Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that staff are demoralised and unconvinced. We do not need to be persuaded of that; it is the case. Plenty of evidence from previous restructurings in the NHS shows that wholesale restructuring absorbs time and resources, and reduces efficiency, and that there are still lingering communications systems issues to address—we have mentioned the IT system, too. Enough evidence is available to make an ideologue—though not perhaps a Minister—think that a smart move in this case would be to have a pilot, because we are talking about a precious asset, the probation service of this country, and we need to handle it carefully. One way of doing that is to pilot things first and then, when we are totally satisfied that everything is working, to put it in place nationally, if need be.

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

I wish to speak briefly to new clauses 1 and 4, both of which I have co-signed with Her Majesty’s official Opposition. The Government do not want new clause 1 in the Bill because they are concerned that, in due course, they will not win the vote in either House of Parliament because, frankly, what they are proposing does not add up to much. At the end of last year, the official Opposition held a debate on the Government’s plans to restructure probation work and, until that point, the Justice Secretary had refused to answer for his plans on the Floor of the House. During that debate, many of us outlined why we thought it baffling that the Government should want to target the probation service, a service that is so high performing and where the numbers speak for themselves.

The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that none of the 35 probation trusts is currently showing cause for “serious concern” and none “require development”; and that 31 of the trusts are “showing good performance” and four are “performing exceptionally”. In 2011-12, victim feedback was positive in 98% of cases; 80% of orders or licences were completed successfully; and 49% of offenders were in employment at the end of their orders and 89% were in accommodation. Reoffending rates were better than predicted in both England and Wales, and the probation service met all its targets in 2012. The service achieved a successful completion rate of 81% for participants of sex offender treatment programmes and exceeded its completion targets on domestic violence interventions. In October 2011, the probation service became the only public sector organisation to be awarded the British Quality Foundation award. The board said that the service was

“on the right path to achieving and sustaining excellence and essentially to being the best providers of these essential services.”

The reoffending rate among those sentenced to more than 12 months but less than four years is 36.2%, while among those serving between four and 10 years it is 30.7%. As we know, the reoffending rate for individuals sentenced to less than 12 months—the cohort that currently, by and large, receives no supervision, despite some probation trusts asking for the authority to take control of them—stands much higher, at 58.5%. That takes us to the crux of the argument. Everybody in this Chamber agrees that something has to be done, but we disagree about how it should be done, because what the Government have proposed is untried, untested and downright dangerous.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I endorse everything the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the excellent service that the current probation service provides. Is not part of the problem that the Government are failing to address a major problem, which is the reoffending by people with mental health conditions? If we tackled mental health and mental health services rather than imprisoned people, we could cut some of that reoffending more dramatically than we could by privatising the service.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Lady, who has taken an interest in this subject for many years, as have I, is absolutely correct. I would go a bit further and say that if we dealt with mental health problems and drug addiction, we could empty about 40% of prisoners from prisons tomorrow without any danger—had we got the safety net out in the community.

The Government are taking a drastic step without having any proven record of any possible success. Unlike with some services that are privatised, there is an inherent danger to the public in all this. I agree fully with the Opposition when they say that we want the thing tried and tested. That is not a political scam to try to stop it. I would like it stopped, but let us also be honest and say that we are where we are and we should at least see whether these plans will work. That surely is a common-sense thing to do, but time and time again, in the Public Bill Committee and in all the other debates, we have been unable to persuade the Government to pause and to think carefully about why they initiated their two pilots previously. Why did they do that if they were that unconcerned and the pilots were bound to succeed?

The Secretary of State, who drifted in and out here today, in typical fashion, has said in some debates, “You do things sometimes because they are right.” I am sure that is right, but it is a bit risky to have a messianic view of life and say, “Because they are new and are being tried now, they have got to be right. What’s right is right.” That is absolute balderdash and I am afraid he will eat those words in the next two or three years. I hope not, but there will be a danger in this system.

As we are all aware, what will be left of the public sector probation service will work with victims, hostels and offenders who pose a high risk of harm. The remaining 70% of cases—the low-risk and medium-risk offenders—will be managed by the private sector under the model that we are talking about. The point has already been made that such risks vary—they can vary from day to day or from week to week. I do not know how the system will be managed, but co-location has been mentioned. I am not sure whether that will work, but, again, it is a matter of crossing one’s fingers and hoping for the best.

