected it and I put it on record that the Offender Management Bill would not be used for that purpose.

I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on Pepper v. Hart from 1992. Legislation can be interpreted according to what a Minister said at the Dispatch Box about what they thought about a particular interpretation of a Bill. My assessment is that during our deliberations on the Offender Management Act, I, on behalf of the then Government, rejected from the Dispatch Box an amendment that sought to do what the Minister is now doing; supported the aspirations of my noble Friends Lord Falconer and Baroness Scotland; and spoke in support of retaining probation trusts to commission at a national, regional and local level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, it is an abuse of this House for the Minister to try to use that legislation to secure his objective.

Will the Minister—just for me, so I can sleep easy in my bed—put on public record the legal advice he has received that says that he can do what he is doing, so that we can test his interpretation against the potential interpretation of lawyers outside the House under the terms of Pepper v. Hart?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am not sure I will be able to help the right hon. Gentleman sleep easier in his bed. Equally, I do not want to pull rank on him, but I have to put to him something that was said by his then boss—the then Home Secretary and the now noble Lord Reid—on Third Reading of the Offender Management Bill in this House:

“I can therefore give an assurance today…that the core offender management tasks of the probation service—for example, offender report writing, offender supervision and breach proceedings—will remain in the public sector for the next three years.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1024.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his then boss did not say “for ever” instead of

“for the next three years”?

[Mr Hanson]

I do not wish to upset the Minister, because he is a decent cove, as far as he can be with his brief, but the noble Lord Reid was never my boss. I have never served under him and he never line managed me in any way, shape or form. When I served as a Justice Minister, my noble Friend Lord Falconer and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) were my bosses. What I said at the Dispatch Box at the time was said on their behalf. We supported a publicly supported probation service.

[Jeremy Wright]

rose—

[Sir Edward Garnier]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I give way to my former shadow, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I think my shadow is rather bigger than it used to be. I want to encourage the right hon. Gentleman with the tedious little point that at least he and I have remained consistent over the past seven years, so why not comfort himself with that and then we can put this to a vote?

[Mr Hanson]

The point I am trying to make is that I support new clause 1 because the Government are trying to use the 2007 Act to take an approach that the then Ministers, in both Houses, rejected. I accept that the Minister believes that he has a legal basis to do this. I simply ask him to publish it, so that we can test it in due course. I am happy for the Minister to intervene, but he will have a chance to respond later. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and other hon. Members who have spoken, I remain concerned about the proposal, because I believe it is a gamble.

[Jeremy Wright]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point that I will have a chance to respond later and I suspect I will have quite a bit to respond to by then, but I wish to address this specific point. I apologise to him for my misunderstanding of the chain of command back in the days of his time in government. However, unless I misunderstand him, I do not think he is suggesting that the noble Lord Reid was not speaking for the Government on that occasion. On the question of whether I will publish legal advice, I can do better than that by referring the right hon. Gentleman to the Offender Management Act itself. Section 3(2) states:

“The Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision.”

That is clear authority to do what we are doing, is it not?

[Mr Hanson]

This is the nub of the argument: I accept that the Minister believes he is acting in good faith under the Act, but what I am saying is that the interpretation I gave from the Dispatch Box, and that other Ministers gave in another place and in this House, was that the Act could not to be used for the Minister’s current purposes. My interpretation was that the Act could be used to contract the voluntary and private sector to deliver some services, but not the core probation service, which is what the Minister seeks to do. We can disagree about that—it is a matter of conjecture—and I think that the appropriateness of our comments could be tested under Pepper v. Hart.

If the Minister votes for new clause 1 he will have an opportunity to bring back new proposals and, as has been suggested, to pilot them so that we do not have to take a serious gamble and have an artificial split between public and private providers, or face the risk of cherry-picking and big companies hoovering up contracts. Moreover, we would not have the risk brought to my attention by a probation officer in my own constituency who corresponded with me this very week. She will remain anonymous because of her current status, but she said in her letter:

“This system is not tested. It’s just ideas and assumptions based on political ideologies. Knowing the work as intimately as I do I can’t tell you how risky this is.”

I know from my time in the Ministry of Justice that there will be risks and challenges in the management of offenders. One of the serious cases with which I had to deal as a Minister was when a low-level offender who was being supervised by the then London probation service broke into a property in Lewisham, close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), undertook a burglary and, in doing so, murdered two individuals, set fire to them and burned the property down. The offender was given sentences of 40 and 35 years respectively and is, as we speak, serving them at Her Majesty’s pleasure. That was a low-level offender who committed a high-level offence. There is always risk.

I accept that that happened under the probation service—mistakes will happen; this is a risky business—but I am worried about the steps the Minister is taking without the pilot proposed by new clause 4 or the brake and proper parliamentary scrutiny proposed by new clause 1. That raises the risk even higher in a system that, by its very nature, is risky.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that there have been discussions about the difficulties of making judgments about low-risk people left in the private sector? He may recall that I raised in the House the case of Jane Clough who was murdered in the Blackpool Victoria hospital car park by her former abusive partner while he was on bail. The Government accepted the thrust of that campaign when they made changes in relation to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Does that not show that the ability to have an artificial division between the two will not work?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that case. Given the nature of probation service business, mistakes will be made. My contention is that mistakes that might currently be made could very much be exacerbated by the fragmentation of the service and the potential downgrading of its quality, as well as by the fact that the existing public accountability will not be as clear cut.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting speech. I am sorry that I missed its beginning, but I was at the Backbench Business Committee. Has he dealt with the sifting process? Some of my constituents have expressed concern that it is done at a snapshot in time, as they have been allocated to two different services based on the window of 11 November. Has he tackled that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter, which just exacerbates and adds to our concerns.

