Prison Education and Welfare Services

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I am pleased to have secured this debate on education and welfare services in prisons—an important subject that affects the lives of thousands of prisoners throughout the United Kingdom, where 85,000 people are in prison. According to the Government’s figures, 81,000 are men and just under 4,000 are women. More than half of the UK’s prison population are in their 20s and 30s and therefore likely to have many years of freedom ahead of them upon their release.

In the first instance, prison must be seen as a punishment: a restriction of an individual’s freedom in response to their behaviour. However, it should not be a place that permanently reduces their life chances upon release. Offenders who are ex-offenders should be regarded as ex-offenders; they should be given the chance to move on with their lives and given a second chance. However, for some offenders, whole-of-life prison terms are more than appropriate; others, such as paedophiles and those who cannot be reformed, in my view deserve longer sentences than is currently the case. I hope that the Government will look at that in detail. I also think that tariffs for breaching the Official Secrets Act and acts of treason are far too lenient and might not deter those who would seek to undermine our nation’s national security.

For some offenders, however, prison can be an opportunity for them to change and turn their lives around—there is an opportunity, through education and welfare services, statutory or otherwise, to rehabilitate prisoners and provide them with the knowledge and skills to help them to lead successful and productive lives in their communities upon release. Through education courses, prisoners will be better equipped to find and sustain employment on release, becoming an asset to local communities and the wider economy. Education is still very much an escalator to opportunity and should be a key focus of the Government’s prisons policy. It has been estimated that up to 80% of prisoners have a reading age lower than that of an 11-year-old. That does not bode well for their employment on release or their successful reintegration into local communities.

A large proportion of prison education services are provided by the Government through the offenders’ learning and skills service, as well as through a number of Government-contracted providers. Although welcome, such statutory services tend to focus only on key basic skills such as maths and literacy. Those are of course important, but the training does not usually go beyond level 2, which is equivalent to a GCSE. The courses are highly valuable for prisoners, particularly those from poor educational backgrounds, and the Government deserve credit for increasing prisoner participation in them.

One of the key providers of such courses is A4E, which does some excellent work in helping former prisoners into employment, often bringing potential employers into prisons and giving offenders the chance to demonstrate their skills in a work-like environment. However, there are still areas in which the Government can improve the provision of educational services and make further progress. In particular, the focus on processes and outputs alone, where pressure is put on providers to get prisoners on to and through courses, risks missing those prisoners who require more focused, specialised, bespoke and, in some cases, higher-level teaching experience than the current system provides.

It is also difficult for education providers to draw down funding for courses beyond level 2, which results in a distinct lack of progress for prisoners who come from a stronger educational background. Furthermore, the comparative lack of more engaged learning, including more practical and vocational courses—such as gym courses, as well as workshops and other creative activities—risks alienating individuals who may not be academically minded but nevertheless have other practical skills that could equip them for the outside workplace. That is why the role of charities is important, because it often falls to charities and other external organisations to provide educational services in areas not currently covered by the offenders’ learning and skills service, or OLASS.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and make my usual declaration about my publication on prison reform two years ago. Does he agree that we should be looking into the idea of an academy prison, whereby the whole prison is run by a charity or altruistic institution? The current model is either state or private, whereas in schools we have transformed education by the provision of academies that are outwith the state or private institutions. Surely, the next step for public sector reform of prisons should be the charity not just providing the education within a small segment of a prison, but taking over the whole prison itself.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must have a mixed economy for education provision in the prison estate. He makes an innovative point on the potential for an academy—either an individual academy within an individual prison or an academy with a capital A across the whole of the prison estate. He is of course well versed and experienced on this subject, having written a book entitled “Doing Time: Prisons in the 21st Century”, which looked at the subject of literacy, numeracy and education. I applaud his continued commitment to improved education in the prison estate.

I was talking about charities, and the Prisoners Education Trust, for example, funds around 2,000 people each year to study a wide range of courses in subjects and at levels not provided by statutory education services, including Open university degrees and diplomas as well as more practical and vocational courses. The trust does an excellent job in helping thousands of prisoners across the estate, and I pay tribute to its work. Over the past quarter of a century, it has led many prisoners back into successful lives in the community. The Ministry of Justice’s research confirms that prisoners who study are less likely to reoffend, so everyone wins. Other charities involved in such work include the Shannon Trust, the No Way Trust and the Henry Smith Charity—I do not believe that the latter relates to our colleague, the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), but I know that he is interested in this subject. They all deserve credit for supplementing other education services within the estate.

Welfare services available to prisoners, whether counselling, faith-based or pastoral services, such as the work of the prison chaplaincy, all make for better prisons and help reduce reoffending rates on release. Once again, the role of charities makes an invaluable impact on the lives and welfare of prisoners. In particular, the Prison Fellowship does excellent work in support of prisoners to navigate their way through a host of different programmes and initiatives. It also supports those who have little or no social or family network to support them in or out of prison. Through its excellent victim awareness programme, the Prison Fellowship teaches the principles of restorative justice, by giving prisoners the opportunity to explore the effects of crimes on victims, offenders and the community, as well as to take responsibility for their own actions and crimes.

On restorative justice, the Government should look again at the moneys provided to the police and crime commissioners for that type of justice work. I do not think that the majority of PCCs are best placed to spend those justice funds. My view is that organisations such as the Prison Fellowship and others should be able to apply for direct funding from the Ministry of Justice. I hope that the Minister will consider that again and will respond when winding up.

Other charities, such as Time for Families, also do good work, including running relationship courses in prisons. The staff and volunteers, like those of so many other charities, do so much for so many, and I pay tribute to all those who do such work. I also pay tribute to all prison officer staff and volunteers who work within the prison estate, most with professionalism and commitment, in both the public and private sectors and—who knows in the future?—in some third-way academy; I hope so.

The prison chaplaincy is the backbone of the prison welfare and pastoral services provided, with that care playing a vital role in the rehabilitation process, and helping prisoners with many of the challenges that they face.

Mr Dobbin, with your permission, I would like to be reminded when there is one minute left for me to speak. That would be very helpful.

For those prisoners of faith, the prison chaplaincy provides solace, confidentiality and somewhere for them to go to practise their religion. I pay tribute to all those who offer spiritual and pastoral counselling to prisoners and staff. None the less, some recent concerns have been expressed about accessibility to chaplaincy services. In a recent submission to the Select Committee on Justice, the Caritas Social Action Network in collaboration with the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales raised a number of concerns about access to religious services for prisoners. Some of that has resulted from changes in the organisation of the prison day, with the bishops citing the shortening of the prison day. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that claim, given the vital role, which I know he and the Government recognise, of the work chaplains do in the prison service.

I highlight the excellent Listener scheme established within prisons by the Samaritans. I recently tabled a written parliamentary question on the subject. The scheme helps to support hundreds of prisoners and can help reduce self-harming. Prisoners are trained by the Samaritans and other prisoners come to that prisoner for help, support and guidance. I hope that the Minister will ensure that all prison governors and staff are made fully aware of the Government’s support for this scheme, since, again, everyone benefits.

I turn briefly to maternity services and women in prison. My view is that women with very young children should be jailed only for serious offences. I think that pregnant prisoners as far as practicable should always give birth in NHS hospitals and stay in hospital for as long as possible wherever needed. The Government need to publish annual official figures on the number of pregnant women in prisons and the number of mothers and babies passing through the prisons estate each year. Those figures are currently not published. Bespoke policies cannot surely be made without sufficient detail and empirical data and evidence.

There are estimates that more than 600 women receive antenatal care in prisons each year, with more than 100 women actually giving birth during their sentences. Can the Minister confirm that the female prison population is likely to rise? If he thinks that is the case on projections, will the 80 mother-and-baby places in units in England—and other places—spread between seven establishments be sufficient to meet future demand? Does he think that such units are the right environment for babies to be born?

I am aware that in 2000 the prison service and the NHS entered into a formal contract to provide prisoners with the same standard of midwifery care as that provided elsewhere in the community, and rightly so. Is the Minister content that that contract is providing the health care that mothers and babies require?

Can the Minister confirm on the record that, though the practice was outlawed since 1996, mothers are no longer in every case shackled while in labour or giving birth? The Government need to do more to ensure that standards of antenatal care are far more uniform across the prison estate—high levels of care, not a lowering of standards of care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

The assessment should apply to all prisoners, so that we understand what someone’s learning needs might be. As I have said, it is difficult to compel anyone above the age of 18 to engage in any education courses, but it is important that we understand what a prisoner’s learning needs are when they arrive in custody. If someone has significant learning needs, it is right to give them every incentive and encouragement to address those needs, so that they can start to make their way in the world in a legitimate way, just as my hon. Friend described, when they leave custody.

My hon. Friend mentioned a number of charities that have an important part to play in this regard. He is right about that. He mentioned the Prisoners Education Trust, and I support what he said about it. He is right to mention the Shannon Trust in particular, given that we are discussing literacy among prisoners; it does good work, as he knows, through the “Toe by Toe” programme, which enables prisoners to learn to read outside a classroom setting.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that we have to focus on vocational training. Our offender learning strategy concentrates on preparation for employment, as we know that having a job when leaving prison can reduce reoffending. Vocational training, based on labour market intelligence, particularly in the year before release, will remain a priority especially in the new resettlement prisons. More broadly, I want to ensure that a core of employers is in place to offer employment opportunities to offenders and ex-offenders, in particular through the Employers Forum for Reducing Re-offending, chaired by James Timpson.

