Oral Answers to Questions

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

23. What steps his Department is taking to help offenders find employment following their release from prison.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Brandon Lewis)]

Getting prisoners into employment helps not only to fill the 1.25 million vacancies that businesses have right now, but to drive down reoffending. To achieve that, we are building stronger links with employers and suppliers and are offering more offenders the chance to work in prison, on release on temporary licence, and on release from prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are investing in new roles, such as prison employment leads and a head of education, skills and work, to give our prisoners the support that they need to get into jobs. We are also funding new infrastructure such as employment hubs. This investment will cut crime and help prisoners to get work-ready, which will mean a better, safer society and a healthier community.

[David Rutley]

Having visited HMP Thorn Cross recently while I was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I have seen the great work that Timpson and TalkTalk, among others, are doing to prepare offenders for the world of work. At a meeting in Macclesfield on Friday, Sodexo also demonstrated its clear commitment to the task. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need more such partnerships, as well as clear pathways of support on leaving prison, including access to relevant benefits, to ensure that more prison leavers land better on their own two feet?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and gives some key examples. The employability innovation fund announced in our prisons strategy White Paper will help prisoners to build more partnerships with employers like those at HMP Thorn Cross. I have seen other organisations and initiatives such as twinning projects that are looking into different things and are even using sports such as football to prepare prisoners for leaving prison and contributing positively to their community and future life. Those are great projects, and my hon. Friend gives a good example of a good prison doing great work.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

That is good news, and I wish my hon. Friend well with his Bill. I understand why he wants to refer to it as Claudia’s law. I would like to extend my sympathies, as I am sure the whole House would, to Peter and Joan Lawrence. The Government will formally announce their position on Second Reading, but we are keen for this matter to be tackled.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)]

Our probation officers do a vital job—it is one that I value highly—in turning offenders’ lives around, and the prisons and probation Minister is conducting a comprehensive review of the probation system that is focused on improving the quality of our probation services. As with our plans for prisons, we want a simpler, clearer system, with specific outcome measures such as getting offenders off drugs, improving educational standards, and getting offenders into apprenticeships and work. We also want closer working with the Prison Service. We will set out our more detailed plans after our review is completed in April.

[David Rutley]

Guide dog owners are too often turned away by taxis, despite that being illegal, and research has shown that when offenders are prosecuted, they can be fined less than £200. Will my right hon. Friend review the situation and find ways to increase the penalties to ensure that such discrimination is better addressed?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am, as so often, at one with my right hon. and learned Friend. Both of us believe that we should remain within the European convention on human rights. Both of us also recognise that a far greater threat to our liberty and sovereignty is the European Court of Justice, which he has described as an institution that is “predatory” and often inimical to Britain’s interests. That is a view I share.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T3. In view of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association’s campaign concerning certain cases relating to taxi and private hire drivers refusing carriage to guide dog owners, will the Minister tell the House what the Government’s position is on this important issue?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I am happy to set out the Government’s position on this important issue. It is an offence under section 168 of the Equality Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The penalty is a maximum of £1,000. As far as sentencing is concerned, my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a matter for the judiciary, which of course acts independently.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I think the hon. Lady is slightly confused about the difference between extradition and deportation. As a result of European law, it has become harder and harder to deport foreign national offenders, while unfortunately the fast-track extradition of innocent British citizens has become easier and easier. That balance should be addressed, and in that I hope we can enlist her support.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to improve mental health treatment for young people serving custodial sentences; and if he will make a statement.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)]

May I, through you, Mr Speaker, apologise to the House on behalf of the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)? He is unavoidably detained in Bristol on departmental business.

We work closely with the NHS to make sure that young people serving custodial sentences have access to comprehensive mental health provision, and as part of his review of the youth justice system, Charlie Taylor is looking at ways to improve the provision of mental health care for children and young people.

