James Bulger Murder: Public Inquiry

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 206851 relating to a public inquiry into the James Bulger murder case.

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I thank the Petitions Committee for granting this opportunity to debate the petition, which refers to the concerns that people, particularly James Bulger’s family, have about what has taken place since James’s brutal murder on 12 February 1993 and their belief that there have been failures in the system.

The petition, signed by 213,624 people, over 8,000 of whom are from Knowsley, was in place in 2018, but has been subject to a lengthy delay because of a Parole Board hearing in relation to further offences committed by one of James’s killers, known at the time as Jon Venables, which was judged to render any debate on the subject sub judice. Now that the Parole Board has rejected Jon Venables’s application for parole, I am grateful that this debate can now take place.

I intend to begin by reiterating the sickening and tragic circumstances of James’s murder. I apologise in advance that those listening will find it harrowing to hear this account of what happened, but it is necessary to remind ourselves why this matter is so visceral, and consequently there are questions, the answers to which are long overdue.

Jon Venables, then aged 10, together with another child of a similar age, abducted two-year-old James, took him to a railway line and savagely murdered him. Denise Fergus, James’s mother, described in her book “I Let Him Go” what occurred on the shopping trip to the Strand shopping centre in Bootle on the day that James was abducted. She said:

“The shopping centre was packed full…James couldn’t believe his luck that for once he was in among the crowd. I held on to his hand but inevitably he would run a yard or so ahead of me, always where I could see him.”

The shopping trip concluded with one last stop, a butcher’s, which is where the abduction took place. In her own words, she describes in the book what then occurred:

“There has been so much written about what happened…and so many opinions given, but I want to make one thing clear: I absolutely did not leave my baby outside the butchers on his own—I would never have done that. He was with me and holding my hand as we went inside. The only time I let go of his hand was to pay for the chops I had bought, and he was standing right beside me. I picked out the meat I wanted and took my bag from my shoulder, got my purse out, opened it to count the…money and, when I looked down, James was gone.”

She goes on:

“There were rumours that circulated afterwards that I had been shoplifting with my mum. Firstly, I have never stolen anything in my life and, secondly, my mum wasn’t even with me on that day. If extra proof was needed, my whole shopping trip was captured and examined frame by frame once the police went through edited CCTV footage. It clearly shows that before 3.39pm I was shopping and after 3.39 my world came crashing down as I frantically tried to find my boy.”

Two days passed, with James’s family understandably in extreme distress as the police and family members searched for James, having found additional CCTV footage that showed he had been taken away by two older boys. On the Sunday following James’s abduction, Denise was called to attend a police station. After an agonising 40-minute wait, one of the police officers investigating the case, Geoff McDonald, told her, “We’ve found him, and it’s not good news.”

As the MP for the area, I was as appalled as everyone else locally, but the wave of public horror was nothing compared with the trauma experienced by James’s family. To lose a child at any time goes against the natural order and against the expectations of any parent, but to do so in such harrowing circumstances is indescribable.

Subsequently, the two boys who had abducted and killed James, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, were arrested, prosecuted and found guilty. During the ensuing years, many questions and frustrations about how matters have since been dealt with have been raised. I will refer to some of those questions later. In the meantime, I want to place on record a statement that Denise has helpfully provided me with:

“'Honourable Members, I ask you with a mother’s heart to consider the questions and the pleas I have laid before you. Try to understand that no mother can simply accept that errors were made or that crucial facts were brushed under the carpet in the case of my child’s murder. For 31 years, I have fought tirelessly—not because it will bring my precious James back, but because he, and every child like him, still deserves justice.

This isn’t just about the past; it’s about the future. It’s about ensuring that no other family has to endure a similar ordeal, that no other child’s life is undervalued by the justice system. We have the power to make changes, to right the wrongs, and to honour the memory of those we’ve lost by protecting the innocent.

Please, I beseech you, take these matters to heart. Consider the impact of these errors and omissions, not just on my family, but on the integrity of our justice system. James’s voice was silenced too soon, but through your actions, his legacy can be one of change and hope.”

As I mentioned earlier, I have some questions for the Minister, and look forward to his response. First, why was the evidence gathered by Merseyside police indicating that Thompson and Venables sexually assaulted James prior to killing him not presented at the trial at Preston Crown court, or to the Parole Board when Venables was released in 2001 and again in 2013? Who made those decisions?

Secondly, Venables’s 2010 conviction for possession of extreme child pornography proves his sexual interest in children. Was that sexual interest in children missed by all the experts, or was it known? Thirdly, was proper consideration given to the attempted abduction of another child earlier on the day that James was murdered—indicating premeditation—at the trial and, later, at the parole hearings? Fourthly, were Thompson and Venables pronounced rehabilitated in order to avoid them entering adult custody, without proper regard to the potential risk posed to children? What representations did Lord Chief Justice Woolf make to the Parole Board?

Before I conclude, I would like to cover a couple of points. First, although not directly related to the petition, a few comments in some of the media coverage of events at the time of James’s murder and since have been unacceptably intrusive in respect of family members. At the time, in breach of the guidance from the then Press Complaints Commission, the intrusion into private grief was callous and cruel. In principle, there is a remedy available by means of a formal complaint on those grounds. However, many people affected are understandably wary of using that, as a published apology in print is usually small, hidden and accompanied by a repetition of the original intrusion. Breaches should incur heavy penalties on media outlets.

Secondly, the question I referred to earlier exposed the fact that the initial response, whether judicial or on the part of Departments, often becomes increasingly opaque and confusing as new information comes to light. A good example of that problem can be found in the Government’s response to the petition, which unfortunately is both overly defensive and vague about how the transparency of Parole Board decision making could be increased and how its decisions could be challenged.