There are serious concerns about the payment-by-results model, most of which I will briefly outline with regard to another amendment that would compel the Government to pilot the plans before implementing them across the board. To some relief, we find that G4S and Serco will not be coming in on this, although they do know a lot about criminality.

Under the proposals, private companies will be responsible for the majority of cases involving domestic violence, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, violence against the person and gang-related crimes. That is highly sensitive work, which clearly requires trained professionals with experience of how to deal with victims and perpetrators of such complex crimes. It is highly unlikely that the private sector will prioritise holistic initiatives such as work with victims of crime. I am afraid that it will be driven by profit rather than levels of care. Many individuals who come into contact with the probation service have one or more mental health problems. They may have suffered abuse, have substance misuse issues, literacy problems and poor educational attainment. Such people need to be signposted to the proper avenues for care and support. They are highly damaged individuals and require special attention.

The proposals will compromise public protection and provide a perverse incentive for private companies not to put resources into decreasing offending behaviour. There are also numerous possibilities for conflicts of interest, the tackling of which is the aim of another amendment that I have co-signed.

The Social Market Foundation has argued that payment by results incentivises an increase in offending. To understand that, it is important to note that the Government have decided that a private company will neither be penalised nor rewarded for an increase or decrease in offending of 3% either way. Ostensibly, that is to take account of the fact that external factors can have an impact on offending rates. In practice, however, it would mean that private companies would have to achieve a 4% decrease in offending before being rewarded. They will simply not invest that amount of money when there is no guarantee of a return on their investment. Unfortunately, it is far more likely that the companies will make a profit by delivering court orders in the cheapest way possible by opening call centres. Understandably, the National Association of Probation Officers—the experts on this—is worried, and legitimately I would say.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) referred to the GMB union. It is a question not of union versus anybody else but of what works and what does not work. NAPO has had experience over many years, and I have already referred to its successes.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

rose—

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, of course I shall give way, but let me make this point. Time and again, I have heard NAPO say, “If it is inevitable that we have to go down this path, let us see whether it works.” Let us pilot this system. Let it come before Parliament before the changes are effected, because, although NAPO refers to its jobs, its main concern is the safety of the public it serves.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have many mutual friends who are members of NAPO. Harry Fletcher is a former assistant general-secretary whom we both know and respect. My point was quietly to tease the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) who happened to say in a parliamentary reference book that she was a member of the GMB, but she tells me that that is not the case. I was not making a substantive point but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that. We all agree that we need to deal with these prisoners. If the model works, that is fine, but if it does not, it will be a disaster. Pausing a bit would have been a good idea. There were two pilots that were cancelled halfway through. If they had carried on, we would have had some evidence to consider. Even people like me who need some persuasion about the system would see that it works and that there is no danger to the public. Instead, we rush headlong into the dark.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been too much social experimentation between the private sector and some public sector organisations, such as the probation service? In industry, for example, if a company were bringing in an innovation, it would have a pilot scheme either to silence the doubters or to answer them. I agree that we should have a pilot scheme on this. It is far too dangerous to deal with it in the abstract.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That feeling is held widely across the House, and not just on these Benches. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) referred to ideology. The Bill is a victory for ideology over common sense. That by itself is ridiculous enough, but the inherent dangers of it make it even more insidious.

To avoid treading over old ground, I will not talk about the risk register. None the less, it still alarms me that the risks were seen as so high at the commencement of this exercise, and I have no reason to believe that they have changed for the better since.

Briefly, let me refer to new clause 4. The impetus behind it is to ensure that we do not rush headlong into implementing these reforms without first having a pilot, which would be independently evaluated and reported on to both Houses of Parliament. I notice that the esteemed Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), is in his place, so I must be careful about what I say. Over the past few weeks, we have taken evidence from many sectors involved in probation and rehabilitation. A considerable amount of it was from people who had been involved in previous Government privatisations. Surprisingly, they were saying, “Don’t do it. Don’t rush in. It is not proven. It may not be cost-effective and it could cause huge problems.” Such people are surely aware of the risks involved and they came before the Committee to give their opinion. It is not simply a matter of one political divide against the other. Some of those people presented as being more in sympathy with the Government than with anybody else, but they said not to do it because it is unproven and could be dangerous.