[David Rutley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the steps he is taking in this important area, but will he consider making mental health and substance misuse treatment one of the accountability measures in the new prison league tables, including for the youth estate?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically acute point. According to academic research, up to 70% of prisoners are likely to have had a mental health problem, often related to drink or drug abuse. It is therefore in all our interests that we do everything possible to ensure that appropriate therapy and rehabilitative activity are available to those prisoners.

Emergency Services: Closer Working

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller]

As a proud son of Bedford, and therefore Bedfordshire, I hate to give credit to other counties, but my hon. Friend is right that Hampshire is demonstrating a clear path, as evidenced by the fact that a significant number of Hampshire Members of Parliament are here today. One reason why I am pressing the Minister is that there are good examples. The PCC position is still new, and we should be honest about the record of PCCs across the country. Some have been very good and some—again, I speak from direct experience in Bedfordshire—have been less good, so we need a sense from the Government about what level of collaboration they believe makes sense.

The Minister will know—I do not—what is meant by

“a high level duty to collaborate on all three emergency services”.

That is what he intends to propose, so will he tell us today what it means? It would be helpful for us to know that before the Government introduce their legislation. What sanctions do the Government expect to impose on organisations that do not collaborate?

The Fire Brigades Union has spoken to me about same-service collaboration. For those of us who believe that we need to do more to reduce public expenditure to deliver public services more efficiently—I count myself as a fiscal conservative—a whole range of savings are available in the fire service through combinations of fire services across the country. One fear that the FBU and I have is that, by concentrating control through PCCs, the Government are giving up the opportunity for cross-border collaboration and the savings that will come from that. What is the Minister’s answer to the FBU?

One of my two main points is on the duty to collaborate with ambulance services. Other hon. Members are extremely disappointed, and I certainly am, by the half-hearted response of the ambulance services to this opportunity for them to participate in collaboration between the emergency services. On other issues raised in the consultation, page 19 of the Government’s summary states:

“By far the most commonly stated view was the need for ambulance services to engage more with the police and fire and rescue services.”

That is absolutely correct. There are many people in the fire and rescue services who believe that their humanitarian mission is much more closely aligned with those in the ambulance services, yet the ambulance services seem to drift along on their own thinking that it is okay to stay within their own silo and not participate in the Government’s positive and welcome change. Is collaboration by the ambulance services central to the Minister’s vision, or is it a “nice to have”? On the surface, it looks like a “nice to have.” If PCCs are to be the central organising point for emergency services, the Government have missed a step in not using this opportunity to propose measures to drag parts of the ambulance services into the overall responsibilities of the PCCs.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a characteristically passionate and well thought-through speech. I understand his point about the importance of ambulance services being better involved in the debate, but it could be argued that there are unique pressures on them. In Poynton, to the north of Macclesfield, there is an interesting model of co-location between fire, police and ambulance services in an emergency hub. Does he agree that there are options, maybe at the margins or on the periphery, where ambulance services could play a more integrated role?

[Richard Fuller]

Not only do I agree, as usual with my hon. Friend, but I would take his idea and move it another step forward. There are opportunities not only for co-location but for training, skills development and establishing career paths that enable people to join a fire and rescue service and an emergency medical responder service and then determine whether they want to have a pure firefighter career path or whether they want to have a career path that includes achieving medical qualifications that make them capable of being EMRs. Such opportunities are relevant to the vision that the Minister wishes to outline, but the Government’s proposals give a free pass to the ambulance services to continue thinking in their own silo. There is an imperative on the Government to bring that under the overall arch of their recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I can hear, borne like music upon the zephyrs, words from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) suggesting that, for once, the hon. Gentleman may be misinformed about what precisely happened in the Select Committee. But putting that entirely to one side, one of the biggest barriers to justice, as the Master of the Rolls and others have pointed out, is costs. Action needs to be taken to reduce costs in civil justice. It is not enough simply to say that the taxpayer must shoulder the burden. We need reform of our legal system to make access to justice easier for all.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T2. I know that my hon. Friend regards access to justice as a clear priority. With that in mind, and given the large area of north-east Cheshire that will be without easy access to a court under the proposals in the current consultation, can he tell the House what progress is being made in considering the Macclesfield proposal for a single, combined Macclesfield justice centre?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the meeting we had and for the justice centre report that he and his constituent presented to me. He will be aware that we are giving serious consideration to that report and, indeed, to the 2,000-plus submissions made in the consultation, to which we will respond soon.