In February 2010 Jon Venables was recalled into custody, following which Sir David Omand was commissioned to conduct a review into the handling of the Jon Venables case between 2001 and 2010. Sir David concluded that the case management of Jon Venables’s case more than met the national standards laid down for the supervision of serious offenders in level 3 multi-agency public protection arrangements. He further concluded with reference to the further serious offence:

“Events classed as low probability do unfortunately… happen despite everyone’s best efforts—that is the difference between low risk and no risk.” I should say that I know Sir David personally and have great respect for his public service over the years. His conclusions, however, inevitably reflect the narrow terms of reference that he was set. As the helpful House of Commons Library debate pack points out, for example, the terms of reference

“did not extend to Venables’ time at the Red Bank secure unit”,

and the review

“did not, therefore, examine allegations reported in the press”

that Venables had had an inappropriate relationship

“with a female member of staff at the unit”.

The petition calls for a public inquiry to best address the issues that remain to be cleared up. On the basis of the Government’s response to the petition, regrettably, it seems unlikely that a public inquiry will be granted. If I am correct in that assumption, I would ask the Minister to consider what alternative might be appropriate. I do not expect that he will be in a position to do so today, but I urge him to give the matter serious consideration, because it is important that those questions and concerns are answered as fully and comprehensively as possible.

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Before I call Members to speak, I remind them that there is a court injunction regarding the release of information related to James Bulger’s murderers, including information about their current identity and whereabouts, and I ask Members to be mindful of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir George Howarth]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then the right hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Howarth]

The point my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) was making is that, had that information been available at the time and during the trial, subsequent decisions that had to be made would have taken on a whole new light. She accepts and I accept—I think we all accept—that the judiciary is independent and that prosecutors should be able to decide what evidence they use, but in this particular case that omission could have led, and probably did lead, to decisions being made in later years that would otherwise have been different.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to address, to a degree, that specific point. Notwithstanding how the CPS and how the case itself was conducted and what evidence was used, when recommending the release in 2001, I am advised that the Parole Board would have been given all relevant information. However, I will undertake further inquiries to see whether it is possible to ascertain this far down the line and within what I can reveal publicly, what that might have constituted. In 2013, the Parole Board did of course have full details of Venables’s conviction for downloading and possessing illegal images of children, and it was therefore able to take that into consideration when considering the risk of sexual harm that he presented to children.

In the second question from the right hon. Member for Knowsley—he is always welcome to correct me if I miss one of his questions out—he asked whether Venables’s sexual interest in children was missed by all the experts, or whether it was known. Again, having discussed it with my officials, my understanding is that prior to his recall in connection to possessing illegal images of children in 2010, the supervising agencies were not aware of Venables’s sexual interest in children. However, they were aware of his broader risk to children, obviously arising in large part from the horrendous events of the murder of James, and that risk was then central to their ongoing management of him.

The third question posed by the right hon. Gentleman was whether proper consideration was given at the trial and at later parole hearings to the attempted abduction of another child earlier on the day that James was tragically murdered. Premeditation is relevant when it comes to any conviction for murder, as a necessity for securing the conviction. As hon. Members would expect, it falls to the CPS and the sentencing judge to consider that factor. I understand that the parole reviews in 2001 and 2013 proceeded on the basis that Venables had been lawfully convicted of murder and of the premeditation and planning involved in that. The Parole Board release decision in 2013 records the board’s awareness and consideration of attempted abductions earlier in the day.

As to the question of whether Thompson and Venables were pronounced to be rehabilitated in order to avoid them entering adult custody, I should clarify for hon. and right hon. Members that it is not the role of the Parole Board to pronounce an offender rehabilitated. Instead, it is constrained to applying the statutory release test when considering whether someone should be released—that is, whether it is necessary on the grounds of public protection for the offender to remain confined in custody, based on available evidence.

I appreciate that that may appear to be a legal splitting of hairs, but there is a slight and subtle difference in the statutory release test about whether there is a necessity on public protection grounds for someone to remain in custody or whether they are deemed to be rehabilitated and a reformed citizen. There is a legal differentiation there. Therefore, in recommending their release in 2001, the Parole Board determined, on the basis of its judgment, that the risks that Thompson and Venables presented were capable of being managed effectively in the community through the restrictions and prohibitions available through the life licence.

Finally, the right hon. Member for Knowsley asked whether representations were made by Lord Chief Justice Woolf to the Parole Board. I asked my officials to look into that and advise, and I can advise all hon. Members that I am not aware that any representations were made by the Lord Chief Justice to the Parole Board. At the time, Thompson and Venables were sentenced to life imprisonment. It fell to the Home Secretary of the day to set their tariff, or how long they would serve, taking account of a recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice. Therefore, any recommendations from the Lord Chief Justice regarding the tariff would have been made to the Home Secretary. In respect of the parole question, having asked again and looked into it, I am not aware that any such representations were made—I caveat that by saying that I have answered to the extent of my knowledge.

I will end my contribution by again paying tribute to Mrs Fergus for not only her tireless campaigning for James, but her determination, as reflected in the statements read out by various right hon. and hon. Members, to make a difference in the future, to help people to learn the lessons and to support young people by setting up the James Bulger Memorial Trust, which provides holidays and respite for families of disadvantaged young people who have been the victims of crime, hatred or bullying, and those who have made a positive contribution to the welfare of others or society in general. The charity’s motto is “For James”, as Denise rightly wants him to be remembered positively as

“the beautiful little boy with the big sparkling smile”,

and not for how his short life ended.

I conclude this sombre debate by once again paying tribute to the dignity and the courage of Denise and her family, to the right hon. Member for Knowsley for securing this debate and approaching it in his typically measured, courteous and appropriate tone, and indeed to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. This debate is a testimony to Denise’s resilience and determination, and above all to her abiding love for James. I hope I will be able to continue the conversations around this matter with the right hon. Gentleman and others.

[Sir George Howarth]

I will be brief, because a lot of ground has been covered in this debate. First, I thank Denise Fergus for initiating the petition, for the briefing she gave and for the inspiration that she has given many of us. Well done. Secondly, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for contributing to the debate in their own distinctive but important ways. They have helped to make it a much better debate than it would have been with just me and those on the Front Bench. I thank my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for the way he listened to and responded to what people had to say, and for the sensitivity he showed in his speech.