The process is never a precise one. I want the Minister to justify—perhaps not today nor by agreeing to new clause 1, but through a proper parliamentary procedure or the evaluation of pilots—how his proposals for a radical change in the probation service will do what he wants, as well as what my hon. Friends and I want, which is to reduce offending and reoffending. My worry is that the Minister’s proposals—in many ways, they are adjacent to the provisions in the Bill—might increase the reoffending that may occur for reasons that have been mentioned.

I urge the Minister to consider new clauses 1 and 4 in particular, and to publish, for the House to scrutinise, the basis on which he has so far made decisions in relation to the 2007 Act.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). He has great expertise in this matter, given his previous ministerial role. I am not sure that I will trouble the Minister with the same level of detail about the proposals. I want to make a short speech on some of the things I have learned about how the probation service operates in my area and about the need for us in Parliament to have a vote on whether the wholesale privatisation of the probation service should go ahead.

In recent weeks, I have visited Lewisham probation trust and met its staff. The Lewisham trust is very busy. It ranks fourth among London boroughs with respect to the complexity and risk of the cases with which it deals. A quarter of the cases it deals with involve young people aged between 18 and 25.

When I spoke to staff, they expressed very serious concerns about the plans to fragment and break up the probation service and, indeed, to privatise great chunks of it. They believe that the proposals actually endanger some of the important and innovative work they are doing. For example, they recently set up a specialist team to deal with the problem of young offenders, whereby staff time is split between the youth offending service and the probation staff so that the two services join up better. They told me that the proposals the Government wish to force through in the next year will lead to huge upheaval and massive duplication, and will make it less likely that the work that is so important in our community for reducing reoffending is moved forward and can bring about the outcomes we all want.

The management of the trust told me that instead of being externally focused on reducing reoffending and protecting the public, over the next couple of months their priority will be to support staff through the transition and to make sure that they move cases between the split services in a way that ensures that no cases are lost and no mistakes are made. That does not make sense to me. The priority for the management and those with experience should be to ask, “How do we reduce rates of reoffending out there in the community?”

What will happen when the case load is split? As I understand it, 70% of the cases will be dealt with by community rehabilitation companies and others will be left with the new national probation service. How will those really difficult decisions be made about the risk that such young offenders present? The people who work in the probation service tell me that such judgments, particularly those about young people, are very difficult to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to keep existing staff informed about what is going on. We are trying very hard to do that. If there are specific issues in her area, I am happy to look at them. We are keen to ensure that staff are informed. If she will forgive me, I will come back a little later to the pace of the changes that we are making, which has been a substantial issue this afternoon.

Before I do that, I want to make a couple more points about the background to this point, and the issue of further parliamentary approval for what we are suggesting. I have already made the point that section 3(2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 states:

“The Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision.”

In Committee, the Opposition were unable to dispute that the power that they legislated for is clear and unambiguous. The phrase

“contractual or other arrangements with any other person”

does not mean solely with probation trusts or trusts commissioning other providers, or solely with the public sector.

[Mr Hanson]

I do not wish to take up too much time on this point, but the Minister will know that when that debate took place, the intention was that the national probation service and the Ministry of Justice could contract for unpaid work, for example, on a national basis, but that for core probation services the probation service locally would still be responsible for the lead provision under that Act.

[Jeremy Wright]

Again—I made this point earlier when I intervened on the right hon. Gentleman—I do not think that Lord Reid could have been any clearer on Third Reading. No doubt under considerable pressure from Back Benchers in his party, he undertook that those core functions, including two things that we do not propose to move from the public sector—advice to court and breach of proceedings—would remain in the public sector for three years. That was not in perpetuity, not as a matter of principle, but for three years which, conveniently enough, took him up to the date of the general election. I think we can all take from that a pretty clear understanding that the Labour Government were not promising that those functions would stay in the public sector for ever; they did it to take them up to the general election.

[Mr Hanson]

Can we be clear? Lord Reid was not the Minister responsible when the 2007 Act was dealt with in these Houses of Parliament. I was the Minister of State, my boss was Lord Falconer, and the Minister in the other place was Baroness Scotland. Those were the three Ministers dealing with the 2007 Act in June 2007.

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is pretty clear that Lord Reid was speaking on Third Reading of that Bill on behalf of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that what Lord Reid was saying did not represent the Government’s position, he had better take it up with him. We have to go by what Hansard tells us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am rather sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says and I suggest that he and I have a longer conversation about it.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

8. What his strategy is for supporting victims of crime.

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

16. What recent steps he has taken to support victims of crime.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

This Government are committed to putting victims first and we will give victims a voice at every stage of the criminal justice system. It is crucial that victims receive the support and help they need to cope and, where possible, to recover. We are aiming to make up to £100 million available to support victims to recover, testing pre-trial cross-examination, considering how we might reduce the distress caused to victims by cross-examination in court and implementing the new victims code.

[Mr Hanson]

Most people I speak to think that the Victims’ Commissioner should be a full-time post. Why is it not?