The probation service has prior experience of the damage that can result from privatisation. Building management, for example, has been contracted out to the private sector, which has resulted in a great deal of waste and inefficiency. I have heard of an engineer being sent from Liverpool to Cardiff to fit a carpet tile even though, ironically, there is a carpet shop opposite the Cardiff probation office—you could not make it up.

In 2007, the running of bail beds was outsourced to a company called ClearSprings, which had no experience in the criminal justice sector. Numerous complaints were made about antisocial behaviour and drunkenness and the contract had to be removed. We know about Serco and G4S, so I will not go there again. Clearly, there is a significant prospect of disorder and possible dangers if the plans do not prove to be sensible. As for the Government’s risk assessment, time is short so I will not go there.

The restructuring will mean that there will have to be an entirely new operating model with 21 new government companies; that staff will have to be allocated to new roles in community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service; that no fewer than 18,000 staff members will be transferred to new employers; and that up to 250,000 offender cases will be reallocated. It would be foolhardy indeed to proceed without some guarantee of success.

It would not be unheard of for new measures being introduced to the justice system to be piloted nationally. Recently, pilots on payment by results have been held at HMP Peterborough and Doncaster, albeit voluntarily, while in recent years Governments have held pilots on satellite tracking, the domestic violence 28-day prevention order and drug reduction schemes. Piloting is not unheard of.

This is not a question of reputational risk for the MOJ. We are all concerned about the safety of the public more than anything else. A further risk register produced by the probation employers last November of last year warned of a high risk of

“a failure of the programme to be delivered either in scope or within the timescale set by ministers”.

At this eleventh hour, I plead with the Minister and his colleagues to give the scheme a chance and to give us all a chance to evaluate it. We might come back one day saying, “Yes, it was right,” or, “No, it was not.” If the answer is no, many people will suffer. Those members of the public are the people whom it is our duty to protect.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise to the House for the fact that I will leave after my brief remarks, because at 3 o’clock I have a meeting, which I have been seeking for a couple of months, with the Secretary of State for Education, about a school in my constituency. I hope that I will be back in time for the Minister’s response.

Let me pick up on the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). We have all been pressing for some time, under the previous Government and this Government, for the supervision of offenders with sentences of less than 12 months, but we all expected that to proceed normally—that is, with a proposal being made with a budgetary paper attached that the existing system would be challenged to meet—so that we could plan the development of the probation service. If there were to be additional funds, some of us would have lobbied the Treasury while others would have argued that the service should swallow its own smoke and keep the budget within its existing budgets. That was what we expected.

I think that clause 1 was inserted in the Bill in the other place because none of us expected the use of the previous legislation to introduce proposals for the wholesale privatisation of the probation service—that is what this means for 70% of the service going forward. When that legislation was going through, I opposed it and I warned those on my Front Bench that it could be abused in such a way. I was assured that the legislation, which was supported on both sides of the House if I remember rightly, would ensure that the third sector, voluntary sector organisations and others could participate in rehabilitation, and that it would introduce flexibility to the system. A number of organisations lobbied for that, particularly in the drugs rehabilitation field. That is why I think that this is an abuse of process. It is an abuse of the previous legislation, which was never intended to be used in this way, and I think that is why the other place inserted the clause.

I have been angry and have shouted about the subject in this House, and it is not good for my health. This is, however, a leap in the dark, and I am fearful for my constituents. As with other privatisations, there is a financial risk, but that is nothing in comparison with the risk to life and limb. As a result of this leap in the dark, there could be safety problems that will bear down on Ministers in the future.

I warn the House that if we allow this Bill to go through and any of our constituents suffer and are harmed in some way as a result of an offender not being properly supervised, we will, quite properly, be held responsible. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) have made exactly this point: why not ensure that the alternatives proposed by the Government are properly tested? Setting up pilots and then ending them without taking any account of them seems extraordinary and completely illogical.

In previous debates, we seized on the risk register because advisers to the Government were saying that there were risks. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has said, there is an 80% risk of failure in some instances. The Secretary of State argued that the risk registers are only there at the beginning to point out a range of issues that will then be addressed, so we asked, “Why not publish the risk register and make it completely public, and why not publish those mechanisms you have put in place to address the specific risks? At least then we could be assured that they have been properly addressed and, perhaps, overcome.” As my right hon. Friend has said, we are walking into the dark and putting our constituents at risk as a result.