Finally, I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive way in which he responded to the debate, and would be happy to take him up on his offer of a meeting to discuss the matter further. I am sure that family members will want to be present. I do hope, though, that that constructive spirit continues. My fear—and this is not a criticism of the Minister—is that there have been so many false dawns in the past that this could become another one. I hope that we can agree on a process that will resolve all those issues. It will not bring James back, but, as his mother said in her statement, it could at least help to prevent anything similar from happening to another child in the future.

I look forward to meeting with the Minister, who I hope will reflect further on my suggestion regarding the public inquiry—by the way, I think there should be a public inquiry, but, if that gets ruled out, there needs to be some alternative way to consider these issues. I am sure the Minister will give thoughtful consideration to that matter so that we can have a meaningful discussion about to proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 206851 relating to a public inquiry into the James Bulger murder case.

Hillsborough: Bishop James Jones Report

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

That is an excellent point. My hon. Friend asks who will determine what is proportionate. The whole point about encouraging Departments to publish material is that the public can make an assessment of whether it is proportionate. Frankly, that is an ordinary English word and people should know what it means. If they do not, that will become clear.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the Lord Chancellor for today’s statement, which, as he conceded, is long overdue. I add my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for the painstaking work she did to expose the evidence that existed but had never been taken into account. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who recognised that there was an injustice that had to be put right and who set up the process by which Bishop James was able to bring all the lies and cover-ups to light.

Following the Hillsborough disaster, I and two of my constituents—Mr and Mrs Joynes, who had lost a son at Hillsborough—attended part of the first inquest. I was shocked by the extent to which that inquest was such a travesty; it seemed to be aimed at blaming the fans, rather than the authorities, for what happened. One thing that came out of that—I have said this before—is that there was a massive effort to stereotype football fans as responsible for something they were actually victims of. I welcome the fact that there will be a public advocate, but to be absolutely certain, we need to put that role on the statute book.

[Alex Chalk]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the support he has given to his constituents. I can confirm that the IPA is being put on the statute book.

Cammell Laird Workers Imprisoned in 1984

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for this debate. I absolutely agree with her concluding point, which I want to come on to in a little bit.

On balance, it is difficult not to conclude from the papers I have read that a significant group of Ministers in 1984 were so determined to drive through the complete privatisation of British shipbuilders, regardless of the wider economic and social consequences, that they decided that to achieve this, Cammell Laird had to close, and that any employee or union resistance had to be resolutely confronted.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

When I was an engineering apprentice in the late 1960s in Liverpool, it was abundantly clear to anyone working in engineering that Cammell Laird was important not only for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend, but also for training engineers, who then went off into other areas of the industry. The case that he is making and the evidence he has referred to are important. He has highlighted two options on how to proceed, but if those are not feasible, would something similar to the Hillsborough inquiry carried out by Bishop James Jones, where all the evidence could be properly reviewed and perhaps point in a different direction, be a potential third option? Perhaps the Minister might consider that in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The new Bill refers to very specific areas of service in specific sectors, subject to further delegated legislation where such minimum service levels could be required. I do not think the parallel he draws is directly analogous.

It is important to note that the world has changed since the 1980s. Back then, unions tended to protect their members through collective action and did not rely on the courts to the same extent that they do today. Individual employment rights were less common than they are now. Since the 1980s, the industrial relations landscape has significantly changed, with a greater emphasis on individual rights. Nowadays, when they are recruiting, employers cannot discriminate on the grounds of trade union membership or activity. Similarly, an employer cannot dismiss a worker for being a member of, or active in, a trade union. Workers benefit from legal protections when taking lawful industrial action.

Today, blacklisting is, rightly, completely unacceptable and has no place in modern employment relations. Any individual or trade union who believes they have been a victim of this practice can enforce their rights under the regulations, through an employment tribunal or the county court. The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 are further reinforced by powers in the Data Protection Act 2018 protecting the use of personal data, including information on trade union membership and sensitive personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office regulates the use of personal data and investigates breaches of the Data Protection Act. It has the power to take enforcement action, including searching premises, issuing enforcement notices and imposing fines for serious breaches. Anyone with evidence of offences in that area should present it to the Information Commissioner’s office.

The specific question posed by this debate relates to the potential merit of holding a public inquiry into the Cammell Laird workers imprisoned in 1984. As I have alluded to in reference to the hon. Member for Harrow West, I do recognise that this is an issue of abiding parliamentary interest, and the number of hon. Members in the Chamber today reflects that. Although debates in this Chamber are often about important subjects, it is not always as well populated with hon. Members.

Public inquiries are independent investigations into matters of significant public concern. They can be established by the Government and led by an independent chair. They are usually asked to establish the facts surrounding a particular serious issue and consider the lessons to be learned from what has happened, as well as to make recommendations intended to help correct the deficiencies for the future. For example, an inquiry might be established to determine the cause of a major disaster or accident.

When the Government determine that a matter is sufficiently serious to meet the bar to warrant an inquiry, there are number of options for the form that might take, including the establishment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. As the right hon. Member for Knowsley highlighted, that is not the only option in this space. Unfortunately, by the vagaries of how debates are allocated, although the Ministry of Justice owns the Inquiries Act 2005 and Inquiry Rules 2006, Justice Ministers do not have any power to decide whether to set up such an inquiry. That would fall to the Department with the policy or operational responsibility for the issue under consideration. Therefore, as a Justice Minister, I have no power to agree to the request for a public inquiry. However, industrial relations and how they were historically dealt with, although not a matter for the Ministry of Justice, do fall under other Government Departments. Although I cannot comment on the merits of an inquiry in this instance, other Departments would have an interest. I will turn to that in a moment.

Document disclosure is a vital part of an inquiry, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West highlighted. As the Government have previously set out, this Department has conducted extensive searches of its records and those in the court and prison systems. I understand that nothing has been found in relation to the Cammell Laird strike action or the strikers themselves. Other Departments—the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as it was until a few hours ago today—have likewise confirmed that they do not believe they hold potentially relevant material.