[Damian Green]

The Victims’ Commissioner is doing admirable work. She is supporting the Government and she is capable of doing the work very well. I am already enjoying working with her to ensure that she continues to represent the interests of victims very well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I agree that it is important for victims to be able to inform the court directly, through the personal statement, about how a crime has affected them. I also agree about the great importance of magistrates for local justice; indeed, that is precisely why I am leading work to broaden and strengthen their role in delivering justice.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given that the Minister has broken up the funding for victim support and devolved it down to police and crime commissioners, and refused to make it mandatory in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, what guarantees can he give that some new scheme in future will provide uniform victim support services across the United Kingdom?

[Damian Green]

Some services will continue to be provided nationally, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware. The bulk of the funding is indeed being devolved to police and crime commissioners, who are all enthusiastic, across party boundaries, to maintain and improve victim services. Those who are closer to the specific problems of a local area are likely to be more sensitive to the needs of that area than the old top-down, centralist system that the right hon. Gentleman still clearly hankers after.

Probation Service

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

Let me make some progress.

The Justice Secretary would like us to believe that the companies will not be paid unless they deliver, as if payment by results means payment only by results. In fact, nearly the whole fee will be paid to the private companies regardless of the results. Private companies are intent on squeezing the fraction of the payment that is dependent on results as close to zero as possible. The Government are so keen to suck up to the big companies that they have caved in. So much for payment by results. No doubt the Justice Secretary will claim that he is doing only what the Offender Management Act 2007—which the Conservatives voted against—gave him power to do. In fact, that Act established local probation trusts, empowering them to commission services locally from whom they see fit. It was not about abolishing local probation trusts or commissioning services directly from Whitehall.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) was at the time the Minister responsible for the legislation, and he knows exactly what it was for. [Interruption.] I can hear some chuntering but do not worry, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not putting me off. In 2007 my right hon. Friend said that

“there will also be a need for local probation trusts to act not just as service deliverers but as commissioners of services from the voluntary sector, or from others, providing a proper service to help prevent reoffending at local level.”

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I feel a slight ownership of this issue as I was the Minister who took the Bill through the House of Commons in 2007. Is my right hon. Friend aware of Pepper v. Hart, whereby what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box counts as legal interpretation? At that Dispatch Box, I mentioned

“trusts remaining public sector-based and delivering services at the local level, and with support from regional commissioners and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 353-4.]

Are the Government using the legislation in a false and inappropriate way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I have read carefully in Hansard what my right hon. Friend, as well as what the Under-Secretary of State at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), and Baroness Scotland said in 2007. The Justice Secretary’s power was supposed to be limited, with the Justice Secretary stepping in only when a probation trust failed. It was not to be used to abolish all those probation trusts, and for him to be the sole commissioner, which is what he wants to do—and, by the way, using the Department’s own measure, none of the trusts are failing. There is no justification for the Justice Secretary to do what he is doing.

If the Justice Secretary, his Ministers or his Government said they were abolishing the whole existing probation landscape to save money, there would be a sort of logic to it, but they cannot even say that. The MOJ made an impact assessment of the plans—do hon. Members know what it said? It said:

“The cost will be dependent on the outcome of competition”.

The Government cannot say how much the plans will cost, let alone how much they will save. You could not make it up!

Where are the Liberal Democrats on this? To be fair, 24 Lib Dem MPs signed early-day motion 622, which heaped praise on the work of the probation service just last year. Back in 2007, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote these words, which are worthy of repetition:

“Few public services can be as readily overlooked as the probation service. For the last century probation officers have tirelessly and selflessly sought to help make our society safer and to rehabilitate those who have been drawn towards crime. The role they play is a vital one and it is important that politicians from across the party spectrum recognise this. As the second century of the probation service begins it is crucial that the unglamorous, painstaking yet hugely important work of the probation service is cherished, not undermined, by both Government and opposition parties.”

I say to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches that our motion is a modest one: read it, consider it, support it. If they fail to support our motion, they will be allowing the Secretary of State and his Government to go ahead with their risky plans.

In conclusion, changing our probation service to better rehabilitate offenders is not something that we, the profession, or experts are against. We must do all we can to reduce reoffending, by introducing new and innovative ways of working that are tried and tested before being rolled out. There should be no leaps into the unknown, and no gambling with public safety with half-baked reckless plans. I hope colleagues from all sides of the House will support our motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Well, I did the job.

Section 3 of the 2007 Act provides a clear and unambiguous power for the Secretary of State to

“make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision.”

On Second Reading, the then Home Secretary said:

“The Secretary of State, not the probation boards, will be responsible for ensuring service provision by entering into contracts with the public, private or voluntary sectors. With that burden lifted, the public sector can play to its strengths while others play to theirs.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 593.]

I could not have described our plans better. Furthermore, on Report, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) said:

“Most services will be commissioned from lead providers at area level, which will sub-contract to a range of other providers.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 960.]

Again, that is very close to the plans before the House today. The shadow Justice Secretary must also know that in another place Baroness Scotland said that the Act

“places the statutory duty with the Secretary of State, who then commissions the majority of services through a lead provider”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2007; Vol. 693, c. 639.]

We have two options. Either the Opposition are not being up front with the House about what they really intended to do in the 2007 Act, or they were so incompetent they did not know what they were doing. The House can choose which is most likely.

[Mr Hanson]

The golden thread through the 2007 Act was public sector management of all offenders—low and medium-level and serious offenders—supported by the commissioning of the type of services the Justice Secretary wants on health, mental health and alcohol and drug treatment from the voluntary and private sector, but the public sector has to be responsible for managing offenders.

[Chris Grayling]

I repeat, from the 2007 Act:

“The Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision.”

That is clear, to my mind. It might not have been what Labour intended, but it is what the power does, and it is the legal basis we are using for pushing ahead with these reforms.