I am fully aware, as my hon. Friend is, that many prisoners have experienced a lifetime of social deprivation and face more significant barriers to obtaining employment than the average jobseeker and that prison leavers spend longer on benefits than other new jobseeker’s allowance claimants. For this reason, from March 2012 we introduced a change so that all prison leavers are immediately mandated to the Work programme if they make a claim for jobseeker’s allowance in prison or within 13 weeks of release. This is intended to ensure that newly released offenders have the support that they need to find and stay in work.

Of course, work after prison is an important factor, but work in prison is important, too. Work in prison can prepare prisoners to take up opportunities outside. Too many prisoners are able to pass their time in prison in a state of enforced idleness, with little or no constructive activity. We want prisons in England and Wales to become places of meaningful work and training, where many more prisoners work for up to 40 hours a week, and possibly beyond. We have had considerable success in increasing the number of hours worked in our prisons since 2010.

We want more prisoners to undertake challenging work, within the discipline of regular working hours, which will also help them develop the skills that they need to gain employment, to reform and, ultimately, to turn away from crime.

[Guy Opperman]

I visited HMP Northumberland with the Secretary of State for Justice this month and spoke to the highly successful providers of education in prison there. Does the Minister accept the potential for alternative providers for an individual prison? Does he agree with his predecessor, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who indicated on 13 March 2014, as reported in Hansard, that such organisations would be genuinely welcomed by the Ministry of Justice, provided that they satisfy the financial and safeguarding criteria?

[Jeremy Wright]

It is not so much who provides the prison accommodation that matters, but what they provide and the support that goes with it. My hon. Friend will recognise that neither this Government nor the previous one have excluded the possibility of prisons being run by people other than the state. It is important that we look at every potential provider of prisons, to ensure that they can provide for us not just a secure environment, but one in which rehabilitation can be achieved. I recognise his enthusiasm for this cause. We think that it is more important that what is provided is good, rather than who provides it.

Let me move on to restorative justice, which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin mentioned. I am an enthusiast for restorative justice, which has a significant part to play, not just outside custody but inside, too. He will know that restorative justice principles are sometimes used inside our prisons. The Government have, in this sense, put their money where their mouth is and made some £30 million available over the next few years for restorative justice to be carried out. He is right to say that, at the moment, the bulk of that money goes to police and crime commissioners. It is right that people who are in a position to determine local need have that money available to them, but that is not the only resource available for restorative justice. I will consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said, to see whether there are other ways in which we can achieve the objective that he has set out.

I am, like my hon. Friend, an enthusiast for chaplaincy, which does a good job. He knows that chaplaincy teams in prisons are available to provide pastoral support to prisoners of all faiths and to those of no faith. All prisons have multi-faith chaplaincy teams to both provide this support and to enable religious provision. All new prisoners are seen by a chaplain, from whom they hear about the support and services provided. In addition, prisoners who are segregated or in health care—both particularly stressful times—are visited daily by a chaplain to offer support. Chaplains can also be alongside prisoners at times of crisis in their lives, such as bereavement, when they may be particularly vulnerable. Our chaplaincy teams also deliver a wide range of group activities and classes that are not just faith-based but look at issues such as loss, victim empathy and developing life skills. Chaplaincy teams are well placed to both provide this support and to challenge behaviours and to provide positive role models.

My hon. Friend mentioned the care that may be on offer from other prisoners, aside from the care offered by the authorities. Again, he is right about this. Often, we find that prisoners respond and relate more easily to their peers. A good example of this is the Samaritan-trained Listener scheme, which he mentioned, whereby carefully selected and trained prisoners act as listeners inside the prison. They listen in confidence to their fellow prisoners who may be in crisis, feel suicidal or need a sympathetic ear. The listeners assist in preventing suicide, reducing self-harm and generally help alleviate the feelings of those in distress. In addition, selected prisoners act as what we call insiders, helping with the induction process by telling new prisoners all they need to know about life in prison, what is available and where to find help.

My hon. Friend asked about maternity and childbirth provision. He knows that, under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, since 1 April 2013, NHS England has a legal duty to commission health services or facilities for all people who are detained in prison. Women prisoners and their babies should have access to the same range and quality of health services and treatments from the NHS as everyone else. This will include antenatal and post-natal care through attendance at hospital or in-reach midwifery. The six mother-and-baby units in England and Wales provide an overall capacity of 64 places for mothers. In fact, there is a total of 70 places for babies, to allow for twins.

My hon. Friend asked about population projections. Of course, we keep this matter under review, but we will always look to ensure that we have sufficient capacity to accommodate those who we believe will find themselves in the custodial system. He is right to say that the custodial system is not the best place for mothers and babies to be. He will know that courts will always think twice before incarcerating someone who is in that condition, but sometimes that is necessary. The decision to provide a place in a mother-and-baby unit is taken by a board consisting of representatives from the local authority, the prison, other interested parties and an independent chair. The overall age limit for most of these units is 18 months, although that may vary depending on the circumstances. He will appreciate that, when considering applications for admission to mother-and-baby units, the best interests of the child are paramount.

My hon. Friend asked me one other question, which was on handcuffing. Handcuffing is profoundly undesirable, and the general policy is not to handcuff women, but as he will understand, an individual risk assessment has to be made in each and every case.

I hope that my response assists my hon. Friend, and I welcome his interest in what happens inside prisons. I am also grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin has said, takes a consistent interest in such matters. There is a good deal more to do, but as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and I entirely agree, prisons must be both places of punishment and places where we seek to turn around the lives of those who would otherwise go on to reoffend.

Music in Prisons

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have been able to secure this debate on music in prisons. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who has responsibility for prisons, is unable to attend, but he did me the courtesy of speaking to me personally to apologise and I know that he has briefed the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) on the issues that we are debating.

The Prisons Minister is well aware of the efficacy of the arts, and specifically music, as a means for the rehabilitation of prisoners. Research by the National Offender Management Service into the arts in prisons concluded that

“arts projects are effective at improving in-prison behaviour (such as compliance with rules and engagement with the regime) and individual psychological factors (such as depression and a sense of purpose).”

In 2008, a study by Cambridge university stated that

“it is clear that the Music in Prisons project contributes to the Prison Service’s aim to provide ‘safe, secure and decent regimes’”

and it concluded that music projects

“play a role in fulfilling the NOMS ‘Seven Pathways to Reducing Reoffending’.”

I could go on citing evidence on the matter, but I know that the Department and the Minister are well aware of it. As the Prisons Minister said to me in answer to a question in the House on 18 March:

“He is right that music can be a method of rehabilitation.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 637.]

I know, therefore, that the Prisons Minister accepts that that is the case.

Given that well established consensus, I was surprised earlier this year to start receiving letters from prisoners who knew of my interest in music, telling me that new rules on incentives and earned privileges meant that they would no longer be permitted to keep steel-strung guitars in their cells, and they were having to hand them in. One wrote to me

“have you ever visited a prison and seen first-hand the power that music has, in particular learning a musical instrument, to change prisoners’ attitudes and lives for the better?”

I have visited prisons in my former position as a Minister for skills and education, and I have seen the kind of power that such programmes can have on rehabilitating offenders. The prisoner went on to describe how the new restrictions were impacting on prisoners. That is just one of the many representations that I have received.

I raised the matter with the Prisons Minister at Justice questions, and his answer gave me some encouragement that he was prepared to look into it. I was slightly disappointed—I will not put it any more strongly than that at this point—when the follow-up letter that I received from him simply confirmed the policy and did not offer any rationale whatsoever for it. I applied for today’s debate to pick up the thread and find out what it is all about.

Most people who hear about the change in policy assume that some kind of security risk is at its source, but nowhere in his answer to me in the House or in his subsequent letter did the Minister make any such suggestion. It is true that a prisoner might do harm with a guitar or with guitar strings, but that is equally true of nylon guitar strings, the thicker of which—the bass strings—are wound with steel in any case, as the Minister acknowledged in his letter.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The issue is important, and I support the thrust of his argument. I should make a declaration in relation to the book that I published last year on prison reform, which is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although we should encourage music in prisons to the greatest extent possible, it is a legitimate and proper part of the prison rehabilitation process that the Government—and, to be fair, the previous Government—have been engaged in to make music part of an incentive programme?

[Kevin Brennan]

I absolutely accept that proposition, but I will go on to show that I do not think that it applies in this case. I believe that this restriction, however it has happened—perhaps by accident—is without any rationale. I might add that I would offer to send a copy of the hon. Gentleman’s book to some prisoners, so that they could read it, but of course we are not allowed to do that any more.

I have not been able to discover any rhyme or reason for a blanket ban on steel-strung guitars. In fact, the NOMS incentives and earned privileges instruction, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman and which brought the policy into effect from last November, helpfully lists all the restrictions on items approved for prisoners on the standard and enhanced scheme and places a convenient “S” next to any item that is restricted for security reasons. Of course, there is no “S” placed next to the guitar string restriction, so the change is not to do with security.