Prisons and Secure Training Centres: Safety

David Rutley Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Seven individuals have been suspended. It is my understanding that staffing is at an appropriate level, but during my conversation with the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board I will seek to satisfy myself that we have exactly the level of both staffing and monitoring that we need to keep people safe.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend referred to body-worn cameras, which are proving to be a vital tool in tackling crime on our streets. Does he agree that they have an important role to play not only in our prisons, but in secure training centres?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. I was fortunate to be here when the Policing Minister pointed out the important way in which body-worn cameras can help in crime detection and in keeping officers safe. The same applies in the secure estate.

Court Closure (Buxton)

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of court closure in Buxton.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I think this is the first time that I have spoken while you have been in the Chair.

I have called this debate on the closure of the court in Buxton, which is in my constituency of High Peak. The proposal is part of a recently concluded consultation on the future of many courthouses across the country. Let me be clear from the outset that I understand the need to look at the situation of courts and to investigate the possibility of rationalising the service. However, there are serious flaws in the rationale that has been applied to Buxton, as is the case for other parts of the country, which was highlighted recently in this Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) in relation to courts in his constituency. My concern today, however, is about my constituency and its court.

First, I will provide some context to the debate. High Peak is a large area covering more than 200 square miles, and the two main towns, Buxton and Glossop, are 15 miles apart. There are many smaller towns and villages in between and around those two towns. The constituency sits in the east midlands, yet much of it faces the north-west, particularly Greater Manchester, for many of its services. Leisure, employment and news are all predominantly accessed from the north-west. Part of the constituency, Hope Valley, faces Sheffield for all of its services. There is very little traction with the east midlands. Similarly, public transport links feed into Greater Manchester and Sheffield, and I will come to that issue later.

Despite High Peak’s proximity to those two great cities of the northern powerhouse, Manchester and Sheffield, we should be in no doubt that it is very much a rural constituency. It therefore faces lots of problems that are common to many such areas across the country, particularly access to and ease of travel. Not that long ago, High Peak was served by two courts—one in Buxton and one in Glossop. The Glossop court was then closed, so there is now only one court serving the whole of this large constituency.

The Minister is aware of my views on the consultation—I have aired them before in this room and the main Chamber—but I wish briefly to reiterate one or two points. I have been involved in public service for more than 15 years, first as a councillor and then as a Member of this House. During that time, I have read many consultations on a variety of subjects. They have varied in their quality and scope, but I can honestly say that I do not think I have seen one so riddled with errors and mistakes as the one relating to this court. I shall run through some of the glaring errors.

The consultation’s biggest error was that it said that there was no public lift in the courthouse, but it is patently obvious that there is. I am absolutely baffled about how such a fundamental mistake could be made. I assume that the author of the consultation did not visit the court because a lift is not an easy thing to miss —it is pretty obvious. I concede that an acknowledgement was sent out about that error, but only after several people protested in response to the consultation. The circulation of the acknowledgement—I was going to say “apology”, but I do not think that that is the right word—of the mistake is still open to question, however, as some people did not receive clarification about the lift.

The consultation claimed that the building was not compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, ironically citing the lack of a lift—we have dealt with that issue—but the building is fully compliant with disability legislation under the Equality Act 2010. It also claimed that the consulting rooms were poor. Those were rebuilt five years ago and have had panic strips installed. There are three consulting rooms, of which two have been redecorated recently, and those three rooms are for two courts. I have visited those rooms and they seem perfectly fine to me, so I struggle to understand what allows them to be termed “poor”. Interestingly, if I look at some of the offices in the Palace of Westminster, including mine and perhaps that of my researcher, William Crook, those consulting rooms stand up very well in comparison.