We will give providers the flexibility to do what works and free them from Whitehall bureaucracy, and the deal is that they get paid in full only for real reductions in reoffending, which is a good deal for victims and the taxpayer. Despite what the shadow Justice Secretary says about the Work programme, it has now helped many hundreds of thousands of the long-term unemployed. He talks about low-hanging fruit—these are people who had been unable to find a job through Jobcentre Plus in over a year.

The Opposition are missing one other important point. The shadow Justice Secretary talked about piloting, but the pilot programme delivering clear improvements in the level of reoffending that is closest to what I want to achieve around the country is in Peterborough. It is so far achieving very good results. It is impressive and I encourage Members in that area to visit. One cannot but feel that it is the right thing to do, but what the Opposition have not admitted is that it was started by Labour. I know it does not want to admit it now, but it started us on this path, and it is a sign of how absurd it has become that it wants to walk us off this path today.

On the point about public protection, the national public sector probation service we are establishing will, of course, be responsible for risk assessing all offenders supervised in the community and will retain the management of offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm to the public, who have committed the more serious offences and who require multi-agency supervision. That is right and proper. An hon. Member—I cannot remember which one—made a point about the working day. I would rather the supervision of highest-risk offenders was in the hands of dedicated experts—and it will continue to be—but having listened to people talk about inexperienced individuals and companies coming in, I think it is worth pointing out that after these reforms, it will be the same teams looking after low and medium-risk offenders as are looking after them now. Only over time will we see the work force evolve so that the expertise in the voluntary sector becomes part of the mix, with former offenders who have turned their lives around influencing young offenders and encouraging them not to do it again.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for thanking me for my service as shadow spokesperson on police. It is a privilege to move on to another shadow Home Office role. He and I appear to have job swapped in the course of our time on the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has now joined the shadow Cabinet, for her work on the Bill. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who joined the shadow Home Office team and worked on the Bill in the past two days. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her work on Report. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for his efforts in Committee.

I thank the Minister for his consideration during the Bill’s progress and the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), for his consideration over the last couple of days. I also thank the former Ministers, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), and, in particular, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), whom I think, in a challenging Committee full of very different views, did his job with integrity; I personally was sorry to see him leave his post in the recent reshuffle. Members of the Committee, some of whom are present today, know that it was an interesting and exciting time, and I thank them also.

Third Reading is about what is in a Bill, not what might have been, and with that in mind, I will first welcome those aspects of the Bill with which the Opposition agree. We welcome the instigation of the College of Policing, which is an opportunity to provide training and investment and to set standards. We perhaps want to see it develop in different ways from the Government, but it is a positive and forward-looking initiative, and I wish both the chair and the chief officer well in their task.

I welcome the measures on firearms and the intent to supply, which, as I mentioned in Committee, had their genesis even before the last general election. These important provisions will help to reduce the supply of guns, and therefore deaths and criminality.

I welcome the extension of the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to private contractors and staff working for police authorities, particularly because my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) proposed such a measure last year. I am pleased that the Government have taken it up. Again, we would like to see further action, but I welcome the provision none the less.

I welcome the measures on terrorism and on terrorists travelling abroad and the long-overdue measures on forced marriage, which, in my view and that of the Committee, will strengthen the legal basis for tackling this immensely challenging problem.

I particularly welcome new clause 5 and the measures on sexual harm prevention notices, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North gave a fair wind yesterday. Their introduction to the Bill was a positive development, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) brought them forward, with support from across the House.

I welcome the measures on witness protection and, as far as they go—I will return to this shortly—the measures on dogs, although we think they could have gone further. I particularly welcome the measures against dog attacks in the home.

I welcome the policing pay review body, which we will give a fair wind, but we need to look again at the commissioning of victims’ services by police and crime commissioners, as I still worry that it will lead to the fragmentation of victims’ services across the country.

We therefore welcome several measures in the Bill. We challenged them in Committee, but they remain and broadly have the Opposition’s support. I have to say, however, that I do not welcome the changes to the ASBO regime or the developments on the injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance. I cannot for the life of me understand why a party that, during my formative political years, prided itself on being the party of law and order continues to bring forward measures that reduce the ability of the police and communities to tackle elements that need tackling in our communities. We have seen it on DNA and CCTV, and we are now seeing it on ASBOs. The changes are a reprehensible and retrograde step.

On the same theme, I do not welcome the same party’s introducing thresholds for low-value shoplifting, which we had a strong discussion about in Committee. When the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 33,000 shopkeepers across the country, is worried about such criminality and the changes relating to low-value shoplifting, the party of law and order—as was, but not anymore—needs to give some serious consideration to the matter.

We support aspects of the Bill, then, but firmly do not support other aspects. On balance—to let you into a secret, Madam Deputy Speaker—Labour Members will give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading, but we will seek to take those matters forward. As I have said, we have to deal with what is in the Bill on Third Reading. We have identified important shortcomings, but we will grant the Third Reading. The Government must reflect further on the issues that have been debated, which have been raised by Members of all parties. Some issues have seen cross-party co-operation—for example, on the importance of dog notices, on the points about covert policing raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington and on how to protect shop workers and other staff from assaults at work. Domestic violence and gun control are other serious issues debated in Committee on which I hope the other place will reflect carefully. Another issue to be considered is that of legal highs and reducing their availability in our communities.