Why should this really matter? What difference does it make whether prisoners are permitted nylon-strung or steel-strung guitars? I accept that it is not the most important issue in the world, or even in prison policy. For a guitarist, however, there is an obvious difference between nylon-strung and steel-strung guitars, which is not simply to do with the sound that they make or the style of music for which they are suited. Even more crucially, it is to do with the way in which the strings are attached to the body of the guitar, which is completely different in each case. As a result, existing guitars that prisoners have bought out of their prison wages for use in their cells can become redundant, and they have become so in many cases. Prisoners wrote to me to explain that, and I quote from one of those letters:

“There are a lot of devastated guys who are having to hand back electric guitars and steel strung acoustics. Many of them would have saved up over months or years, from their £14.47 per week prison wages, to buy their instruments.”

The vast majority of guitars in prisons are steel strung. The Prisons Minister said in his letter to me that the guitars donated by the Jail Guitar Doors initiative, which was founded by the musician Billy Bragg, are mainly used in organised settings outside the cell. That is correct, but to gain any benefit from a musical instrument, it is necessary to be able to practise. I would have thought that that was the very definition of a purposeful activity, which is what the Government want to incentivise.

[Guy Opperman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will not, because it is a conversation between me and the Minister, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest. I would like to use the time that I have, but perhaps he can intervene on the Minister if there is time. The Minister rightly wants to incentivise such purposeful activity, and for that to happen, a prisoner has to have the same sort of guitar available in their cell as they are using in their lessons.

I assume that the Minister has seen the letter in today’s Guardian—I am sure that he is an avid reader of that newspaper—signed by an impressive array of musicians, starting with Billy Bragg. I am sure that we all agree that he has done tremendous work for many years, taking on the mantle of the great Johnny Cash in helping to spread the message of the rehabilitative and redemptive power of music in our prisons. The letter was also supported by guitar legends such as Johnny Marr, formerly of The Smiths—I understand that even the Prime Minister is a big fan—Richard Hawley, formerly of Pulp, and, in this year of the 60th anniversary of the Fender Stratocaster, Pink Floyd’s Dave Gilmour, who owns the Stratocaster with the serial number 0001.

Those musicians understand how music can transform lives. They also understand, as they make clear in their letter, that an ill-thought-through, unnecessary restriction of this kind can have a serious effect in our prisons. In their letter, they ask the Secretary of State to look urgently into the rise of self-inflicted deaths and self-harm in our prisons and to consider whether some of the new restrictions may be a contributory factor. That is not as far-fetched as it may sound to some people. Last year, researchers at the university of St Andrews found that playing a musical instrument, even at moderate levels, can benefit brain functioning. Ines Jentzsch from the university’s school of psychology and neuroscience said of the research:

“Our findings could have important implications as the processes involved are amongst the first to be affected by aging, as well as a number of mental illnesses such as depression.”

Earlier today, I spoke to the fiancée of a prisoner who told me that the prisoners who play guitar in the prison where her fiancé is serving a sentence have been devastated and depressed by the recent decision because, in effect, it meant that they had to hand in their guitars. I want to be charitable to the Minister, and to the absent Prisons Minister, because I get the sense that they probably did not intend this outcome, not least because when I first raised the issue in the House the Prisons Minister told me that he was unaware of the detail of this restriction.

Many other parts of the new restrictions are controversial, including the restrictions on books—to which I alluded earlier—and clothing. I am sure that Ministers will have to look at them again. Nevertheless, this debate is about music, so I urge Ministers to look again at this decision with a view to reinstating prisoners’ permission to have steel-strung guitars in their cells. We have already established that the relevant NOMS document does not name security as a concern, and noise or nuisance cannot be the issue because steel and nylon-strung acoustic guitars make similar levels of noise. If electric guitars are the concern, rather than banning them completely, restrictions could be placed on amplification, not least as it is perfectly possible to insist that such guitars are played through headphones—they can effectively be silent and not disturb anyone. That would be a sensible restriction.

One prisoner who wrote to me said:

“I am not sure why this change in national policy has occurred but, as one prison officer put it, the prisoners who are learning a musical instrument are generally the most well behaved”.

I understand that the Minister, who is deputising for the Prisons Minister, might not be in the position to reverse the policy here and now, but will he report back to the Prisons Minister on this afternoon’s discussion? Will he also ask whether the Prisons Minister will agree—I have reason to think that he will not—to meet me and the musician Billy Bragg, if we can synchronise diaries, to explore the issue further and discuss the possibility of changing the decision?

The Prisons Minister is a reasonable man and I think he has understood that neither I, the prisoners themselves, Billy Bragg nor the other musicians who have supported the campaign are arguing that, when they commit a crime that leads to their imprisonment, prisoners should not lose many of the rights that they would have on the outside. However, we are all arguing that a significant public investment is made in our prisons, and most of the prisoners in them will eventually be released into the community, where they will live among us.

Music is a proven aid to rehabilitation, and restricting access to it will, in the end, cause more problems than can be justified by the as yet unknown reason for such an unnecessary and counter-productive restriction. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. As an optimist I have every confidence that good sense will eventually prevail and that prisoners will once again be able to play their guitars and prepare for a new beginning when they get out of jail, perhaps by playing and singing the old Bob Dylan song with which I am sure you, Mr Chope, are familiar:

“Any day now, any day now

I shall be released”.

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Chope. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for securing this debate on such an important subject. It is abundantly clear from what he has said that he has great expertise and knowledge on the subject. I assure him that I will ensure that what he has said today will be conveyed to my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister. Also, I am more than happy to facilitate a meeting for him, to the extent that he feels one is necessary after I have said my piece.

This is an important debate. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the important role that music plays in our prisons and set out the position regarding prisoner access to musical instruments. Let me be clear: facilitating access to musical instruments for prisoners is an important part of their rehabilitation. Whether individual prisoners learn to play musical instruments or music is played in a shared environment, such as a prison chaplaincy, music can provide focus, encourage positive social interaction and provide constructive activity.

In chaplaincy, we see activities involving and using music in a range of ways. As well as music being used as part of some of the main acts of worship, a number of chaplaincies have choirs or chapel bands, which allow prisoners to be part of a creative shared experience. They can also help prisoners to develop listening and communication skills and engage with others in a positive way.

In education, there is significant provision for learning about music. The offender learning and skills service, which has been commissioned jointly by the National Offender Management Service and the Skills Funding Agency, works with offenders to identify their learning needs and advise on what learning and training opportunities are available in prisons. Vocational opportunities are available towards the end of a prisoner’s sentence, to ensure that any training undertaken is current and relevant to the local job market on release.

The offender learning and skills service—OLASS—also funds personal and social development, which may include recreational learning, such as music activity. Personal and social development is particularly helpful when engaging with resistant learners who might not participate in more formal learning. In the 2011-12 academic year, there were 580 enrolments on OLASS courses that included music as part of the course title. A range of courses are available, including the awards for music practitioners, in music theory and in sound engineering and music technology.

Aside from learning, prisoners are also able to listen to music in their cells by listening to CDs in their possession or to the radio. As well as the availability of national radio, prison radio is now installed in 102 prisons.

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way. I have appeared on prison radio and experienced its quality in Brixton prison, which is one of the hubs for prison radio, so I would like to say first of all that it is doing a fantastic job and should be supported by the Ministry of Justice. Secondly, I can assure the House that although my book, quite rightly, cannot be posted at random to a prisoner by any person, however esteemed, it is available in prisons via the usual channels and is being read.

[Mr Vara]

I am sure that those prisoners who are regular and avid readers of Hansard will take note of that plug for my hon. Friend’s book, which is easily available in the relevant prison libraries. I note what he said about the prison radio service, which is available in many prisons. The Prison Radio Association delivers national prison radio, and prison radio tutors work with prisoners to develop new and innovative content. As well as output that is focused on reducing reoffending and encouraging engagement with education, training and opportunities in prison, music is broadcast. Many individual prison governors also engage with local community and voluntary sector organisations, which facilitate music-based activities.

There is plenty of music to be heard in our prisons. I recognise, however, that the hon. Member for Cardiff West is particularly concerned about changes that we have made to the incentives and earned privileges policy framework and what those changes might mean for prisoners who want to play guitars. It important that I explain the intention behind the changes and what they mean in practice.

The policy on incentives and earned privileges underwent a thorough and detailed review, the first such review for more than 10 years, to ensure that the revised framework would properly address reoffending and that the public could have confidence in it. The review of the policy included extensive consultation with prison operational staff.

Since the changes came into effect on 1 November 2013, the absence of bad behaviour has no longer been enough to earn privileges; now prisoners must also work towards their own rehabilitation and help others. The focus on rehabilitation resulted in numerous other changes to the framework. For example, prisoners can no longer sit in their cells watching television when they should be out working or in education, and they can no longer spend much of their days in the gym.

An important part of our changes was ensuring that prisons operate to a consistent standard in allowing privileges to prisoners who have earned them. That is why we introduced the standardised facilities list, which identifies and limits the items of property that prisoners can retain in their cells, subject to their IEP level. The list is available for each governor to select from as they consider suitable to the specific population, physical fabric and regime of the prison.