As other Members have explained, the experience of privatisation in the justice service has given us sufficient warnings that we need to tread very carefully. I do not want to go over those again, but many of us have had experience of the justice system over the years and I have never seen the system so vulnerable as a result of private interventions. There are riots almost monthly, and concerns expressed within our prison system. The introduction of the Serious Fraud Office into investigations of companies that provide services within the justice system is ironic, to say the least.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, which are supported by the chair of the justice unions parliamentary group and by the group overall. We have also tabled a number of other proposals that are somewhat bureaucratic but, I think, important: new clauses 10, 9, 11 and 13, which are all in my name. They are simple suggestions. First, if the Government are going down this path let us have full and open transparency. The new clauses suggest that the contracts should be fully published. The Minister has said that the draft contracts should be published, but I think that it is important that the full contract should be published so that we can all see it, in particular the elements of the contract that include the requirements and expectations of the providers’ performance. It is important that in future the National Audit Office can investigate and assess the effectiveness, economy and efficiency of the implementation of the contracts.

One change that I have suggested is just common sense: no company that has been investigated for fraud should be able to bid for the contract. I do not wish to see sleight of hand, with the suggestion that such companies will not be the primary providers but can be part of a consortium. They will play a key role within those consortia because of the resources they have.

New clause 9 suggests that companies that are the prime contractors for the Work programme in an area should not be able to bid, and I say that because there is a potential conflict of interest. If one company is implementing the Work programme at the same time as the new probation system for those with sentences of less than 12 months and there is a sanction, the Work programme will lose out. That introduces a conflict of interest within the system. What worries me is that a number of companies will bid for a range of contracts in an area, across the piece, with the result that mini-monopolies will be built up in particular geographical areas.

My new clauses are simply administrative amendments. New clause 13 says that we need an annual report to Parliament and I know that that is a standard amendment that we table for a range of legislation, but in this instance it is vital. I want to know from an annual report from the Government exactly how the contracts are being performed against, how safe my constituents are, how safe the offenders are and how successful the implementation of the new system is.

I do not want to go over everything I have said before. I am extremely worried and I will hold Ministers to account if any of my constituents are injured as a result of the Bill. I have said that twice before. In fact, the late Paul Goggins advised me that I was threatening Ministers and I said, “Yes, I am actually, because they are threatening my constituents with this legislation.” I hope that today we will be able to defeat it or at least pass some amendments that will stabilise the system and enable us to gain some accountability. If not, I hope that the other place will say no and introduce an element of common sense to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady keeps asking the same question and she is going to keep getting the same answer: that is called consistency. Let me tell her once again that she will have to wait until she sees the documentation on the invitation to negotiate. What she will see from it is that we are very interested not just in the initial figure, but in how those bidding for this work will develop the amount they are prepared to put at risk over time. That will assist precisely the type of organisations that Labour Members claim they are interesting in helping—voluntary sector organisations that might not be able to put a great deal at risk to start with, but might be able to build on it in the future. We think that is important, and I very much hope that the hon. Lady will support it.

Let me deal with the Peterborough pilot and what it does. It is worth making the point that the interim figures from the pilot—we have been told often this afternoon that there is no evidence for the changes we are making, so let me offer some up—show an 8% fall in reconvictions among offenders released from Peterborough between September 2010 and June 2012 as compared with the preceding period. Similarly in the Doncaster pilot, the sixth-month reoffending rate fell 5.7 percentage points compared with the preceding period. That clearly demonstrates that with targeted support and help aimed at the right people at the right time, we can divert more offenders from a return to crime.

We have built into our plans a set of our own business and system readiness tests, which will be carried out throughout the implementation process. There are therefore a number of things that we are doing to test these reforms—completely contrary to the characterisation of Opposition Members—and we are determined to implement them in a measured and orderly way to ensure that public safety is in no way impacted. That is why we are taking a structured approach to implementation, as I have set out.

[Mr Llwyd]

There is no clear read-across from Doncaster and Peterborough because those are voluntary schemes and what the Minister proposes is not voluntary. Those who know better than I do—and, with great respect, as much as he does—will tell him that the figures do not correlate precisely.