The consultation claims that segregation is not possible. However, in 2010, the waiting areas were reconfigured to create a separate entrance and waiting room, thereby segregating witnesses and defendants. The consultation writers choose, creatively, to state that vulnerable witnesses have to use a waiting room across the road. The ability for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence via a video link without even having to enter the courtroom is an invaluable asset to Buxton court, not a liability. When vulnerable witnesses attend court, probably for the first time, and have to give evidence, the experience can be traumatic. It is a great reassurance for those witnesses to know that they do not have to go into the same court as the defendant by whom they feel threatened. It seems somewhat bizarre for the consultation to make such comments about a lack of segregation and then to cite segregation, where that exists, as evidence against the court.

The consultation claims that the court is utilised to 27% of its capacity, but I cannot reconcile that figure with what I see. I have never seen it justified anywhere. I am told that the justices’ clerk for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire has publicly admitted that the figure is wrong. Despite requests from the magistrates—I know they have put requests in—for a justification for and breakdown of that figure, such information is yet to be seen. It appears that the figure of 27% was almost plucked out of the ether. I have spoken to lots of people about this. I am told that the delivery director for the Courts Service has said that, in the case of Buxton, the utilisation and travel figures, which are two key facts in the consultation, act “as a guide only”.

Even if we assume that the figure of 27% can be justified—at this stage it has not been, and I wait for it to be—it is worth noting that a shortage of legal advisers available to the court in Buxton is often the reason for its restricted use. There are no legal advisers on Monday at all in Buxton court—none can be found—so we immediately lose 20% of the working week. However, the Minister should not take that as an indication of a lack of demand, because there is a demand for Buxton court.

There is currently a lead-in time of about 14 weeks before a court listing comes to trial. Effectively, there is therefore a 14-week waiting list for a case to come to trial in Buxton. Again, that situation is created by a shortage of legal advisers to support the magistrates. For any consultation to cite lack of use for any service when there is a 14-week waiting list is completely nonsensical. Those are just a few issues in the consultation, although I could go on about it for longer.

I recently had a meeting at the court with representatives of the Courts Service and two local magistrates, Michael Hilton and Pam Ashton. Officials were still unwilling to hold their hands up and admit that there were mistakes in the consultation document, or even to make a concession that the contents were in any way wrong, other than regarding the mistake about the lift. I would not even call the comments about the lift a full and frank apology—they were almost a begrudging admission. The officials refused to acknowledge all the rest of the facts. They even stood in the consulting rooms, which seemed fine to me, but they just did not seem to like them.

I do not want to dwell on the consultation document, as I have had my say on that here and in the main Chamber some weeks ago, so I shall move on to the actual issue. The court in Buxton provides a valuable service to the whole of High Peak, not just Buxton. The subject of this debate is “court closure in Buxton”, but this is not a Buxton issue; it is a High Peak issue. The suggestion that the court should close is wrong and the case for that has not been made. Furthermore, should the case be made—that is a very big “should”—the proposal that the usage should be moved to Chesterfield borders on ludicrous.

As I have outlined, the court serves the large area of High Peak. There are reasonable public transport links between some of the towns and villages, but such transport is by no means universal. The loss of the Glossop court some years ago made life very difficult for my constituents in Glossop and the north of the constituency, but they manage. Anecdotally, I think that about two thirds of the work that goes through the court in Buxton is from the Glossop area, so closing the court in Buxton will add further burdens to the people of Glossop, as well as having an impact on those nearer to Buxton.