This is an area of legal complexity. In the spirit of constructiveness, I want to try to address some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Harrow West and the shadow Minister about previous answers on this and explore other routes that might be available—notwithstanding that I cannot opine on the merits of a public inquiry.

[Sir George Howarth]

The Minister referred to the fact that I said there was a potential third option. Would he be willing to consider an independent panel, along the lines of the Hillsborough Independent Panel? My view, like those of my hon. Friends and others, is that there should be a public inquiry, but if that is not possible for legal reasons, there is that option to explore.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for suggesting a potential third way. Again, that would not fall within the powers of the Ministry of Justice. I suspect it is the sort of thing that may fall under the remit of the Cabinet Office—that is one of the four jobs I held in brief succession last summer, so I still remember some of that.

I hope I can give the hon. Member for Harrow West a constructive response.

Assisted Dying

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 604383, relating to assisted dying.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

Assisted dying is an emotive issue that I have thought about long and hard. I was grateful to the Petitions Committee and also to the creator of the petition, Sarah Wootton, for arranging a meeting with some of the families who have been through traumatic and upsetting experiences. I was really pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Liz Carr, who has long campaigned against the introduction of assisted dying. Both meetings were very emotional, but I was able to get a much better understanding of the situation by having those important conversations, so I am extremely grateful to Emma from the Petitions Committee for organising them.

My role today is to present this petition on behalf of the Committee, but I hope that I will be able to represent fairly the views of those I met. It was a real honour last week to meet the families who are here today in the room. Hearing their stories was emotional and informative. They spoke with dignity about their loved ones’ final days and weeks, and I am glad to see them here today. I hope that when making interventions in this debate Members will be mindful that this is a very real situation for many people here today. I also hope that Members will allow me the time to tell their stories without interruption. I understand that colleagues will want to make their own points, but plenty of time has been put aside for the debate this afternoon.

Opinion polls have shown that there is wide support for a change in the law to make assisted dying legal in this country. Research commissioned by Dignity in Dying in 2019 showed that 84% of Britons supported assisted dying for terminally ill people. That is a huge proportion of people who would like to see a change in the way we deal with this situation.

We have not had a debate on this issue in this place for two and a half years, and there has been no vote on it for seven. A lot has changed in that time, including a pandemic that has shifted the conversation that the country is having about death. There has also been a change in attitudes in other countries and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Jersey, Scotland and the Isle of Man are all looking at changes. Australia, New Zealand, Spain and others have all introduced measures around assisted dying.

In our meeting, we spoke to Jan and her daughter Sarah. Jan is currently planning for the end of her life after receiving a terminal diagnosis. She explained to me that she has three options: going to a hospice, ending her life in a hospital, or receiving hospice care at home. Jan is worried that hospice at home care will cause untold problems for her family. Not only will it mean that her loved ones are largely responsible for her care in her final days, but there are long-term effects of the trauma that her dying at home will cause. Jan is worried that hospice care will not be appropriate and there will be limits on the number of people who will be able to visit her at the end of her life. Jan said that it would not be a good place for her to die. All she wants is a choice of a peaceful end surrounded those she loves.

With no other viable option, Jan has signed up to Dignitas, so that when it comes, she has a choice about her end of life. That in itself causes problems, as she would probably have to do it before she is ready because she needs to travel independently. Jan and her daughter both spoke of the anxiety that it has caused them and their loved ones. The worry and anguish that the decision causes for many families was a theme through all the stories that I heard.

I spoke to Carol, whose sister Alison died just over a year ago. Alison had head and neck cancer. She was only 63 years old. Her sister went through lots of treatment—radiotherapy and chemotherapy—and was given lots of opiates to deal with the pain. Alison was persuaded to go to a hospice for the end of life care that she needed, but only after her pain and anxiety became unmanageable. At the hospice, Carol noticed that the care that Alison was receiving was governed by strict protocols that were not appropriate for Alison’s needs.

As a retired doctor, Carol thought that she would be able to advocate well for her sister, but that did not turn out to be the case. Alison saw eight different doctors in two months while she was at the hospice. She was given different information by different people. Some agency staff were not sufficiently trained in palliative care to look after Alison as well as they could. Protocols dictated that pain relief medication could only be increased by 25% in every 24 hours, but Alison had built up a tolerance to opiates over the course of her illness and was in an incredible amount of pain. All those things culminated in what Carol described as a horrible death, which left everyone traumatised—Alison’s husband and children, and Carol, too. Alison’s family stayed with her 24 hours a day in the last couple of weeks because she was so anxious about a lack of medicine.

I also met Gareth. Gareth’s dad had prostate cancer. He lived for 10 years on hormone treatment. When he was given his diagnosis, as a military man who always had guns, he said, “I’ll just shoot myself.” No one thought he was serious, but Gareth said that it gave him an element of control. As his illness got worse, Gareth said it was like his dad was “dying in front of our eyes.” He had no quality of life.

Finally, Gareth’s dad said that he was ready to go into a hospice, but that did not seem to be his intention. One day, Gareth’s dad rang him to say that he could not deal with another night like the last one and said, “I’m going to shoot myself. See ya.” Gareth immediately rang his dad back, but his dad did not speak. Gareth rang the police. He spoke to his sister, who lived close by, and she rushed to her dad’s house. Gareth’s sister went in, hoping that she would be in time to stop her dad, but he had already shot himself in the head.

Gareth’s sister’s husband was also, at the time, terminally ill with brain cancer. She and her daughters then had to watch her husband die at home after he stopped all his medication. That took a week. Gareth’s sister now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, and his nieces are traumatised by the experience. Gareth wants people to be more open in their conversations about death. Speaking about death and not being afraid to discuss it can only lead to better decisions for everyone.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The examples my hon. Friend is using powerfully make the case. Does she agree that now is the time to legislate so that the end of life care issues she mentions can be accommodated? As she points out, there are people in circumstances where all quality of life is gone, yet the legal situation is, at best, muddy and unclear; at worst, it works against the interests of people whose quality of life is completely gone.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution, because that is often the case. Clearly, Gareth wanted people to know that he does not think what his dad did was actually suicide, but bringing an end to his suffering.