While we are giving fair wind to the Bill, I hope that the other place will look carefully at the improvements we have suggested and listen not just to what Members have said today about dog notices, but to what all organisations have said about them. We want the other place to look at bringing forward measures to tackle covert policing, to protect people from assaults at work and further to reduce and stop the potential for gun use, for domestic violence and for legal highs.

I thank the Minister for his consideration in Committee, but we think there is more to be done. We think that we have been constructive on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report about the changes that need to be made. Ultimately, we think that the issues I have mentioned that are not covered by the Bill now will be part of it following consideration in the House of Lords.

I have enjoyed my role as shadow policing Minister and move on now to shadow Minister on immigration. I thank my colleagues for their support over the three years in opposition and one year in government in which I have discharged this role. I look forward to watching from afar as this Bill is further improved following consideration by the other place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I share my hon. Friend’s belief in the need for change. It is my intention that the Conservative party should go into the next election with a clear plan for change, and it will. This is now a clear dividing line between us, because the shadow Secretary of State has only today reasserted his belief that the current human rights framework is right for this country. We disagree, and I look forward to fighting that battle over the next 18 months.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

When the Minister quotes the Offender Management Act 2007, will he do me the courtesy of looking at the Hansard for that period, when the Minister in question—that is, me—said that the vast majority of probation boards would stay in public ownership?

[Jeremy Wright]

I quoted directly from the Act, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I quoted correctly. I was asked a question about what the Act says. I quoted what it says. How he might have meant it to be interpreted is something else. I am afraid he and his hon. Friends must recognise that if they passed a law they did not mean to pass, that is not our problem but theirs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T4. Wales had a successful Olympics, which included Jade Jones from my constituency winning gold. Have Ministers seen the comments of the chair of Sport Wales, who said that the cuts to local authorities in the United Kingdom were putting the Olympic legacy at risk? Does the Minister agree?

[Hugh Robertson]

No, I do not. Let us look at the Olympic legacy. The fact that we ran the best ever Olympic and Paralympic games has been a fantastic boon for this country. We are the first home nation ever to increase the investment in Olympic and Paralympic athletes—the investment in Paralympic athletes has increased by 43%. Participation is up by 1.4 million, an extra £150 million is going to primary schools and we have assembled the best ever list of major sporting events to come to this country. No other host nation has assembled a legacy to beat that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

What I would like to do is paint the correct picture, which the hon. Lady is not doing. I can give her either the latest international statistics, which show that out of 55 countries the UK is leading in all 23 indicators, or the latest national statistics, from 2 July, which show that the gap closed in nine out of 14 headline indicators. In 2005-06 and 2009-10, that was true of only seven categories. I can therefore tell the hon. Lady that, on the very latest statistics from 2 July this year, inequalities have reduced and equalities have increased in education, employment and social inclusion, and we also have lower rates of relative poverty. Please get the facts right.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

6. What recent representations she has received from the women’s sector on tackling violence against women.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

The Government regularly engage with organisations representing women’s interests, through quarterly stakeholder meetings, representation at the violence against women and girls inter-ministerial group and other ongoing meetings.

[Mr Hanson]

Sadly, since the election the number of incidents of domestic violence has risen, while the number of prosecutions has fallen by 11% and the number of referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service has fallen by 13%. Might that have something to do with cutting 15,000 police officers, when the Minister himself promised 3,000 more at the election?

[Mr Browne]

The right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention at the end of his question that this Government have presided over a fall in crime of over 10%. We now have the lowest level of crime in this country since the independent survey began. The Government treat domestic violence extremely seriously. We are keen to see the police investigate all reports of domestic violence, and I am also pleased to tell the House that there have been record numbers of convictions for violence against women and girls over the past year.

Firearms Controls

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I join other Members serving under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, in addressing this important issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on bringing the matter of gun control to the House again and on raising it so effectively on numerous occasions.

The debate is about a specific aspect of gun control: how we reduce the small percentage of gun deaths resulting from actions taken by individuals with a history of domestic violence or of alcohol and other problems. We have had a useful debate, including the contribution from the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), which contained nuggets worthy of pursuit. He raised issues about the way in which firearms are licensed, which the Minister should address. Although there was a swathe of his comments I cannot agree with, he has raised some important points.

It is also worth mentioning that the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have taken the time to come to the debate to intervene and to add their expertise to our discussions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Easington approached the issue in a measured, reflective and considered way. On his doorstep, he has faced what can only be described as an enormous tragedy, with Mr Michael Atherton’s murders of Susan McGoldrick, Alison Turnbull and Tanya Turnbull on 1 January 2012. That has highlighted to him a way in which we could tighten the legislation to prevent such incidents in the future. As he said, he has not jumped to conclusions; he has looked at this matter.

I, too, have not jumped to conclusions; I have looked at what the Home Affairs Committee, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Durham police and ACPO have said about the steps the Government could take to mitigate the circumstances we are talking about. I agree with the hon. Member for The Cotswolds that they may be small in number, but that does not mean we should ignore the issue. There is real merit in looking not only at the guidance, but at whether we need legislative back-up to reduce the potential for incidents such as the one that took place in my hon. Friend’s constituency last January.

I fully accept, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, that this boils down to judgment. Judgment is important, but it is now coloured by not only the old guidance, but, potentially, the new guidance issued this month. However, it can also be coloured by legislation, and my hon. Friend made the case for small tweaks during the passage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill to strengthen previous and current guidance, applying additional rigour and scrutiny to applications for gun or shotgun licences. It is that potential which I support.