[Jeremy Wright]

I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman on that. First, he and his colleagues have busily argued that we should have had more pilots, while some of the pilots we cancelled were less comparable to our reforms than were Peterborough and Doncaster, so he needs to be careful what he is arguing for. Secondly, he is absolutely right to say that the Peterborough and Doncaster pilots were conducted on a voluntary basis. That is because the law does not allow us to impose them on a compulsory basis. That is the law I am inviting the right hon. Gentleman to vote in favour of today, and I very much hope he will do so. Unless we have that law, we will never be able to impose those kinds of provisions on a compulsory basis.

Finally, on the issue of the pace of the reforms—an issue of which others have made much—I want to say two things. First, it is important that those who are employed by probation trusts—my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made this point—understand where they stand. It does not benefit them for us to drag our feet at this point. We need to get on with it so that those people can understand what their own futures hold. Secondly, to reiterate a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), I make no apologies for the urgency of these reforms: as long as we wait, there will be further cases of reoffending and further victims created. Some 600,000 offences are committed every year by those who are reoffending. That is the problem that everyone here has identified correctly and everyone says they want to do something about. The difference between the Government and Opposition Members is that we know how we are going to do it and they do not have the faintest idea. They do not know how they would pay for it, either. We know that the last Government set out to achieve this, but could not afford to do it within existing budgets. That option is out. We know how we will pay for this; they do not. They have not told us; they should certainly support what we propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

It is difficult to develop policy sensibly without having the information to inform decisions. One thing we want to achieve in this debate is a commitment to gather the data that we need to make those decisions in a more structured fashion. The specific issue of rehabilitative services for veterans was first raised in debate on this Bill last summer by Members in another place. Noble Lords had taken inspiration from the United States, from which we have a lot to learn on this issue, and laid down amendments calling on the Government to establish a pilot of a so-called veterans court. Veterans courts are now quite well known in the United States, but, as yet, we have not used them here.

A veterans court is staffed entirely by ex-servicemen and women, and deals with veterans charged with non-serious offences. As it was explained in the other place, a veteran who has committed an offence can be referred from the trial court to the veterans court. Under the system, the court assigns a fellow veteran as a mentor and systematic efforts are made to help the offender deal with a range of problems with which they are struggling to cope, such as substance misuse, mental health issues, lack of housing, anger management, skills, jobs and family breakdown. Other problems can be addressed in that way. The veteran is expected to attend monthly hearings so that progress can be assessed. Failure to co-operate leads to recall by the trial court and the possibility of a custodial sentence being imposed. The reported results of the courts are extremely impressive. The state supreme court in Pennsylvania reports an average reoffending rate for courts in its counties of just 1%. In other reports, rates vary from 10% to 30%, which is substantially lower than rates for custodial sentences.

[Mr Llwyd]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady has to say. In 2008, I went out, as an adviser to the Howard League, to see the courts in action. The first such court in the United States was in Buffalo, New York state. Currently, eight years down the road, it still has a 0% reoffending rate, which is absolutely incredible.

[Jenny Chapman]

The right hon. Gentleman clearly has a great deal of experience and expertise in this area. I am heartened by what he has said, which makes the idea of veterans courts all the more compelling. Since the first court was opened, the programme has been replicated across the country, and a number of states have passed legislation providing for the state-wide establishment of such courts. One has introduced changes to allow veterans to be diverted, where appropriate, into treatment rather than prison. That is the mark of simple, systematic support that can make a life-changing difference to an individual.

New clauses 2 and 3 are the starting steps. They aim to start our catch-up with the US and other nations. New clause 3 provides for a pilot of a variation of the veterans court to be trialled in the UK. New clause 2 requires a wide-ranging consultation on the issue as a whole. Both new clauses are reasonably small asks and, if passed, would offer the chance to learn more about the particular needs of veterans and how best we can support individuals to prevent future offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is making my point for me. Some 95% of people in prison are men. If 95% of either men or women were treated in what we might call a harsh manner in any other walk of life one would think there would be uproar on behalf of the 95%, but, would you believe it, all the uproar is that 5% is too many women prisoners. It is a nonsensical argument to suggest that women are treated more harshly than men. My hon. Friend is quite right that a lot more men are in prison for those same offences. My point is that men and women should be treated the same, irrespective of their offence. For the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) to suggest that they are non-violent, non-serious offences is utterly disgraceful. Perhaps she would like to go to each of those victims of crime and tell them that they are the victims of non-violent and non-serious offences.