Susan’s husband, Duncan, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, which we all know has no cure. Susan described Duncan as a very strong character who, after researching MND, determined straightaway that he was going to be in control of his own death. Until he had a plan in place, he was distressed and unhappy, but once he had a plan, he could start to live again. Three years after his diagnosis, Duncan took his own life at home with help from Susan. He left information for the police about how and why he had done it. Although his intention had been to do it when Susan was not at home, Susan said that, after 42 years of very happy marriage, she could not not be there for him at the end.

Despite the information that Duncan left, it was six months before the Crown Prosecution Service deemed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Susan. She was interviewed for six hours under caution by the police, which, after the death of her husband, was obviously very distressing. I cannot imagine how it must feel to have something like that hanging over you when you should be grieving the loss of a loved one. Susan had the means to fight these charges and her solicitor eventually got her arrest removed from her record. What happens to someone who does not have the money to stand up to a criminal justice system that demonises people who find themselves in this invidious position?

Susan also believes that because Duncan made his intentions clear, the doctor seemed reluctant to give him drugs to help him sleep, which exacerbated his problems. Ultimately, Susan takes comfort in the fact that Duncan got the death he wanted. However, it is a tragedy that his death was not within the law. We know that people falling foul of the criminal justice system is not uncommon in situations where someone ends their life, but empathy and sensitivity are required in these situations—not the heavy-handed approach we have seen too often.

Tim was a carer to his friend, David, who also had motor neurone disease. Within two days of his diagnosis, David had signed up to Dignitas. It was more than two and a half years before he died, after travelling to Switzerland. There is only one end to a diagnosis of MND, and David was not willing to be trapped in his body while his brain was still functioning. By making the decision to join Dignitas, David had some peace of mind. However, even with his membership, the process was not always easy; information was not forthcoming until certain points in David’s illness, and the full picture was not available until they reached Switzerland.

It would have been so much easier if David could have done it at home. At home, the only option David was given was to be sedated for three weeks while his body shut down—as Tim said, prolonging the suffering. When Tim spoke about the inevitability of David’s death, he said that doctors were willing to prolong his life to the extent where the consequences were not worth it. Pain was not really an issue for David, but the suffering that he went through—not being able to sleep due to choking; having to be fed through a tube in his stomach—was unbearable.

Throughout this process, all participants have spoken of the anxiety that they faced because they or their loved ones did not have the option of assisted dying. As Jan said in her contribution, knowing that there is an option for assisted dying is an insurance policy: it may not be something you decide to do in the end, but having it there is a comfort. We have to consider the impact on the families who are left behind. Having to watch a loved one die is never easy, but prolonging the suffering can lead to trauma and PTSD for families and friends. I have already spoken on the record about my father dying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for the very sensitive way she opened the debate. I also commend the powerful speeches we have heard so far.

I oppose the view expressed in the petition, essentially for the following reason: if we were to legalise assisted dying, we would impose an awful moral dilemma on every conscientious frail person nearing the end of their life. We have probably all known a number of such people. They have a lot of anxieties at that stage of their life. They worry very much about being a burden on their children, needing care from them and consuming resources that their children would otherwise inherit. If ending their life early were legally permissible, many who do not want to end their life would feel under great, probably irresistible, pressure to do so. There is no way to stop that happening.

[Sir George Howarth]

Knowing my right hon. Friend as I do, I know he is sincere in his views. He talks of the group of people who are at the end of their life and might feel under pressure to conserve the inheritance of their children or not to be a burden on them, but there is another group, rarely talked about, who put pressure on their parents or loved ones to stay alive. They do so out of love. Would he accept that both sides, more often than not, act out of love, rather than for venal reasons, so does not one argument cancel out the other?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I accept wholly the point my right hon. Friend makes. I think a lot of the people I am concerned about, and expressing a worry about, are deeply loved by their children but do not want to put an undue burden on them. I am not saying that those children want to hasten their death or anything like that. I do not think that is often the case, although occasionally it might be.

I do think that conscientious and frail elderly people will feel that they ought to avoid being a burden, and they will feel a pressure to end their lives prematurely as a result. I would say that we ought not to impose such a burden on vulnerable people nearing the end of their lives. The penalty that would come from doing so would be significantly greater than the considerable benefits we have heard set out in the debate.

Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of encouragement. It has been an enormous effort across the whole of Government to put this plan together. I congratulate my team, and I thank my fellow Ministers who have worked on putting it in place. My hon. Friend is quite right that we need to focus very much on drugs in the home. The funding that is put in place, although it is routed through the Department of Health and Social Care, will go to local authorities, which will then be able to design their own services locally to fit their own requirements and demographic. Some of that might be in the home, some of it might be residential, and some of it might be on an out-patient basis. We do not want to be prescriptive at this stage, but this will be channelled through local authorities, which can design services appropriately.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I welcome the measures set out in the Government’s new strategy and the funding that goes with it. I particularly welcome the emphasis on disrupting supplies and dealing with those who already have addiction problems. One piece of the jigsaw that seems to be missing, although I may have missed it, is targeting of so-called drug barons and the extent to which money laundering is going on in this country, always through legitimate businesses and increasingly, I think, through some private landlords. Will the Minister say a word about how the Government intend to tackle that specific problem?

Prison Officers: Pension Age

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will try for less than that, Sir Charles. I declare an interest as another honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. As one of my witty colleagues said, the only benefit is possibly a more comfortable cell.

The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) summed up the argument precisely. I just want to remind colleagues that we had this debate some time ago with regard to firefighters and we had it with regard to police. I can remember the consensus that was built. No one wanted a firefighter of 60-odd coming through that window to carry us down a ladder. No one wanted that. Similarly, nobody wanted to see police at this age—up to 68—going out on the streets and trying to defend us when such physical assaults were occurring at the time. Nobody wanted that. To be frank, the reason why prison officers have been discriminated against is that, like their prisoners, they are locked away and we just want to look away completely from the problems that they experience. That is the reality of it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for time and again bringing to this House the reality of what the members of the Prison Officers Association and those across the service are actually experiencing—the physical nature of the job.