The changes have not prevented prisoners from playing musical instruments. The greater the commitment a prisoner shows to the requirements of the IEP framework, the more money they can earn from working, the more they are allowed to spend and the greater the range of property they are allowed to have. Prisoners who work hard, engage and achieve standard and enhanced levels can purchase a musical instrument to keep in their possession at the governor’s discretion. Prisoners who do not engage are not permitted to possess a musical instrument. The standardised facilities list sets out a number of different instruments that prisoners can purchase: for example, a flute, a harmonica or an acoustic guitar.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West is particularly concerned about the position in respect of prisoner access to guitars and the type of strings permitted. Prisoners on the standard and enhanced levels of the IEP framework can be allowed an acoustic guitar with nylon strings. For the bass notes, that can include nylon strings with metal coiled around the outside. Guitar strings can be issued on a one-for-one basis, subject to risk assessments. Full metal guitar strings are not permitted. As I have mentioned, the revised policy was subject to a significant amount of consultation with the operational line and other interested parties. The consultation extended to the contents of the standardised list itself. In the light of security concerns, a decision was made not to allow full metal strings.

Oral Answers to Questions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

I well understand my hon. Friend’s point. There will be two consultations this year: first, on precisely such issues about the scope of the current legislation to make sure that it is not abused while we retain freedom of information as a principle of Government; and secondly, on extending it to other areas where we have not gone so far.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I would like briefly to inform the House of some important changes I am making to the use of release on temporary licence for prisoners, in order to tighten the current system and better protect the public. In future, all prisoners released on temporary licence will be tagged. Temporary licences will be granted only where a prisoner has demonstrated a commitment to change and there is a clear benefit in reducing reoffending. There will be a more thorough risk assessment before temporary licences are authorised and a more robust response for prisoners who fail to comply. For serious or violent offenders, I am introducing a new scheme of restricted temporary licences that will involve more stringent risk assessments and a more robust monitoring regime. These measures will ensure that we make more effective use of release on temporary licence and that we take the steps necessary to maintain public safety.

[Guy Opperman]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he agree that the best way to bridge the gap between prison and normal life is through help by organisations such as the Oswin project, based in Northumberland, which provides paid apprenticeships and paid employment such that the individuals concerned, who are all ex-offenders, are better able to integrate and manage their way back into normal life?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to visiting Northumberland shortly and seeing some of the work that is being done. This is enormously important. It is particularly important that we have really close links between the efforts provided to help people into employment and the efforts put into helping them to sort their lives out once they have left prison. Those two areas are integrally linked, and that work is immensely important.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be confirming that he does not believe that there is a problem, but that view is not shared on the Government Benches. In our view, the increase in the extent of judicial review does not just impose a cost—which is a serious matter in itself—but also means, dangerously, that decisions by the courts are increasingly substituting for decisions that should be made by Ministers, which was not the original purpose or intention of judicial review.

In his closing remarks, the right hon. Gentleman railed similarly against previous measures introduced by this Government to deal with legal aid and said there had been restrictions on access to justice. The Opposition’s problem is that they are very quick to criticise every proposal in the area of justice and criminal justice that is designed to ensure a sensible use of public funds and necessary savings. They are not able to explain how they would deal with the very real budgetary challenges that confront every Government Department, not least the Ministry of Justice, which has been required to make substantial savings. If, along the way, the Opposition oppose every measure and criticise sensible provisions such as that under discussion without saying how they would make the savings required, they simply have a credibility problem.

I welcome the Government’s proposals to deal with the problem of automatic early release and, in particular, the scale of the Justice Secretary’s ambition to go further in doing so. There is no doubt that automatic early release undermines public confidence in sentencing. When victims in particular, but also members of the public more widely, hear a sentence handed down in a court but later learn that offenders are, without question, automatically released much earlier—halfway, or earlier in the case of home detention curfew, which is described as early release—it undermines confidence in the system.

It would be much better to move to a system of honesty in sentencing, in which the sentence handed down bears a proper relation to the one actually served, whether that is a system of minimum and maximum sentences, as proposed by the Conservative party in its last manifesto, or sensible measures to curtail automatic early release of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has just introduced for more serious offences. We should not accept the principle of automatic early release; it would be much better if release were earned and bore some relation to the prisoner’s conduct, progress in rehabilitation and suitability for release.

Even Members of the House of Commons find it difficult to understand or accept the early release of offenders. Many of us noted with surprise that when the courts handed down to a former Member a determinate sentence of eight months, we had no sooner said the words “Liberal Democrat” than that offender was released early, in that case to serve a period on home detention curfew and, subsequently, to enjoy a new career writing articles for The Guardian. All that undermines confidence in the criminal justice system.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. To take him back to his more serious point, does he agree that linking the sentence and early release to passing drugs tests for a drug addict or to passing a literary examination or literacy tests is very much the way we should go?

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend is right to bring me back to my serious point, and I wholly agree with him. That is exactly the way we should go, and that is what I meant by the concept of earned release.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

That is what I meant by the concept of having minimum and maximum sentences. There would still be a determinate sentence with a maximum term—it would not be an indeterminate sentence, which is reserved for much more serious crimes—but release after the minimum point would nevertheless depend on fulfilling certain conditions, including those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).

I particularly welcome the measures relating to the electronic monitoring of offenders and provisions for the greater use of tagging for the supervision of offenders released from custody. There is no doubt that the advance of technology and the use of satellite tracking mean that a huge and so far largely untapped potential exists to ensure greater confidence in the criminal justice system and enable the safe and secure monitoring of offenders. Whether that is for offenders who receive some kind of curfew as part of their sentence, or whether the purpose is to ensure their safe and effective supervision on release, much more could be done, and has already been done in other countries.

There are two particular lessons. The first is that we should question how quickly the criminal justice system can embrace new technology. The criminal justice system is very centralised, which does not always make it easy to have local innovation in its operation, whether in relation to how certain courts operate—I will come on to that—or to this use of technology. As the Secretary of State knows, some very impressive pilot schemes have been conducted by Hertfordshire police in relation to satellite tagging.

There is, however, a feeling that we have been slow, perhaps unnecessarily slow, to ensure that such technology is made available to other police forces or is used more widely. That is partly because of the understandable caution that results from a determination to ensure that technology is used properly and that public safety remains paramount, but it is also partly because of the centralised nature of the system and the bias against innovation.

If we want a greater use of such technology, we must move towards a system that is more distributed, and in which local criminal justice innovation is encouraged. Through a more decentralised system, we have such opportunities. For instance, police and crime commissioners, who are keen to take on such a role, could supervise its use to ensure that there was some kind of local democratic accountability.

[Guy Opperman]

I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend’s point that localisation is surely the key to driving up the performance of the system and to improving it. Does he agree that the Ministry of Justice—we all acknowledge that this monolithic beast is exceptionally hard to tame and alter—could follow examples in other places, such as Norway, where there are community prisons and a much more localised approach to criminal justice reform?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Having been a Minister in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, I recognise that Ministers face the challenge of having an imperative to ensure public safety, and an imperative to drive value for money and ensure that contracts are written in such a way as to provide best value for the taxpayer. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to decentralise and to be more open about the potential use of technology to innovate in the justice system.

The second lesson about the use of electronic tagging in criminal justice and the provision very sensibly set out in the Bill is that technology is not necessarily our enemy or the enemy of justice. In debates in this place and outside, technological advance is too often seen as some kind of enemy of justice and of the public. In fact, the advent of technology has been responsible for incredibly important strides in the delivery of a justice system that works for the public.

The same debates apply to electronic monitoring as apply to the use of CCTV, the development of the DNA database or other things raising civil liberties questions that must be addressed. For instance, how far is it appropriate to go in restricting the civil liberties of those to whom such sentences are handed down, even though they are convicted criminals? We must remember that they have been convicted, and that the alternative is a custodial sentence or, if they are not to be released, a continuing term in custody. Far from posing any kind of threat to civil liberties, such technology presents a real opportunity to protect the public. We should sometimes accept that the use of technology in the criminal justice system can be the public’s friend and can help to ensure that the interests of justice are served.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend speaks from his experience as a special constable. What he says is certainly the case. One of the dangers of using the growth in administrative justice as a solution was that the previous Government took their eye off the important task of dealing with the bureaucracy in the criminal justice system as a whole and making it more efficient, so that cases that had to be brought before the courts could be brought before them swiftly and effectively. I therefore welcome the proposals to deal with the problem of simple cautions being used wrongly.

The growth in administrative justice should give us pause to reflect on the proper role today of the important institution that is the lay magistracy. I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who, when he was courts Minister, had the difficult responsibility of closing a number of under-utilised magistrates courts. There is no doubt that magistrates have faced challenges owing to a reduction in business, which was caused originally by the growth in administrative disposals and has been partly caused by the reduction in the level of crime and by cases being taken by professional district judges, rather than by traditional magistrates courts. All those factors have led to the magistracy feeling undervalued.

Although I welcome the proposals in clause 24 for single justice procedures, which are entirely commonsensical in respect of high-volume, uncontroversial cases in which there are guilty pleas, I believe we should think further about the right role for the magistracy in the operation of the summary justice system. That will be particularly important if the budgetary position with which the Ministry of Justice is confronted means that there have to be continuing court rationalisations. The development of new justice hubs and centres is not necessarily a bad thing. They can be fit for purpose and very useful, but they also mean that magistrates sit further from the communities from which they are drawn.