In conclusion, clause 10 is unnecessary because the facts are already stark: women are treated more favourably than men when it comes to sentencing. Men are more likely to be sent to prison, more likely to be given a longer sentence and more likely to serve more of that sentence in prison than women for every single category of crime. For every single category of crime, men are also more likely to be given a serious community order and a longer community order, and are more likely to have more requirements made. Why is it, then, that the Government are not satisfied with that and want to go further to make the criminal justice system even more imbalanced and even more in favour of female offenders?

[Mr Llwyd]

The previous speaker should not read anything into the silence in the Chamber. It was not acquiescence; we were stunned into silence.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on being the driving force in bringing forward new clauses 2 and 3 on veterans to which I would like to speak briefly. I also welcome Government amendment 5 on the extension of restorative justice, which is a positive step. We had a debate on that in Committee. The Minister said that he would go away and consider the matter and he obviously has done so. I am sure we are very grateful for that.

I was glad to read in the papers over the weekend that there will be a Government review of how to improve the rehabilitation of ex-service personnel who are in prison, and that it will be led by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I wish him well in that work. I have a feeling that it will be done consensually and that we will all be able to muck in, as it were, and do our best to come up with some good answers for the Government, because the work is long overdue.

As the House may be aware, I have campaigned for a number of years for greater recognition of the welfare needs of veterans of the armed forces, and I have raised the issue in this place and elsewhere since 2008. In January 2010, I published a paper that contained detailed recommendations for increasing the support available to veterans, in particular to those who come into contact with the criminal justice system. I have also had the privilege since 2010 of chairing the veterans in the criminal justice system parliamentary group, which meets under the auspices of the justice unions parliamentary group. The group comprises parliamentarians and representatives from criminal justice trade unions and charities, including the National Association of Probation Officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Prison Officers Association, the Royal British Legion and several military charities. The group is able to disseminate good practice to ensure that it is available throughout the British isles, and I think that that is coming together and is working. I hope that at some point the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border might care to attend, to contribute and to perhaps pick up on a few points.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

May I draw attention to what is happening in Midlothian, where Police Scotland has been giving out leaflets to local pubs, clubs and voluntary organisations? When an arrest takes place, the police now ask directly whether the person arrested is an ex-member of the armed forces, which helps quite a bit. We should replicate such things and learn from each other.

[Mr Llwyd]

That is precisely the point of the joint group, and I am proud to say that the police force where I live, north Wales, have been doing that for more than 12 months, as have others. It is difficult, though, because some ex-military personnel are not prepared to admit to having been in the forces; they feel they would be letting the regiment down. Then there are others—we have all met them; they always seem to be former leading members of the SAS—who have not served a day any more than I have. It is not simple—we need to be doing a complex set of things—but I am pleased that we now have something to concentrate our energies upon.

I first became aware of the disproportionate number of veterans in the system when appearing as a barrister in Chester and north Wales Crown courts one particular week some years ago. I noticed that increasing numbers of people who were appearing in court for serious crimes professed to have a military background, and often the distinguishing feature was that their crimes were inexplicable, or at least difficult for a person who had not served in theatre to explain. I remember one case vividly of a young man who had come back from Iraq and was standing in a fish and chip queue when the lad behind him who had had too much to drink bumped into him. He knocked the hell out of the young lad in no time at all. He was trained to look after himself—almost by reflex he would do it—and he ended up doing three years for assault.

When people come back from theatre, they need to be decompressed and brought back into society. Heaven knows how I would be affected, had I been out with the forces in theatre. It is natural to presume that many people will suffer mental scars as a result of service, and we owe it to them to do something about it.

[Rory Stewart]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular issue with the reserves? For those in the regular forces, there is more of a framework for returning from operational theatre to battalion, whereas for the reserves we have a very specific challenge.

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, and actually, as one who follows these things, I know that, interestingly, an increasing number of reservists are appearing in court, having left their work for a period and gone into the eye of the storm. On coming out again, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, they are expected to go back to civvy street as normal, but it is clearly extremely difficult. That is a big problem, and the amendments would be a step forward.