As we have heard, there is a pressing need for action better to control firearm violence, small though the number of cases may be. My hon. Friend pointed out that one in three women killed by their domestic partner is shot with a legally owned weapon. Some 64% of those murders involved shotguns. In the past 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in a domestic setting; in 2009, the figure was 100%. Whatever our view of the small number of deaths caused by shotguns or guns, that figure shows that a high percentage of women who die in domestic violence situations do so as a result of someone using a gun or shotgun.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Those are important figures. Members are saying that the problem is relatively small, given the large number of licences that are issued, and that people use firearms properly. However, evidence from Canada suggests that if we went down the route I suggested, we could dramatically reduce the number of fatalities—particularly those where partners or ex-partners involved in domestic violence use a firearm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

That is worthy of examination. Nobody is saying that the two women per week killed by a husband, partner or ex are killed with shotguns or guns. However, if a significant body of evidence says there is a high correlation between gun deaths of women and domestic violence, the issue is worthy of consideration.

[Bill Wiggin]

One must never underestimate the importance of doing everything we can to combat any form of domestic violence. However, I urge the shadow Minister to be careful, because two thirds of these murders—that is what they are—are not caused by firearms.

Are people applying for guns so that they can murder people? No, they are not. Does the fact that guns are available force somebody to go to a gun cupboard, unlock it, take the gun out and commit murder? If that is the process they go through, it does not matter what the law says, because they are determined to commit a crime so serious that they deserve to go to prison for the rest of their lives. We have to be careful to think about why these things take place, rather than how they take place.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that important point, which we need to reflect on. However, other domestic violence deaths occur because of the use of the body—the hands—or of day-to-day items around the house, such as knives. We cannot control or legislate for such potential activity, but we can reduce the risk posed by access to shotguns, which are not day-to-day items readily available around the house, where there is substantiated evidence that people—this is not about all the hon. Gentleman’s constituents or all my constituents—are guilty of violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse. That, in a sense, is what the guidance said previously, and it is what the revised guidance, announced at the end of July and issued by the Minister, is trying to do.

The discussion we had in the Committee considering the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, and the discussion we are having today, is about whether we could back up that guidance with the rigour of legislation. That would reduce the ability of the courts to make a determination about the judgment of the police. ACPO has made representations to me, saying that police forces refused an application for a firearm licence on three separate occasions, but, despite the deputy chief constable or the chief constable appearing in court to defend the decision, the courts upheld the appeal because there were not sufficient legal grounds to refuse the individual’s application.

If we look at the wording of my new clause 4 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which will be debated in October—[Interruption.] I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will examine it with interest. Let me tell him, however, that I doubt it is perfect; I do not have the great back-up of the Home Office, as I once did when I held ministerial office. However, the Minister does, and he could reflect on the principle of new clause 4 over the next few weeks before Report to see whether legislative back-up of the guidance is practicable and deliverable. That would at least ensure that we had a black-and-white judgment, rather than a judgment based on a court interpretation.

Members do not need to listen to me, although I hope they will. They could, however, listen to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Having looked at my hon. Friend’s constituency case, it said in its first recommendation:

“The Home Office should revise the current legislation and guidance to allow for a single uniform test for the assessment of suitability and fitness to possess both firearms and shotguns. ‘Fitness to be entrusted’ should form a specific element of the shotgun application process to ensure clarity and consistency around both applications.”

The word “legislation” was included by the IPCC. In finding 3 of the report it said:

“The Home Office, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the College of Policing should devise clear guidance and tighter restrictions around applications for firearms or shotgun certificates”.

I venture to suggest that the guidance element has been examined, but will the Minister confirm that to date the IPCC’s legislation recommendation has not been met?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The right hon. Gentleman has just made my case. He has read out two paragraphs from the report. One asks for legislation about a person’s fitness to hold a shotgun or firearms licence. I do not know quite how legislation about someone who has been involved in a domestic incident would be framed, or the exact nature of the incident that would contribute to someone’s not being a fit person to hold a firearms licence.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to guidance. It is much easier to frame such matters in guidance. Before he rushes to call for extra legislation, does he know how many times, in other force areas, someone who has been involved in a serious incident of domestic violence has not had his licence revoked?

[Mr Hanson]

The IPCC also said in its report that the legislation should be devised in particular to

“take account of bind-overs, arrests and police call outs for domestic violence and an accumulation of convictions for offences where the penalty falls short of that requiring prohibition”.

That means that if someone has a history of a range of matters to do with domestic violence, but has not yet fallen foul of the guidance so as to prevent their having a shotgun licence, that should be sufficient in legislation to ensure that the guidance is tighter. That should be backed up by strong legislation, and we have attempted to draft such legislation in new clause 4 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. I sense a difference between my view and that of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds. That is the nature of our debates, but our intention is to put to the Minister, in the measured way of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, suggestions for helping to reduce such incidents.

My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of full cost recovery for shotgun and other firearms licences. There was a nugget in the remarks of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, about improving the licensing procedure, that sparked some interest in me. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members that only this year ACPO gave the net cost to police forces of shotgun licences as £18.6 million. The debate has focused primarily on domestic violence, but the Minister needs to reflect on what he will do to ensure that we deal with the current costs.

I will give three examples. North Wales police spent more than £417,000 on issuing licences, but recouped only £113,000 in licence fees, which means that taxpayers in my constituency faced a net cost of £303,000 for supporting the issuing of police licences. In Devon and Cornwall, a £1.2 million total cost generated only £514,000 in revenue. In Thames Valley, £928,000 of cost generated only £148,000, leaving a net cost to the local ratepayers of £780,000.