The idea that the work should be moved to Chesterfield will be ridiculous to anyone who has studied carefully the geography of High Peak, which would have been apparent to the author of this lamentable piece of work if they had paid proper care and attention. Chesterfield might look nice and convenient on a map or in a road atlas, but I assure the Minister that it certainly is not. For most people in High Peak, public transport routes to Chesterfield are limited to say the least. I know the area intimately—I was born in the area and have always lived there—so I know every road in and out of both Chesterfield and High Peak, but I decided that I should not rely on my anecdotal knowledge from a mere 53 years of residency. Yesterday, therefore, I went on the Traveline website and found out that to be in Chesterfield for a 9 am appointment using public transport, someone travelling from Glossop would have to get a bus at 6.30 am, with two train journeys on top of that. I am using Glossop as an example because it is the biggest and most populous town in High Peak, and because, anecdotally, about two thirds of the court’s work comes from that area. However, there are many other towns and villages in High Peak, including New Mills, Whaley Bridge, Chapel-en-le-Frith and, indeed, Buxton itself, and getting to Chesterfield from any of those places borders on the impractical.

I stress again to the Minister and his officials that just because the court is in Buxton, they should not think of it as serving only Buxton; it serves the whole of High Peak—all 208 square miles of it. I believe that the court should stay in Buxton, but whatever court is used has to be accessible from all corners of the constituency, not just a small area. It is a fact that more than 70% of the population of High Peak—I think the figure is 73%, so this is almost three quarters of the population—will be more than two hours away from the suggested replacement in Chesterfield by public transport.

I have read many submissions and spoken to a lot of people about this. Buxton Civic Association made many good points in its submission, but the key line in it states that the proposal is not exactly

“access to justice for all”.

That is absolutely right.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the implications for rural communities. There are not only concerns in Derbyshire about having to travel from Glossop or Buxton to Chesterfield, because we have similar concerns in east Cheshire about having to travel from Macclesfield over to Crewe. Does he agree that it is vital for the Minister to consider the implications of added travel costs? When such things are considered, the cost savings, if any, of the proposed closure of the courts in Buxton and Macclesfield will be much lower.

[Andrew Bingham]

My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a good point. I will address the costs in a while, but he is right that moving the courts to different areas will increase expenditure.

I have talked about travelling to Chesterfield from High Peak using public transport, but that is not the easiest of journeys for car owners. The clue is in my constituency’s name. High Peak is high, which means that we probably have some of the worst winters in England, although I would not challenge our friends from north of the border because they have it worse than we do. The road from High Peak to Chesterfield, the A623, is probably one of the country’s highest roads. I have travelled it many, many times, and in the winter it is often closed or passable only with care—it does get the weather. The road will add another barrier to getting to court not only for defendants, but for magistrates and witnesses.

Due to the problems of getting to Chesterfield, there may be the further problem of an increased number of defendants failing to present themselves at the appointed time, which will lead to the issuing of arrest warrants and increased costs. We must also consider the effect on officials who are required to attend court, be they police officers, officers from the council, who often have to attend court for various matters, or any other official. At present, they can attend the court in Buxton as part of their working day, as Buxton town hall is opposite the courthouse and the police station is within walking distance. Officials can attend a court hearing and be back behind their desk or, in the case of police officers, back on the beat, very quickly. We all want to see policemen out on the beat, but there will be implications for that if they have to drive to and from court all day. A journey to Chesterfield for an official from High Peak would effectively remove them from their post for at least half a day and frankly, in many cases, for a full day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) said, the increased expenses incurred will erode the financial benefits of the proposal, if there are any.

On the subject of costs, let us talk about savings. The consultation claims that the annual operating costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, which I assume is the savings figure. I ask the Minister to consider such figures carefully because, of that £89,000, £43,000 are the magistrates’ expenses. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will join me in thanking all those who serve as magistrates. They do it for no remuneration and for little thanks, and we should all be grateful for their valuable work. Magistrates are rightly entitled to claim for their expenses, and they will retain that right wherever they sit. Moving the court to Chesterfield will serve only to increase the expenses of those sitting on the High Peak bench, which chips away at the savings.