Let me also remind people of this. When we had the firefighters discussion, we looked at or had actuarial work done, and one of the interesting things was the number who died soon after retirement. We could not understand that, but part of it relates to their experience in work and particularly the stress that they were under, causing cardiovascular problems.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

If my right hon. Friend does not mind, I just want to finish.

Exactly the same applies to prison officers. In fact, some would argue that it applies more, because the nature of the threat is continuous. The time has come to deal with this. Exactly as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has said, the talks need to start to resolve it now, because none of us wants to put these workers through that sort of threat, suffering and stress—all of that—by forcing them to work that much longer.

In addition to that, the point that they would make—this is dedication to the job—is that they want to deliver the best service possible. When they get to a certain age, they are not able to guarantee the safety of the prisoners, because they do not have the physical resource to do it. What officers want to do is deliver a quality service. We should be supporting them in that, so the appeal is to start the talks again, start negotiating, and if more is to be paid in contributions, more should be paid in salary to compensate for that.

Prison Officers: Pension Age

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis. We heard the Minister talking this morning about the recruitment of an additional 4,500 prison officers, but from the information provided by the POA it seems that substantial numbers of newly trained prison officers—at least 72 trainee prison officers—are leaving the service each month. That must be due, at least in part, to the terrible conditions they face. Again, that is placing great strain on older officers who are expected to take up the slack.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, as did the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson). Is it not the case that beyond a certain point some jobs are difficult to do? In the past, that could have included construction workers, working on cold, tough building sites in the dead of winter. This is another example of people reaching a point in life when it is no longer tenable for them to be expected to carry out these duties.

[Grahame Morris]

It is no longer tenable, Mr Hanson. We have reached tipping point, if I might quote a couple of quiz shows. The fact that prison officers are expected to work until the age of 68 disregards basic health and safety; in the opinion of many, it is a complete failure by the Ministry of Justice in its duty of care, under legislation, to prison officers.

I and many Members of the House believe that our uniformed emergency services deserve pension protection. Police officers and firefighters are able to retire at 60,

“to reflect the unique nature of their work”,

to quote Lord Hutton. A prison officer’s unique nature of work has been recognised as being the same as that of a police officer. Section 8 of the Prison Act 1952 gives prison officers

“all the powers, authority, protection and privileges”

of police officers. So the Hutton pension test—

“to reflect the unique nature of their work”—

applies equally to prison officers, police officers and firefighters. Sixty-eight is too late. How many Members of this House would be able to serve on prison landings at 68? There are few who would be able to serve for a week, or even a day, in such violent and dangerous prisons.

Knife Crime

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell]

Absolutely. I will certainly do that, but I am sure that the Minister could respond in his closing remarks. It is important that whatever mechanism we use is effective, not counterproductive. We all need to consider that.

I want to highlight the great success of the Police Scotland violence reduction unit, which has halved the murder rate in a 10-year period. Members will know that it worked closely with partners such as the NHS, education and social workers. However, its work went ahead in conjunction with a no-nonsense approach to those who crossed the line. I think that is what we need. I hope that we can replicate that in Greater London.

Low-level offences must be policed proactively, to challenge the culture of criminality and antisocial behaviour. That is why supporting the police is not just about resourcing. It is also about making sure they have the powers to get on with the job and be effective on the ground. I get deeply worried, as I am sure other hon. Members do, when I hear from constituents that they believe low-level crime such as shoplifting and burglary no longer gets taken as seriously as it should by the police. The Offensive Weapons Bill, which was introduced last year, will make it harder for young people to buy knives and acid online, and that is good. However, the public are wary of legislation that gives a tough narrative but leads to minimal action against violent offenders who will simply be more innovative about getting access to dangerous weapons.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for their positive conduct of the debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is right to concentrate for much of his speech on police resources, how the police are organised, and sentencing. He touched a moment ago on what happened in Glasgow. Does he agree that in addition to proper police resourcing and sentencing, it is necessary to interrupt the activities of organised crime, which often, through the drugs industry, sit behind the rise in knife crime? At the same time, should there be diversionary activities for the young people who are vulnerable to falling into the trap? All that takes resources.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I could not agree more. That is the route into much of the crime. There is a drug and gang culture. We see that across London, and although the right hon. Gentleman is not a London MP, I am sure similar cultures are building up in other parts of the country. As I said on the London section of “Daily Politics”, we have to crush that culture, no matter what community, town or borough we come from. If young people get into that culture, that leads to violence and ruins lives. We need to get underneath the problem and ensure that it is curtailed and stopped.

Although I hope that the serious violence strategy will deliver on its promise to provide more funds for such activities, we must provide legal powers to tackle this issue. The policies we put in place for knife crime prevention must not simply paper over the cracks.

I frequently request updates from my local police on Operation Venice, the operation launched to tackle moped-related crime. Naturally, I sought clarification on whether it was true that police were not giving chase to suspects on two-wheeled vehicles. I received countless reports from my constituents that the police were not being allowed to do their job and apprehend those hooligans.

I must tell the Minister that I was dumbfounded by the blame game that ensued. The Government said that guidance is provided by the College of Policing, yet police on the ground simply did not have comfort in the protections given to them. Eventually sense prevailed, and last November saw a massive crackdown on moped thieves, who were regularly threatening innocent people. Alongside the new confidence given to the police in using tactical contacts, the media covered the new approach widely. The result is that we have now seen moped-enabled crimes in the capital fall by 47% in the space of a few months.

A strategy such as that shows that we can tackle crime; where it is evolving and getting out of control, a strategy can be put in place and crime can be knocked on the head. A similar, much more radical strategy is needed to tackle knife crime in London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I absolutely agree. I am making the point that it is not only about policing. However, in the short term, that is where we have to go. That is all I am saying. It should never have got to this point, with the breakdown of all that.