At a time when we are potentially asking more of the police in relation to shotgun licensing, with legislation at hand, this is an appropriate moment for the Minister to reflect on the cost of licences, and whether taxpayers and ratepayers should continue to subsidise people who apply for them to the tune of £18.6 million this year. The figure is worthy of examination. ACPO has said it would like the fee for a shotgun licence to rise to about £94. That would not mean full recovery of costs, but given that the figure for a licence has not changed in 10 years, there is scope for the Minister to reflect on the matter, or to explain why he is happy for £18.6 million of ratepayers’ money to be taken from police budgets to support the cost of issuing licences to be used for work or sport.

I have touched on only two points, but there is a strong case for the Government and Parliament to consider tightening legislation, to ensure that what happened to Susan McGoldrick, Alison Turnbull and Tanya Turnbull does not happen again, to give the police extra support to work positively on the issue, and at the very least to begin examining the issue of recovering the cost of gun licences. That cost is already a considerable one for the 43 forces, which are hard-pressed by what are, by any stretch of the imagination, severe cuts in their grants.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington and other hon. Members for their thoughtful speeches. The Committee on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will consider new clause 4 after the September recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am happy to tell the House and my hon. Friend that we are in discussion not only with colleagues at the Department of Health, but with the British Medical Association, the police and, as he knows, shooting organisations over the role GPs can play in ensuring that the licensing process is as effective as it can be. The police generally now contact an individual’s GP when a firearm or shotgun certificate is granted or renewed. That means the GP has the opportunity to raise any concerns they may have, and has resulted in a number of revocations of firearms licences. We now want to explore whether we can build greater safeguards into that arrangement by making the consultation with GPs part of the application process. In doing so, we obviously need to ensure that there is balance around burden and cost. Those discussions continue.

The hon. Member for Easington made a good point about training. The police are taking steps to improve consistency and promote high standards across police firearms licensing departments. Authorised professional practice on firearms licensing will be introduced by the College of Policing early next year to complement the firearms guide. He will be interested to know that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is undertaking a scoping exercise on this very issue with a representative number of forces. I hope he welcomes that.

The conclusions of the scoping study will determine whether a full inspection should take place at a future date. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that, first, the College of Policing—a new body designed to enhance professional standards in the police—is producing a new code on the very specific issue he raises, and, secondly, that HMIC is looking at forces to see how the system works in practice. If it decides that the system is not working on the ground, it will mount a full inspection. I am confident that if HMIC concludes that the system has not improved, it will say so and police forces around the country will act.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that whether we are talking about guidance or legislation, we need to get it right, but it is at least equally important that individual firearms officers in police forces across the country do their job effectively and consistently. We have taken steps to ensure that that happens.

As I said, we are in the process of revising and updating the whole firearms guide. I am glad to say that that task is nearing completion and should be completed this year. As hon. Members observed, firearms law is complex. There are a large number of separate pieces of legislation, so the revision of the document is a significant step forward in aiding understanding of the law. Sixteen chapters have now been published, and the aim is to complete the revision by the end of September.

[Mr Hanson]

On that point, is not the key issue that although guidance is open to judicial discretion, legislation is open to tighter discretion in the judicial process? Why does the Minister think that a guidance approach will not result in similar judicial discretion, which will allow firearms licences to be issued?

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience in the Home Office that just as guidance is open to judicial interpretation, so is legislation. I have been involved in passing various laws that the courts have interpreted in a way that surprised me, as the Minister who introduced the legislation. To some extent, it is a distinction without a difference.

Whether we are talking about legislation or guidance, it should be written clearly enough that the amount of judicial interpretation is minimised. That is a job for this House and we need to get better at it. We need to be able to respond more quickly than we have in the past, and, as I said, changing guidance is easier and quicker than changing legislation. With the forthcoming revision of the guide, for the first time, we are ensuring that it can be updated online, which means that updates will be made faster in future. If anomalies arise, perhaps as a result of judicial interpretation, we will be able to respond much faster.

There has been discussion this afternoon about a national licensing authority. We are worried that a central authority would not be in touch with the kind of local information known to police. In his report on the Dunblane tragedy, Lord Cullen recommended that licensing functions remain with the police. We should listen to what he said in the wake of that terrible tragedy.

Police Treatment of Alleged Perpetrators and Victims

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I pay heartfelt tribute to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for the diligence with which he has brought this distressing history to the House.

The death of Claire Oldfield-Hampson occurred in 1996. As the hon. Gentleman said, he instigated debates on the issue 12 years ago and in the past couple of years, and he has sought this debate to raise it again. That shows that he has the interests of his constituents at heart and wants to resolve some of the injustices that have occurred, so that other families do not have to experience what Joanne Bryce has experienced on behalf of her sister. That is a positive development for him. I hope that the Minister can give the family some comfort about the circumstances that they have faced.

The justice system self-evidently exists for witnesses and victims. Ultimately, victims are what the justice system is trying to prevent, and we are delivering justice to victims through the whole police, Crown Prosecution Service and courts process. For justice to be effective, it needs to have the confidence of those who use or are brought into the system. I was particularly struck by the hon. Gentleman’s comment that many of the people who enter the system do so for the first time in their lives; they are not law-breakers, but have suffered an injustice. Their experience of the justice system, how their case is treated—how the police, the CPS and the courts deal with them—and the outcome of the process are extremely important as to whether they feel that they have received justice.