Almost by instinct, as a lawyer I have something at the back of my mind saying, “Why should any class of society have a court set up especially for them?” In this case, the answer is simple: because these people have been through extraordinary situations that we cannot even imagine. Of those who would wish to argue along the lines I previously argued, I would ask: why do we have specialist drug courts in the UK? They have worked well. The Liverpool drug court was a great success when it was in full swing, as these courts, or disposals, could be—we are talking about disposals for veterans, to begin with, which is perfectly sensible.

[Mr Anderson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the American experience shows not only that such courts are effective, but that they are economically viable? People are not going to prison, so there are not the problems of family breakdown, and the huge array of things put in place when people keep going back to crime are no longer there, so there is an economic as well as a social case.

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, there is. In addition, ex-service personnel are not used to paying regular bills and so on, and sometimes they do not balance their monthly income and outgoings, they end up in debt and everything spirals from there. I remember speaking with SSAFA in south Wales some time ago, and it told me that about 60% of its work was to do with debt, the handling of money and so on. That is another issue that has rightly been identified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

I hope I do not suffer a sex change, which with this moustache would be awful to see!

When we enter the legislative processes, we usually start with a lot of unanswered questions. What distinguishes the process for this Bill is that we have almost as many such questions now as we had at the very beginning. The Justice Committee took evidence very recently, and experts in the field are asking some fundamental questions about how the procedure will work and how safe it will be. I do not know; obviously, I do not profess to know all the answers.

We have had an interesting debate or two during the Bill’s passage so far. I pay particular tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright)—he is the man steering the Bill through the House—for attempting to engage constructively with the process at all times. I am sure that, on occasion, that has been as difficult for him, as it has been for Opposition Members.

Let me also associate myself, warmly and sincerely, with the tributes that have been paid to our friend and colleague Paul Goggins. He played a large part in the Bill’s progress, speaking as he did with great knowledge.

I welcome the provisions for the rehabilitation of female offenders and for the extension of restorative justice. I also welcome the parallel process—if I may call it that—of over the weekend appointing the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) to prepare a report on veterans. That is all to the good. Overall, however, I still feel uneasy, because there are a great many unanswered questions. I do not pose the following question in expectation of an answer today, but I should be pleased if the Lord Chancellor could respond to it in due course.

During our debates, including those that have taken place today, the Government have prayed in aid the Peterborough social impact bond pilot. The original published figure for crime reduction was 6%. The Under-Secretary of State said on Radio 5 Live that it was 12%. In Committee, the Justice Secretary said that it was 20%, and today, in the Chamber, the Under-Secretary of State said that it was 8%. All four figures cannot be right. It would not be a bad idea for us to be given a single figure, because that disparity underlines my unease about some of the facts and figures that have been cited. I do not think that we should be prodding around in the dark when it comes to such a potentially dangerous area of law.

[Chris Grayling]

I hope that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. Two sets of statistics have been published. The comparators are between the absolutely numerical reduction at Peterborough and the reduction among a comparable group at a prison elsewhere in the country. The 20% figure, which is the highest, refers to the number of further crimes committed by the cohort, while the lower figures show the overall reduction in the absolute rate of reoffending—the binary rate. I should be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman and set out the figures in detail, but I can tell him now that the experience of mentoring at Peterborough has been very encouraging indeed.

[Mr Llwyd]

I thank the Justice Secretary for his response, and I am sure that he is right about mentoring. I think he will find in due course, when the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border reports to him, that it is key to any improvement in dealing with the rehabilitation of ex-service people, and I am sure that that experience will translate into other forms of rehabilitation.

I do not want to elaborate on the position that I have taken, or, indeed, on the position that anyone else has taken. We have had a good-natured tussle over the past few weeks; I only hope that some of our worst fears are misplaced, for the sake of the British people.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the leave of the House. [Laughter.]

I am given to understand that I recently made a speech. Even more unusually, I cannot remember what I said. I know that that happens to all of us sometimes, but what concerns me is that, as far as I am aware, it is a very rare occurrence.

I wanted to give my full support to the speech that was given in my name by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), but also to suggest that, if anything unfortunate was said, you might refer it to my hologram, who may have been speaking instead of me at the time. I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight, and to make clear it that I was somewhere else at the time. That excuse is given commonly enough in politics, but on this occasion it is actually true.