The system—this is true of Justice or whatever—does not look at what works. For example, on youth crime, exclusions and kids not being in school have an impact. That is a no-brainer. We do not need a research project on that costing millions of pounds. Everybody knows it. People on the street know it, every Member knows it and everybody watching our proceedings will know that it has an effect. We have a problem in how we deal with those young people. There are brilliant examples of pupil referral units and activity with young people excluded from school, but many of those young people disappear. Everybody is responsible but nobody is.

That has to change, otherwise those young people just drift into a twilight zone where they are exploited by criminals or associate with people who parade around estates saying, “Do you want to make some money? I’ll show you how to make some money. Don’t listen to them.” We know that that goes on. We have to take that culture on, but we cannot do it without being honest. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) is absolutely right: proper provision for excluded young people is fundamental. Some of it works, and some of it does not. We have to find a way of ensuring that good practice is spread much more widely.

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend speaks with his normal passion and insight. He is right on exclusions from school and young people disappearing, but there is another problem. When some youngsters are sent to alternative provision because they are too much of a nuisance in school, some of it is very good, but some of it is nothing more than poor childminding. We need to urgently look at alternative provision.

[Vernon Coaker]

I absolutely agree. The Minister will know, because his Department will report to him, that some of the alternatives to prison or custodial sentences are rubbish, but other alternatives are brilliant. If we know what works, why are we not replicating it instead of the Justice Department funding alternative provision outside some schools or inside others? Why do we not replicate those things that work and that prevent young people who have been excluded from school from getting involved? I know that this is not a fashionable thing to say in a time of localism. Localism is absolutely right, but sometimes the Government have to pick it up and drive it. This is one area in which they should drive it forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and the hon. Member for Romford made the point, as I am sure will others, that the Minister has a tough job. The public will say that anybody carrying a knife—I am not talking about the use of a knife—is completely unacceptable, and that they should be jailed straight away. They will also say that people should not have a second chance when it comes to something as serious as that.

All Governments, including the last Labour Government, write into every bit of legislation that courts have discretion to look at circumstances, but that is the bit of the mandatory sentencing guidelines that nobody reads. I am appalled by repeat cautioning and the fact that the courts seem in many instances to fail to act on persistent offending. However, even I can see that, if somebody stuffs a knife in the pocket of an idiotic 12-year-old lad but he cannot prove it, we have to let the court try to find out whether he deliberately carried the knife or whether somebody had put it on him, or had threated to beat him up unless he took it. We have to be careful about saying that, in every single circumstance and in every single case, the first time a pathetic girl or boy—that is what they are—carries a knife, they should be jailed forever and the key should be thrown away. I do not accept the inability of the state or the Government to explain that to people. Everybody says, “We’re going to be tough. We’re going to have mandatory sentencing. We’re going to lock all of them up.” Of course, that does not happen, because rightly in a democracy we have the legal system and the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary, including any of us if we were magistrates, would look at the circumstances of an individual case and say that in that instance they do not want to send the person to a place like that described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), because they deserve a chance.

There are not many people in our Parliament who would not allow the courts discretion, but I say to the Minister—again, the Government should be shouting this—that he should explain that and tell people. He should not hide behind harsh rhetoric. He should do what I have just done and explain that, even in a national emergency—a knife crime epidemic—there will be circumstances in which the courts will want to exercise discretion. The Minister no doubt has that in the notes for his speech at the conclusion of the debate.

The legislation talks about mandatory sentencing except in exceptional circumstances. What does that mean? The Minister is brandishing the guidelines at us, but they are not interpreted across the judicial system in a fair and consistent way. That drives people mad—it drives me mad—and undermines the system. Alongside all the things that I have discussed, the sentencing by the courts is crucial. There has to be an expectation that people are jailed, whether they be young children, older children or adults, but there has to be more consistency. Figures were given by the hon. Member for Romford. It cannot be right that huge numbers of people are being cautioned again and again. It cannot be right that between different courts some people are going to jail and others are not. It cannot be right that nobody among the public properly understands what “exceptional circumstances” means—no Minister has properly gone out there to articulate and explain it. This Minister will have an opportunity to do that when he winds up the debate.

Prisoners: Outdoors Endurance Activities

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for obtaining the debate. He made a convincing and eloquent case, highlighting the benefits and positives of outdoor endurance activities. I join him in thanking all those who work in the prison system, who are doing a very difficult job.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a keen interest in the prison system, particularly in the challenges faced by prison officers, but also in programmes designed to help young offenders. One of those is of course the Airborne Initiative, which he has spoken highly of, and he displays great passion in supporting it. It is a breath of fresh air to hear success stories from the criminal justice system, and the Airborne Initiative clearly is one. That is not to say that we must not talk about the challenges faced in prisons. The present situation is an emergency, which bleeds through to outdoor endurance activities, including those that the hon. Gentleman promotes.

I thank all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate on an issue that deserves attention for the clear benefits associated with it. Some Members have mentioned similar schemes with benefits. The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) talked about someone who went to prison for serious offences and was effectively rehabilitated and experienced positive effects while he was there; when he came out he spoke to warn others of the risks of offending. I have had the benefit of working on a similar scheme in my district, where rehabilitated offenders worked, in partnership with the police, fire service, local authority and others, with young people at risk of falling over the cliff edge into a life of crime. The message was a simple one, from someone who had served time in prison and was telling young people about the risks and dangers, and what prison life is really like. Unfortunately—tragically—a life of crime is sometimes glamorised for young people, and shown in a “blingy” way. That is just one project, and clearly there are massive advantages to be gained.

Being outdoors can have a significant impact on wellbeing. That cannot be overlooked. However, extended and endurance activities can help to improve mental health and reduce reoffending rates. Young offenders have often lacked such opportunities. Many have never have been part of a team on a 50-plus-mile hike over several days, and they feel the benefits even more keenly. Anything that can improve mental health in prisons must be seized with two hands because there is an epidemic of mental health issues within prison walls. Accurate figures do not exist because the Government do not collect them, but even optimistic estimates give the number of prisoners with a mental health issue as one in three—higher than in the general population. Many of them have serious mental illnesses, but many others have milder conditions, where exercise and meaningful activity can have a positive impact. Both the NHS and the Royal College of Psychiatrists endorse that. I do not profess that exercise and outdoor endurance activities are some kind of silver bullet for mental health issues; clearly they are not. They are a useful tool as part of a wider arsenal, as they can help to provide offenders with motivation to get their lives back on track and reduce reoffending.