[Guy Opperman]

I speak as someone who battled my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) over the closure of Hexham magistrates court, even though I understood why it was being done and the difficult circumstances that existed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we get centralised hubs of magistracy, we must ensure that there is a resident rural magistrate who understands that matters 50 miles away from the city are often greatly different from crimes that take place in the city itself?

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend, who represents a very rural constituency, makes an interesting point that leads on to the suggestion that I want to make. I wonder whether there is a role for the magistracy outside the formal setting of the courts in respect of less controversial offences, so that we can retain the presence of magistrates in communities. As we move towards the use of justice hubs and as traditional courts are closed, we should consider that.

A similar proposal was made last week in an interesting paper, “Future Courts”, by the Policy Exchange think-tank. The paper picked up on proposals that were made in a Government paper that was published in 2012, “Swift and Sure Justice”, for which I had responsibility. We were very drawn to the way in which the criminal justice system had operated rapidly to deal with the offences that were committed during the riots of the previous year, and we started to question whether a leaner and more efficient justice system could be developed. I urge the Government to consider the potential of involving magistrates in a programme of neighbourhood justice. That would ensure that they are retained in their local communities.

Neighbourhood justice panels are an interesting development in the area of restorative justice. Many Members from all parts of the House believe that they have great potential in dealing with low-level offending. Only last month, the Lord Chief Justice expressed the view that magistrates should play a formal role in neighbourhood justice panels and that they should not be a separate tier of justice.

The magistracy is an institution that has been with us for six and a half centuries, and as the late Lord Bingham said, it is a “democratic jewel beyond price”. If we are moving towards greater use of technology, the potential for justice to be delivered remotely, and individuals not having to be in a formal court setting, we have the opportunity to ensure that justice can be delivered locally, without having to be delivered administratively. We can still have confidence that somebody appointed from the community who exercises a judicial—not administrative—function, is dealing with offenders. That is a potential way to rebuild the magistracy and tackle the growth of administrative justice and the excessive use of out-of-court disposals, and a powerful way to rekindle the notion of neighbourhood justice. I hope that the Government, who welcomed the Policy Exchange report as an interesting contribution, will take that on board.

In conclusion, as with so many other areas of public policy, the urge to centralise and rationalise into ever bigger units is great when it comes to delivering greater value for money. We see that in policing with those who urge us to create regional police forces, in health care with those who urge us to create ever greater units with larger hospitals and so on, and we face such pressures across our public services. Such rationalisations need not be a bad thing if innovative ways are found to deliver services at local level, and technology is an enabler of that. What undermines confidence in the process, however, is when a salami-slicing approach results merely in services being centralised for cost reasons, without any rethinking or redesigning of how they can be delivered at local level. Let us enable that innovation, localise, have confidence in the new democratic institutions we have created at local level that can hold the criminal justice system to account, and—above all—let us value the lay magistracy as an institution that has served this country so well over a long time.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) who served as a distinguished Minister in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It is still a puzzle to me why he is not in the Government, because I know they could use his considerable skills. He obviously enjoys being on the Back Benches more, even though we miss his appearances before the Home Affairs Committee.

I was fascinated by the exchange between the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), but the House did not get to know what happened at the end of those discussions, and whether Hexham magistrates court is still open. Did the hon. Member for Hexham win his battle? He is my next-door neighbour in Norman Shaw North, and I need to know whether he wins such battles with the Government.

[Guy Opperman]

Despite 20 years of advocacy and despite what I felt was a very strong case, my youthful appearance in this House, and a vigorous campaign, the fact that the magistracy was not able to survive in the rural town of Hexham for the first time in 500 years was sadly a fact in the end. To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the system is working relatively well with an urban core, but the Ministry of Justice—which is, of course, not at all a bureaucratic or difficult organisation to get control of—should be aware that although it is working, we do need a rural element in the magistracy going forward.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that long explanation. I am surprised that he lost the battle, but I know he will continue with it.

When I was the sole Justice Minister in the Ministry of Justice—then the Lord Chancellor’s Department—I felt that the work load was quite high. We now have four Commons Ministers representing the Ministry of Justice, and of course it has taken on new responsibilities. I congratulate the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on his appointment. I think this is his first Second Reading debate; I do not know whether he will be winding up—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman served on the Home Affairs Committee and therefore knows how the Home Office deals with such cases. If we were satisfied that decision making was robust and that entry clearance officers and those who reviewed their decisions always made the right decision, we would not need a right of appeal. As he knows, however, having sat through the Committee’s deliberations, 50% of appeals on immigration cases are won by the applicant. That does not mean that judges are cleverer than entry clearance officers, but it does mean that decisions have not been looked at carefully enough. If we take away that right of appeal, all people will have is the ability to challenge in the courts. Of course I do not believe it right for people to play the system and have multiple appeals, but if we take away the last vestige by which they can challenge decisions, we will leave them with absolutely no choice.

As I said, the previous Government suffered because they tried to stop citizens marrying foreign citizens in our courts. They were taken to court and judicially reviewed, and the court said, “You cannot do this”. Spouses had to go back and make applications, but the previous Government—as successive Governments have done—lost a number of such applications. I think we should look carefully at this issue. On its own it may not seem like a bad idea, but if we take away the right of appeal in immigration cases, as section 11 of the Immigration Bill does, that will create a number of problems. After all, 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year. We must look carefully at the issue.

[Guy Opperman]

I served on the Immigration Public Bill Committee and the overwhelming view was that, yes, the Home Office needs to get better—with respect, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is getting better at reviewing under the appellant procedures—but the fundamental point is that it cannot be right for there to be in excess of a dozen, and potentially up to 15 or 16, separate rights of appeal. The state, in the form of the Home Office and the Government, is right to review the number of times an appellant can go through the appellant process.

[Keith Vaz]

I have no objection to that. I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) that we do not want multiple applications, but we should at least give people the chance of one application. It is not the case that they get legal aid right the way through. Many of my constituents come to me wanting to go to judicial review. I tell them that their best course of action is to leave the country and make an application from abroad. They will go through a better system and obtain a quicker result than they would by constantly staying here and going through the courts again and again.

[Guy Opperman]

With great respect, the implication of the last comment is that there is no right of appeal whatever in an immigration case. I am sure that that is not what the right hon. Gentleman meant to say.

[Keith Vaz]

The right of appeal will be taken away by clause 11 of the Immigration Bill. An application can, of course, be made in certain circumstances, but my understanding is that that Bill will reduce dramatically the occasions on which the Government can be judicially reviewed. We heard that from the Lord Chancellor earlier. He was quite delighted and thought it was a very good idea. I prefer that these decisions are taken by judges rather than by civil servants.

The hon. Gentleman has been a Parliamentary Private Secretary for the past four years, so of course he welcomes the improvements made by the Government. That period is too long and he too should be serving in the Government and I hope I have not damned his career by saying that. He has spent enough time dealing with civil servants. If he thought they were the most perfect creatures on this earth, we might as well hand over everything to them, let the officials decide and not give people the right to go to court. All I say is this: let us be cautious. The Government should look at this in the round and be sure that people have some avenues left to challenge decisions.

On new technology, I agree with the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, the former Home Office Minister. When he was in the Home Office, he led the campaign for new technology. He is a Twitter person. On one occasion, he tweeted to ask me to go to the airport to meet him, as I had done with other members of the Select Committee—I agreed to do so, but he would not tell me his flight number—so I know that he likes new technology. The fact is that we need to be careful about allowing Ministers and officials to make decisions on new technology that they do not understand. He will remember the e-Borders project, which has so far cost the taxpayer £750 million. It was agreed without benchmarks and the litigation is still going on—it is still costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money. We should have new technology and we should pursue this programme, but we need to be very careful and very cautious not to hand everything over to those who come to us and say that they know everything. That is what happened under the previous Government in relation to G4S and Serco, and that has continued under this Government. As we now know, G4S overcharged the Government by £24.1 million. We will need a more extensive use of tagging, but if the tagging companies are not monitored, the contracts will not be properly dealt with and properly monitored. I hope that, in making better use of technology, we ensure that we have the accountability that the right hon. Gentleman and I have been talking about.

On the creation of a secure college, my worry is that we need to be very clear on what powers those who run the college will have. It sounds like a very good idea and we want to make sure that people spend more time in training. However, of the 16 deaths of children in custody since 2000, all occurred in youth offenders institutions and secure training centres. We need to learn the lessons of the deaths of those young people before we set up new institutions that are not capable of proper scrutiny. The Bill will allow a secure college custody officer to use reasonable force to ensure good order and discipline. It is important that we look at training and do not have any unfortunate incidents that result in the death or injury to young people in custody.

Drugs are a big problem, as we have discovered in Home Affairs Committee inquiries. Many young offenders acquire a drug habit when they are in institutions. I will give another plug to the book, which I have on my desk, by the hon. Member for Hexham. I am sure that all Ministers in the Ministry of Justice have read it. I am sure that the new Minister will have had in his briefing a copy of the book on rehabilitation written by the hon. Member for Hexham. If he has not read it, I will make sure that he gets a copy, because the hon. Gentleman is my next-door neighbour. There is very sensible stuff in the book, including the fact that people pick up the habit of taking drugs when they are in prison. That is why we believe there should be mandatory testing.