I am not familiar with the case of Claire Oldfield-Hampson or the details of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but from what he said about the investigation, the Cambridgeshire constabulary appears to be guilty of serious failings of process. Such issues can be corrected by good governance on the part of all police forces and of the Home Office. The policy we make in the House of Commons and in government could at least provide some standards, to which we hope everyone would aspire. When victims are treated with such indifference, justice and their confidence in justice are damaged; as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it also leads to a long period without a feeling of closure, given the concerns expressed. He has done justice by bringing such matters forward, and we need to look at them.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the standards of service we can expect from police forces, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. We should also, however, expect police standards for the service given to victims in the case of serious incidents. Those standards should be codified, presented, monitored and observed. If there are complaints, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, while examining serious incidents, should be able to monitor and give guidance on such matters. I hope that the new College of Policing, which the Minister and I are discussing in detail in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, will give some opportunity for proper guidance to police forces on serious crimes, be they manslaughter or murder, and on the types of service provided as part of the CPS, charging and courts process.

The Minister will probably mention the Victims’ Commissioner, which was established by the previous Government. Louise Casey was the post holder until she moved on, when Baroness Newlove was appointed to the position. I hope that we will be able to use that post to set some of the standards on the rights of victims to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in proceedings in court and in other aspects of the justice system.

My hon. Friends who deal with Justice matters—I am the shadow police Minister—are looking hard at how to strengthen the rights of victims and witnesses in the courts and the criminal justice system. We want to place in statute a victims’ code that would cover the service that victims might expect to receive from the moment that they become a victim through to the closure of the court case, whenever that might be.

In particular, we are looking at how to give legally enforceable duties, enshrined in an Act of Parliament, to criminal justice agencies in a number of key areas. In some cases, that will help and support the objectives mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. One example might be a right to be kept informed by the police as an investigation proceeds, and as the prosecution develops and then proceeds. He made a point about a last-minute change of charge, and that would have been resolved in part by the involvement of the victims in any discussion. The family should have been consulted or at least informed about the CPS involvement, rather than finding out about the charge at a late stage, in a distressing way. Another example for our victims’ code might be the right to have the body of a loved one released within 28 days, except in exceptional circumstances. In particular, there should be a post-conviction right to be informed 28 days in advance of any perpetrator of serious crimes being released from custody, so that victims are aware.

We are also looking at how to give legal entitlements to victims, including the production of a victim impact statement and the right to be treated decently in court, including an explanation of court proceedings in advance. The first time that a victim, witness or supporting family member appears in the proceedings could be their first time in a court, because the situation is the first one serious enough to drive them to court. Ultimately, they are victims and witnesses, not perpetrators. There should also be a right to have sentencing remarks put in writing and to have access to the Victims’ Commissioner who can look at what happens when things go wrong. The commissioner should be a full-time, resourced post able to deal with such matters.

My party are also considering nominating a Minister in the Ministry of Justice or the Home Office to have responsibility for overseeing victims’ issues and to develop victims’ policy. I had such a role in Northern Ireland, when there were many victims. As a Minister, I dealt with cases on all sides of the community, looking at victims’ services and their development. The fact that a Minister had ultimate oversight of such matters meant that they arrived at my door and reached the Victims’ Commissioner.

The next-of-kin issues to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House today are particularly important. The Opposition cannot give him any comfort on them, but they are nevertheless worthy of investigation and discussion. The need to have the killer’s permission as next of kin to release the body, or the permission of the killer’s family to look at the property and its contents, and who should have care of a child, are important issues. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but I assure the hon. Member for St Ives that the Opposition will examine such matters, and I will draw them to the attention of my colleagues in the shadow Justice team.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the family of Stephen Lawrence. That case, too, is not typical. There will always be failures in every aspect of our public life—in a small proportion—no matter what happens, but that case holds real lessons, which I hope that we have learned and that will help the chief constable of Derbyshire, Mick Creedon, in examining the Metropolitan police and its historical cases of spying on victims. Doreen Lawrence most certainly was a victim.

My experience, as a constituency Member of Parliament and as a former holder of the Minister’s office, is that police are trying to do a good job in all circumstances. They want to bring people to justice, to ensure that victims are fully involved in the process and to secure justice for victims across the board. There will, sadly, always be areas where those standards are not met, which is why we need a close examination of what the standards should be. We need strong guidance from the Home Office to forces about how we deal with such incidents, and we need to ensure that there is a method of redress if families or even hon. Members feel that they cannot deal with the issues, which is why I strongly support the Victims’ Commissioner and the strong Independent Police Complaints Commission that the Committee on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill is currently considering.

I appreciate the hon. Member for St Ives bringing these issues before the House today. I hope that the family—Joanne Bryce and others who miss Claire to this day—will get some satisfaction from the fact that a Member of Parliament is still arguing for us to improve services for those who follow, and I wish him well in that. We will reflect on what he has said, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am not proposing that access to legal aid for the vulnerable be removed. Every person brought before a court or into a police station, and every person charged with an offence, will have access to legal aid for a defence unless they have sufficient means to pay for it themselves.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given that a third of prison suicides take place in the first week, what risk assessment have the Government made of the changes to the regime in the first two weeks?

[Jeremy Wright]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his previous ministerial experience, risk assessments are made for every prisoner when they arrive in prison. The changes we have announced to the prison regime are about ensuring that prisoners understand at the earliest possible stage that if they comply with the regime and engage with rehabilitation, they will be able to earn privileges. If they do not, they will not, but that does not affect the risk assessment process. I also point out that where there are exceptional reasons due to a particular vulnerability, governors have discretion not to apply those provisions.