Poor mental health and low self-esteem among prisoners increase their chances of reoffending, so it is only logical that positive mental health should reduce it. The impact on mental health of outdoor activity reduces reoffending rates, as do the Airborne Initiative and the Duke of Edinburgh Award, which cannot be encouraged enough in young offender institutions. In these programmes, offenders are exposed to a wealth of transferable skills such as manual work, navigation, planning and teamwork, among others that the hon. Member for South Dorset highlighted. All those skills can be used to build a CV and increase employability, or to light and develop a passion for activities that can be pursued through education.

It does not matter whether work or education is chosen; both reduce dire reoffending rates—almost half of adult and more than half of young offenders reoffend within a year. We also have to tackle the issue of reoffending to address the wider challenge of overcrowding, which leads to prisoners doubling up in single-occupancy cells and being locked up for most of the day. Outdoor endurance activities can have a positive impact on the prison estate as a whole among the offenders who are able to participate. As I mentioned, the effect of these activities on young offenders is even stronger, so programmes such as the Airborne Initiative are best targeted on them.

Young people who go to prison are some of the most vulnerable individuals in the country, and also the most neglected. They experience difficult upbringings and challenging circumstances that crush their self-esteem, sometimes leading to their becoming offenders in the first place. No one is born an offender; there is no genetic predisposition to committing a crime. It is purely down to an individual’s environment lacking support mechanisms or role models, both of which are provided by outdoor endurance activities and similar programmes. Instructors and supervisors give young offenders someone positive who they can look up to, and who can help build their self-confidence.

The positive impacts are there for all to see, but why are they not implemented on a wide scale across the country? Surely the Government recognise their impact. We should be doing everything that we can to improve the life chances of offenders, to prevent them from coming back and costing the Government the £13 billion that reoffending costs. Unfortunately, unless the Government address seriously their underfunding of the prison system, wider adoption of any outdoor endurance activities remains a pipe dream. Their potential is constrained by the consequences of policies that prevent offenders from doing any outdoor activity at all, let alone week-long residential trips. Offenders are locked up for most of the day because of the increasing violence that has become all too common in our prison system, which a number of hon. Members have referenced.

That violence is the consequence of the huge reduction in prison officers towards which the Government have actively contributed, with measly pay offers and pressure piled on remaining officers. The dwindling prison officer numbers are the reason why prisoners cannot be let out of their cells, and why any initiatives to get prisoners into the great outdoors for the Airborne Initiative or other schemes cannot be adopted wholesale and rolled out nationwide. There are not enough prison officers to supervise them while they are away from prison, and there are not enough officers to escort them there in the first place.

The Government clearly do not grasp the benefits that outdoor activities can provide for offenders. If they did, they would not force local authorities to cut the youth services that provide the same development of skills and teamwork as outdoor endurance activities, and that provide the same reduction in reoffending rates among young people. Between 2010 and 2016, almost £400 million was cut from youth services, leading to a loss of nearly 140,000 places and the closure of 600 youth centres. The Government are now being asked to put the cart before the horse: to support services that combat reoffending among young offenders, but they should have been providing those same services that deliver the same benefits to young people before they go on to commit a first offence.

It is all very well and good to put these ideas forward; we should be looking at both new and proven ways to reduce reoffending and increase the wellbeing of offenders, but because of the Government’s policies, that sadly cannot happen to the extent that it needs to. Offenders are locked up for too long even to do basic outdoor activities, and prison officers are not present in the numbers needed to escort and supervise offenders safely. Although the Minister is new, I am very keen to hear his views not only on outdoor activities, but on some of the broader issues that have been raised in the debate.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I am sure that the Minister needs no reminding before I call him to speak, but it is customary to leave time at the end of the debate for the Member moving the motion to briefly respond. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

I will not keep everyone waiting for long. I thank the Minister for that most helpful reply. The only point he did not mention, I think, was about meeting the three guests afterwards to discuss ROTL and the problems governors have. If he could, they would much appreciate that. I thank all who participated in and supported the debate from all parts of the House. We had an eloquent speech from the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), whose experience came through in buckets.

I entirely agree that through-mentoring is essential, and yes, as we discussed before we came into the debate, it could be extended to adults. The only comment to make about that is, “Let’s get it right for the young first and really get it going.” I thank the Minister for getting hold of the governor and saying, “When this comes up, we want the 22 places filled.” Let us get that working and, as has been suggested, get the facts, statistics and costs in black and white. Then, if it really is working, there will be even more evidence to push it out.

Finally, as the Minister said, the key is those who run the organisations, systems and initiatives. These young people get five days or six days of brilliance with an ex-regimental sergeant-major, a footballer or whoever it may be, who inspires them to say, “Oh, my goodness gracious—I have never met this before,” but then, oomph, back into prison they go. Through-mentoring will be key to ensure that, when they go back into prison, someone is there with the next initiative, or whatever it may be. I absolutely concur.

Thank you for listening to me for so long, Mr Howarth, and I thank all those who contributed. I also thank the Minister very much for his helpful reply.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Perhaps I will abuse the privilege of the Chair—unusually for me—and say that it was a privilege to chair a debate in which everyone who took part made thoughtful contributions. Taken as a whole, it was a constructive debate—even down to the Minister’s response, in which he set himself some rather big targets.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered outdoors endurance activities for prisoners.

Mental Health in Prisons

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. We have approximately 25 minutes before I call the Front Benchers and four people wish to speak. If people exercise restraint in their use of time, we should get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind them that there are two other people left to speak, and 10 minutes left for them all to speak in, before the Front Benchers. It would be good if the remaining speakers could share that time.