[Guy Opperman]

rose—

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is going to tell us which bookshops his book is available in.

[Guy Opperman]

The book, “Doing Time” is actually still available. Amazingly, there are a few copies left. I hasten to add, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all proceeds go to charity.

The serious point is this: the right hon. Gentleman, who served in the previous Government with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), will recall that in 2008, when he was the police and justice Minister, he was asked a specific question. I cannot, off the top of my head, quote Hansard, but he indicated that evidence from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice showed that 20% of all people who took drugs in prison acquired the habit for the first time in prison.

[Keith Vaz]

That is a stunning figure, one that has probably remained the same, or even increased, in the past few years. That is why we suggest there should be mandatory testing in prison and after people leave prison. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) does not like that idea. Whenever I raise it at Justice questions, he is never enthusiastic about it and thinks his system is better, but such testing would be a good thing.

I hope the new secure college will run sufficient courses. We will not write the curriculum right now, but let us ensure that as well as providing the basic education for young people that they so desperately need—another theme in the book by the hon. Member for Hexham—we teach them the dangers of drugs and try to get them off drugs.

I am a little concerned about the punitive elements in paragraph 2 of schedule 15, amending the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The figures show that 72% of male and 70% female sentenced prisoners suffer from two or more related mental health disorders. It may not be appropriate for them to be punished in a similar way to others. We must try to identify those who have a mental illness and end up in the criminal justice system and remain in it for years. In September, the Select Committee will undertake an inquiry into how the police deal—I say to the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), that we are not treading on his toes—with offenders with mental health disorders and see how that feeds into the rest of the criminal justice system. The figures are very worrying. We want to be tough and to punish people, but we need to remember that there are reasons why we perhaps should not send people to prison.

The Director of Public Prosecutions announced this morning that she would deploy six specialist lawyers abroad—in Dubai and in one or two other places—in an attempt to seize more assets from criminals linked to British cases. I welcome that announcement, because I think that we need to strengthen the way in which we investigate and then charge those who move their assets abroad. According to the National Audit Office, 80% of the £920 million owed by convicted millionaire criminals is yet to be repaid. My mathematics is not perfect, but I think that 80% of £920 million is nearly £850 million. Is that right, Madam Deputy Speaker? You seem to think that it is about right; you have probably been helping your son with his maths. Anyway, it is a huge amount of money.

We try to challenge the Mr Bigs, and the Mrs Bigs. They go through the criminal justice system, we fine them huge amounts of money, and then we find that about £150 million less than £1 billion has still not been collected. The Bill does not deal with that situation. I hope that, if it believes in joined-up government, the Ministry of Justice will look carefully at the DPP’s statement, and that amendments will be tabled in Committee to ensure that when judges fine billionaires and multi-millionaires, those people pay up. At present they simply go through the system, come out of prison and then disappear, and we suffer because our justice system has allowed them to get away with it.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am very pleased to follow my fellow Select Committee Chairman, whose wise and thoughtful comments have, I think, raised the level of the debate to where the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) wanted it to be. I am not sure that the mental arithmetic of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is quite up to scratch, but I am sure that he can improve on it with a little practice.

The Bill contains many provisions, covering matters ranging from misconduct by jurors to automatic release, and I have no intention of commenting on all of them. However, I will make one passing comment on the issue of trial “on the papers”, which strikes me as a perfectly sensible way of dealing with summary offences of a minor character involving guilty pleas when the defendant was not going to be present anyway. It is important for the public record to be clear and immediately accessible, and I hope that we can find a way of ensuring that that happens. There should be no secret justice; it should be readily apparent what sentences have been handed out by the courts, and to whom.

I want to concentrate on three issues. The first is the issue of the simple police caution, along with the wider issue of out-of-court disposals of which it is part. The Government’s consultation on out-of-court disposals ended in January, and I should be interested to know when they will respond to it. I think that the magistrates were right to be concerned about the dangers of inconsistency around the country, and about the fact that people did not really know what was happening. However, I also think that there is real value in police officers’ ability to exercise discretion in many circumstances, and that out-of-court disposals, as a broad group, open up numerous possibilities, including possibilities for simple restorative justice.

Restorative justice exists in many forms. Obviously it exists in post-sentence form, but there are simple kinds of restorative justice which I have experienced in my constituency. In the past, a police sergeant would say to an offender “The best thing that you can do is go to the person whose property you have damaged, give that person money to pay for the damage that you have caused, apologise, and ask whether there is any way in which you can help to make good what you have done.” Such measures are worth developing as part of neighbourhood justice.

I do not want the necessary codifying of the system of cautions to be seen as in any way discouraging the use of alternatives to traditional court procedures. As was suggested earlier, magistrates can be involved in the process. The Justice Committee visited Stockport recently, and observed that magistrates had been involved in a number of developments in the Greater Manchester probation area. When I asked why they were not hostile to those developments, the answer was that they had been involved from the start. I do not want us in any way to undermine the scope for out-of-traditional-court disposals in matters of this kind, because they may offer the best opportunity to enable young people, in particular, to move away from crime rather than becoming institutionalised into it.

The Union flag that flies outside my constituency office on the Queen’s birthday and other state occasions was once torn down by some people who then rather unwisely boasted about having done so, and were therefore quickly picked up by the police. The friendly sergeant instructed them to put together the money necessary to replace the flag and to write a letter of apology, which they all did. At least one of them was planning to go into the Army, and the sergeant pointed out that that person would not want to start off with a criminal record. It was a very sensible way of dealing with the matter.

The second issue that I want to raise is that of secure colleges. I do not think that there is any disagreement with the Government’s objective in that regard. A clear indicator of the likelihood of reoffending is a lack of basic education and skills. The evidence for that is overwhelming, and I think that the Government are right to focus attention—and, indeed, resources—on the provision of basic education for young people who have been caught up in the criminal justice system.

[Guy Opperman]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Alan Beith]

I will, although I want to raise a number of points that the hon. Gentleman may wish to follow.

[Guy Opperman]

May I compliment the right hon. Gentleman on what he has said so far? Does he agree that there is potential for secure colleges to be run not just by the state, but by individual institutions, churches or charities? Academies have transformed education, and there is surely no reason why academy-style secure colleges could not be established in the longer term.

[Sir Alan Beith]

That sounds like an attractive idea. However, there are some problems to which I do not yet see a solution, although I agree with my neighbour from Hexham that plenty of people in both the charity sector and the private sector have something to contribute to the process.

The first problem, which was identified by my Committee, is that the average length of custody is 79 days. That is not a period in which a programme of education can be developed, and greatly extending periods of custody is not part of the Government’s policy. Secondly, people going into custody do not do so neatly at the beginning of a term or an academic year; they go when the courts have sentenced them. It is difficult to provide a range of basic educational courses for people who go into custody for relatively short periods and at different times, and it involves paying a price. Some of those people will be much further away from their local communities than they would have been if they had been dealt with under the previous system, especially if the college has been created at the expense of, for example, secure children’s homes. I should be very concerned if those ceased to be available because a college was being opened in a much more distant place.

I think that the Government have quite a bit more thinking to do about how they can realise their very desirable objective of providing basic education by means of some kind of secure college framework. It would be wrong to assume that it is possible simply to set up a large institution in one part of the country, and that people who are in custody for relatively short periods in a constant turnover will fit neatly into a programme of education. The objective is right, but the means have yet to be fully explained.

The “reasonable force” argument was mentioned earlier. I had a word with the Minister about that. I think that there may be some confusion about it. It needs to be made clear that there will be no breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights in secure colleges, and that reasonable force is used for the purpose for which it is provided—that is, for the safety of those in custody or of those around them, including those who are superintending the education for the purpose of which they have been placed in a secure college. There needs to be a safe environment.

By way of offering the Government a warning of the difficulties involved, I shall quote what the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, said in his oral evidence to the Select Committee. He pointed out that the youth custody population is not what it was two or three years ago, for the obvious reason that it is much smaller. That means that we now have the more intractable and difficult cases in youth custody, to which we are trying to apply this new system. He said that

“the nature of the juvenile population you now have in custody is different from what it was a year or two ago. The Government need to take that into account…What you now have is a higher concentration of the most troubled, most at-risk and most risky young people, concentrated in a very small number of establishments…You have to make sure that your future accommodation arrangements can guarantee the safety”

of those young people. He went on:

“It is not simply about the number of teachers you have; it is about whether you have the staff to get young people safely from their unit to the classroom, without trouble occurring en route, and to make sure that the teaching environment is safe and secure.”

Those are big challenges for the programme that the Government have set out.

My third topic is judicial review. The Public Bill Committee will need to look closely at the proposed change in the threshold for exclusion of judicial review from it being “inevitable” to being “highly likely” that the successful challenge would not change the outcome. There could be a risk of the argument becoming about the substance of the case, rather than about process. Judicial review is supposed to be about process. It is not an appeal mechanism in which the decision is considered by an alternative decision maker; it is a review of the process that has been carried out. However, if an argument had to take place about just how likely it was that the success of the review would make no difference, that would involve going quite deeply into the substance of the matter. The wording of that proposal will therefore have to be looked at carefully.