If the running costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, of which £43,000 are magistrates’ expenses, we are looking at a £46,000 saving. If magistrates’ expenses were to increase by 20%, which is reasonable given the increased distance to Chesterfield in terms of both time and mileage, that would reduce the saving by a further £8,000, so we would be down to £38,000. That does not even begin to account for the extra costs incurred by witnesses. In short, I do not see how there will be any significant financial benefit, if any, from closing the courthouse in Buxton.

Another concern we should consider is that the extra travel will prove prohibitive, meaning that we will start to lose our local magistrates, whose local knowledge and background helps them to discharge their important duty. At a time when we all seek to get people involved in public service, we are putting a barrier in the way of people from High Peak who might think, “I would like to do something for the community by being a magistrate.” Faced with having to travel to Chesterfield several times each week or month, they might think, “Actually, I’m not sure I want to do that.” However, they might wish to take up such a role if the courthouse was in Buxton.

If the consultation had suggested moving the court to Stockport, I could have seen the logic, as transport links to the north-west and Greater Manchester are better from almost all parts of High Peak. It is easier to get to and from Greater Manchester for all those who are likely to use the court. I am sorry to say that the real work has not been done. A thorough and proper investigation as part of the consultation would have shown that to be the case, and the reality of the situation would have become apparent. I think that the regional and county boundaries have been allowed to get in the way of common sense. The proposal has been made after looking at the boundaries on a map; no one has considered the unique situation and geography of High Peak. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will probably concur that it is a lot easier to get to Stockport from not only my constituency, but his.

I have known the Minister for many years, and he is an honourable and reasonable man.

[David Rutley]

Hear, hear.

Police Funding Formula

David Rutley Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

One issue that has been raised consistently by Members from across the House is the precept issue, which I believe is what the hon. Lady is alluding to. Although that is not in my hands, it is part of what we look at when we are doing the formula and as we go forward. In some parts of the country the precept forms a substantial part of the funding, whereas in others it does not. I promise the hon. Lady that I will keep a watch on that.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to the House today. I fully recognise his commitment to tackling crime across the country; it is absolutely clear. Will he confirm to the House that there will be a very clear communication plan that will be sent to all police forces, from Cheshire police right the way through, so that they are aware of the milestones they will be required to pass to finalise, once and for all, this funding formula in the months ahead?

[Mike Penning]

Yes, we have time now to ensure that we consult across the board and that we work closely together. In my statement, I specifically said that we need to get agreement from the chief constables and the police and crime commissioners to ensure that the formula works, and that, I think, is the way forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Rutley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

There is a list of steps that the Government are taking. I cannot give them all now because Mr Speaker would not allow me. We have legislated to make sure that women’s interests are specifically provided for in the rehabilitation process. There have to be specific programmes to meet the needs of women. We have made sure that in each of the women’s prisons there will be the capacity for women to have spaces outside the walls on a gradual programme, so that they can be rehabilitated more quickly. I am clear that the needs of women are entirely different from the needs of men in prison, not least because of their family responsibilities, and that is written through—as through a stick of rock—all that we are seeking to do in relation to women in custody. I will give the hon. Lady the full list later.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to encourage the use of mediation in family disputes.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

The Government are committed to advancing mediation as the best way of reducing the stress on separating couples, alleviating pressures on the court system, and saving money for taxpayers. Last year, seven out of 10 couples who went into mediation had a successful outcome. In the past few months, we have set up a system where the first mediation session is free for both parties if one of the parties is legally aided, and we are already seeing an increased take-up in mediation as a result.

[David Rutley]

I welcome the progress that is being made in encouraging the use of mediation, but when does the external advisory group of experts on the voice of the child plan to put forward recommendations on improving best practice?

[Simon Hughes]

In the summer I made a clear commitment to make sure that the voice of children and young people is always heard, not just in the courts but in mediation too. The advisory group is due to make recommendations about best practice in February next year—in two months’ time. I am clearly of the view that the voice of children and young people must be heard in every single case where there is family breakdown so that their needs are taken into account and not just the needs of the parents.