More generally, judicial review is inconvenient for the Executive. It is a nuisance, and the initials “JR” strike fear into the hearts of Ministers and, even more, of the civil servants who are always reminding Ministers about judicial review. However, it is a discipline by which we ensure that proper process is followed. It would be unsatisfactory to strip away that discipline completely and to say, “It doesn’t matter if you get the process wrong, as long as you make sure it’s not likely to affect the outcome.” The wording of this proposal also needs to be looked at, as do some of the cost attribution issues that have been raised today.

There is a problem when judicial review is used to try to delay a case sufficiently for the window of opportunity for something to happen to be closed, but such cases are few and far between. If we leave aside immigration cases, the increased use of judicial review is nothing like as big a problem as it was thought to be. The increase was identified as being primarily a result of immigration cases. I hope that the Bill Committee will look carefully at the wording of those measures. We must recognise that we need to maintain the discipline and that, if the law requires us to go through certain processes, we must go through them. If we do not, we run the risk of bringing trouble into court. I am referring not only to the Government in this context; this applies also to a wide range of local authorities and major infrastructure industries.

It would be wrong for me to conclude without referring to a point that has been underlying much of the debate—namely, that these are aspects of the criminal justice system whose primary purposes will be addressed only if we achieve further long-term reform. I see that reform as involving primarily what my Committee has called justice reinvestment—that is, taking resources away from the damaged end of the system and putting them into the beginning, so that victims do not become victims in the first place because crimes do not happen. We must ensure that we direct the resources to the appropriate areas, just as the Government have sought to do in the transforming families programme, so that they prevent crimes from happening in the first place. We need to create a virtuous circle in which we do not need so many prison places because fewer crimes are happening. We had an opportunity to do that, and crime levels have been falling, but that opportunity has unfortunately been compromised by the difficult financial situation in which the Government have found themselves. That means that it has been much harder to prime the pump, or to put in extra resources.

That brings us right back to the ultimate purpose of justice reinvestment, which is to move resources. In order to do that properly, we need to address a matter that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) mentioned earlier—that is, something that the Select Committee calls local commissioning. In such a system, the decisions about the resources needed to deal with crime are made by all the agencies that have to handle crime at local level. Many of those decisions are now made locally, which is a good thing, but one crucial one is not: the decision on how much money is spent on prisons and where that money is put. That is still very much a national decision and it will remain so under the Government’s present policy.

I believe that we will achieve more in crime prevention when we have a rational allocation of resources at local level by all the organisations involved. They include the police, the courts, the magistracy and the judiciary, as well as the youth offending teams and all those in the voluntary sector who are becoming involved in these processes. Quite a lot of good practice has developed—in youth offending teams, for example—and the lessons from that need to be learned throughout the criminal justice system as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not agree with him that the right way to deal with drug testing is to have a mandatory point at entry and exit. He also knows that the main reason I disagree with him is that everyone knows where the points are and can see them coming. What I think is much more effective is mandatory random testing, which is what we do now, but, as I explained in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), we must all recognise that the problem that is emerging is less about illegal drugs, dangerous though they are, and more about legal drugs that are being misused in our prisons. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will support the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We might learn more about the book later, but we must move on now. I am saving the hon. Gentleman up; he should not worry.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The proposals contained in this Bill will be delivered within the existing budget for our probation services.

In saying that they want to oppose and destroy the Bill, the Opposition are actually trying to set back for years the task of dealing with our biggest criminal justice challenge. That would simply create more and more victims of crime, which could have been prevented. Their short-sighted wrecking strategy will get them absolutely nowhere.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I declare an interest in that I published a book last year entitled “Doing Time”. I support the Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy being proposed in the Bill was originally put forward in the previous Government’s custody plus programme, which was derived from the Offender Management Act 2007?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Labour has argued for this, legislated for it and U-turned on it. The shadow Secretary of State has stated endlessly over the past few months that the Opposition now support the principle, but they are going to vote against it tonight. That is a sign of how poor an Opposition they are, how unfit they would be to govern, and how out of touch they are with the criminal justice challenges in this country.

It might assist the House if I started by summarising the issues facing short-sentence offenders. Many need housing; 38% of them need help finding a place to live when they are released. Many are out of work; only 30% have found employment within two years of being released, while 83% will have claimed out-of-work benefits in the same period. Huge numbers of them need help with education, with work-related skills. A fifth had a mental health or an emotional problem, a third self-report as having a drugs problem and 65% have used illegal drugs in the four weeks before going into prison custody. Those are the people who Labour Members want to leave prison with no support at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

The powers will certainly remain. What will be different is that having a 12-month supervision period—a period of mentoring—for people once they have left prison, or for those going through a community sentence, will provide much more of a pressure-point to get them to turn up for rehabilitation and go for mental health treatment, because there will be someone working alongside them who gets to know them and to understand them, and who can cajole and encourage them.

It is worth highlighting the experience we have had so far in Peterborough. There has been a huge drop in the relative level of reoffending; the number of crimes committed by the cohort going through the Peterborough trial is much lower than that committed by their equivalents in other parts of the country. The overall reoffending rate has fallen as well. That is a success story we should build on, and we will build on it.

[Guy Opperman]

It is not just Peterborough, is it? There is also Doncaster prison, which is the flagship of modern prisons—and I should say that it was set up in its present form under the Labour Government, and rightly so. It has also seen drug-use figures fall. Some 80% of the prison intake was drug addicted or committed drug crimes, and that figure is now down to approximately 30% upon release, under the current programme. Does the Justice Secretary agree that that is a good thing?

[Chris Grayling]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work being done in Doncaster. There is good work being done in many parts of the prison estate. The Doncaster model is slightly different from what we are looking to deliver across the whole of the justice system, but it is equally delivering reductions in reoffending and that is to be welcomed and supported. Anything we can do to bring down reoffending rates has to be the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

One cannot will the ends without the means. It is nonsense to suggest that simply pulling a lever will make that happen. It will not happen. We tried to do it, and I will shortly come to our efforts to put in place custody plus.

On the other side of the debate are a few loyal Back Benchers and the Justice Secretary who is purposely not bringing before Parliament his plans for restructuring probation, thereby avoiding proper scrutiny and debate, and is rushing ahead at breakneck speed in implementing these plans, not interested in whether there is any evidence that his plans will work, dismissing expert evidence and instead basing his decision to roll his plans out on his gut instinct—the same gut instinct that brought us the failing Work programme in his former role.

[Guy Opperman]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

One last time. I must make progress.

[Guy Opperman]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He talks about breakneck speed, but does he recall that in May 2006, when the Labour Government were still planning to introduce custody plus and a large proportion of the measures that we see today, in the House of Lords the noble Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Justice Minister, said:

“We estimate that, in 2007–08, 49,400 offenders will be starting custody plus orders”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 2006; Vol. 681, c. 566]?

Why does the right hon. Gentleman not now back a plan that has been in the offing for more than 10 years, which has finally been produced by this coalition Government?

[Sadiq Khan]

Because if done properly, it would cost £194 million a year. We could do it on the back of an envelope, as the Justice Secretary wants to do, but I do not want to do that. It is a risk to public safety.

Let me remind the House that at the same time the Justice Secretary says that he wants those who receive less than 12 months’ custody to receive probation supervision. Instead of supporting probation, as he should, what are his plans for it? Those plans are: abolishing local probation trusts and instead commissioning services direct from his desk, in Whitehall, on behalf of local communities; splitting responsibility for offenders on the basis of their risk level, despite risk not being static in 25% of cases; handing responsibility for serious and violent criminals to G4S, Serco, Carillion, A4e and the like; imposing an untried and untested payment-by-results model on providers; and, as I said, all at breakneck speed, adding up to a half-baked, reckless reorganisation of probation, without any evidential base—a monumental gamble with public safety.

Let us be frank. The Justice Secretary has wanted to keep all the major changes he is making to probation below the radar, purposely avoiding bringing those plans before Parliament. If not for the Opposition day debate, MPs would never have had the chance to debate them. He said in the Chamber 12 days ago that he was not afraid of debating his plans, but he left the Chamber almost immediately after his speech, not staying to hear any of contributions from worried and concerned MPs in all parts of the House. That is not debate in anyone’s book. Instead, it shows a disdainful arrogance towards Parliament and towards genuine concerns at his proposals. If he had stayed, he would have heard in the time-limited debate l8 MPs from all parts of the House express concern. More MPs wanted to speak, but there was insufficient time. Just three Members spoke in favour. I can see that he has done a better whipping operation today than he did 12 days ago. Many MPs, stakeholders, prison and probation staff and charities are labouring under the false impression that this is the privatisation of probation Bill. It is not. The Justice Secretary is trying to use the 2007 Act to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

I think the right hon. Gentleman has made his point and I have given my response. The Ministry of Justice has not provided an indication of how much it would additionally need to save to afford the cost of implementing the proposals, or said how quickly those savings would be realised. That puts my Committee in a difficult position when assessing the viability of the proposals.

There are also difficulties of risk management. The public probation service will have to assure itself about the risk management of up to 200,000 offenders for whom it has no direct responsibility, and we will need to ask many questions about how information will be passed between the public probation service, the police, and private sector providers. At the moment, transfer of information is relatively easy, but under the proposed arrangements it will become more complex and difficult. I hope the Minister will say something about that. That also affects other areas. I had a discussion with a victim liaison officer who is concerned about how far information of the kind she is able to get now will flow when reassuring victims about restrictions being placed on an offender, and whether that information will come so readily through the system the Government propose.

There are key confidence issues about how the proposals can be made to work. There is a confidence issue for the police on sharing intelligence. If police officers feel inhibited about sharing intelligence with the provider of these vital services, the effectiveness of the whole process will be impaired. There is a confidence issue for magistrates when considering how they can rely on a community sentence—a significant part of the Bill is on community sentences. We want magistrates to be able to pass community sentences confident in the knowledge that they will be carried out effectively. There is a confidence issue for those who deal with victims and, currently, for probation office staff, who are uncertain as to where they will end up. If they take no definite action to locate themselves in the new system, will they finish up in the public probation service or the private sector? Which way should they go if they want the opportunity to exercise their skills?

[Guy Opperman]

I echo the concerns the Chairman of the Justice Committee outlines and accept their validity, but the idea that there is no example of partnership between charitable organisations and the police is surely negated by the St Giles Trust—the Committee has looked at the trust in great detail. The trust is a charitable sector organisation that works throughout people’s time in prison and outside in partnership with the prison, probation and all other services. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the St Giles Trust is a good example of how things can be done?

[Sir Alan Beith]

There are plenty of good examples—my Committee has looked at a number of them—but no one should start from the presumption that the existing system is the only way of managing prolific and frequent offenders. On the contrary, the reoffending figures should tell us that we must do something differently. We must harness the talents that exist in the charity and voluntary sectors, which may also exist in the private sector.

Support for Prisoners’ Families

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to raise the important issue of prisoners’ families. I thank my hon. Friend the prisons Minister for agreeing to answer on behalf of the Government and for his help and the time he has given me on this issue over a long period, including meeting my constituent, Mary Stephenson, and the String of Pearls project some weeks ago.

There are around 3.7 million recorded crimes in this country every year. For each of those crimes there is at least one direct victim, and in many cases many direct victims. However, that should not mean that we overlook what many refer to as the hidden victims: prisoners’ families. Approximately 160,000 children in this country currently have one or both parents inside prison. That is approximately twice the number of children in care and more than the number who suffer as a consequence of the divorce of their parents in any one year. Those children are three times as likely to suffer from mental health problems as other children in society. More than 60% of young boys who have one parent incarcerated are likely to go on to offend and go into prison later in their lives as a consequence.

Families on the outside often suffer the social stigma of the communities in which they live. It is often assumed that families have brought these problems on themselves. Children at school might suffer bullying and many of these families might find more solace in the local criminal fraternity than they do among their neighbours and the communities in which they live. Many families suffer emotional problems, stresses and financial problems, particularly where the individual in prison has previously been the breadwinner. Families also suffer problems in visiting their loved ones in prisons, especially when many of the prisons are a long way from home. The Minister may be able to provide some more recent information in a few moments, but I know that in 2003 some 11,000 prisoners were incarcerated at a distance greater than 100 miles from where their family lived.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my book, which covers some of the issues on this subject, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he recall that in 2007 a large number of charities, led by the Prison Reform Trust, reported to the inter-ministerial group on reducing reoffending, and that the findings were that

“prisoners who received visits from their family were twice as likely to gain employment on release and three times as likely to have accommodation arranged as those who did not receive any visits”?

Is not the heart of the point that it underlines the lack of reoffending, which is what we also seek?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and congratulate him on the deep and detailed research he carried out for the production of his book. I very much take his point: it is essential that families are connected to prisoners for, among other reasons, the reason he has just elaborated. It is not just the ability of families to connect with their loved ones in prisons that matters, as the quality of the experience when they do is also important, as I shall explain in a few moments.

The issue is not just about the suffering of families, because it is the value of the families in the rehabilitation process that really matters. It is a fact that where a prisoner comes out of prison into a family environment—gaining the support identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—they are 40% less likely to reoffend than if there were no family there to support them. The economic costs to our criminal justice system of reoffending are, of course, absolutely immense, running in excess of £10 billion a year. The beneficial effects are felt not only by those being released but by their children, and we can see demonstrable reductions in inter-generational crime resulting from the presence of families and their support for prisoners on release.

The support from families comes while the prisoners are inside prison, and I think one of the most important aspects of prison visits and connections between families and prisoners is that they are there to remind those inside what is happening outside so that when prisoners leave they will have very real personal responsibilities and it will be for them to tackle them. It is also known that where family visits and contacts with prisoners are facilitated, the likelihood of self-harming among prisoners is reduced, as indeed is the likelihood of suicide.

Outside prison, family contact helps, as my hon. Friend indicated, in the provision of jobs and appropriate housing. It also leads to what some describe as prisoners having “a stake in conformity”, meaning that they have social pressure from the family network to ensure that they do not reoffend, that they go straight and avoid lapsing back into drug use or the misuse of alcohol.

I am very heartened by the direction of travel that Ministers have mapped out for us on the criminal justice side. I believe that payment by results, when it comes to involving voluntary or private organisations, is a good way to help ensure rehabilitation, leading to an unleashing of innovation, of entrepreneurial spirit, of creativity and to solutions being suggested that are appropriate to local circumstances. I also believe it is important that the Government have announced 70 resettlement prisons. Prisoners in the final three months of their sentence will be closer to their families than would otherwise be the case, with all the benefits I have identified.

As a general point, it is extremely important that we ensure that the level of contact I am describing exists throughout the criminal justice process, from as close as possible to the point of arrest and charge and certainly right the way through to prison and post-release. The nature of that contact should be weighted towards mentoring for families by individuals who have gone through the difficulties associated with having a loved one in prison and who can therefore share their experience, compassion and insight.

I have a series of points and questions for the Minister, on which I ask for his comments. The first question is how he and his colleagues see the Government encouraging organisations that are involved in the rehabilitation process, particularly the smaller and perhaps more innovative ones. I think particularly of String of Pearls, the project that Mary Stephenson and her colleagues have been operating in HMP Channings Wood. We need to ensure that such projects are not crowded out by the likes of G4S and Serco, about which we have heard less than flattering news recently.

[Guy Opperman]

I pay tribute to the organisations that my hon. Friend cites in support of his argument. Does he agree that there is potential in the years to come for one of those organisations, or a group of them together, to take over a resettlement prison, so that instead of having a state-run or privately run prison, we have a community or charity-run prison that will work for the benefit of the community?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting idea. That is the exciting part of the Government’s direction of travel—all sorts of innovation, partnership arrangements and possibilities may occur in the future, because we are not being too prescriptive from the centre. We are allowing best practice to thrive in a pluralistic market, allowing competition to drive up standards and so on.

Might the Minister consider additional funding for some small providers, such as String of Pearls, so that they are not crowded out by the bigger players and so that, further down the line, we can have a more pluralistic marketplace of providers and encourage the innovation and nimble-footedness that we associate with smaller organisations in particular?

I also ask the Minister how we can ensure that prisoners’ families are a major focus of rehabilitation organisations. I wonder whether the fee mechanism might be a way of achieving that. I know that there are three strands to the way in which providers will be paid. There is payment by results, but there is also the fee-for-service strand, which I understand is for providers meeting certain set criteria. I wonder whether we may have a sharp focus in those criteria on the involvement of families, so that organisations that are strong in that respect are rewarded for it. As I understand it, the third strand of the payment structure will be penalties for failure. I would like providers who ignore the importance of families to be penalised in some form.

The other thought I would like to share with the Minister is that the justice data lab, which we have set up to allow rehabilitation providers to benchmark their performance against other providers and against the norm, is also there to share best practice. I would like to see a strong focus on family involvement as an element of best practice in that data lab.

I wish to ask the Minister about prison visits. As I suggested, I think they are extremely important, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham shares that view. How can we increase the frequency of visits? At present only about 50% of prisoners receive their full statutory entitlement of visits, and I would like us to consider how we might increase that.

[Guy Opperman]

The evidence overwhelmingly supports my hon. Friend’s argument that prisons are at their most peaceful shortly before visits. That is because the anticipation of those visits serves to calm the whole prison down.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) on securing this debate, and also return the compliment to him by thanking him for the considerable interest he takes in this subject? He has highlighted one of several important issues covered by the Government’s plans to transform the criminal justice system. He is right to say that we must consider such matters in the context of falling crime figures, which is good news, but reoffending remains a serious challenge, and the ways to achieve further reductions in crime and reoffending include taking bold and effective steps to rehabilitate offenders by assisting, encouraging and guiding them away from crime into new, worthwhile and productive ways of life. The evidence shows that support for prisoners’ families is an important part of that, for two reasons. First, supporting offenders’ family relationships can help to reduce reoffending. Secondly, supporting offenders’ families can help to reduce the likelihood of intergenerational offending. Both those things are important.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, we announced on 4 July that a total of 70 resettlement prisons have been identified for the adult male prisoner estate, with more to be identified for the female and young adult estates. Resettlement prisons are one strand of a comprehensive strategy of reform that is seeking to tackle the problem of reoffending in all its aspects. That should provide both better opportunities to support contact with families, and links with local partners and providers of support services. Providers will offer a resettlement service for all offenders in custody before their release, which may well include family support, where it is needed.

I agree with my hon. Friend that positive family relationships can be an important protective factor in helping offenders desist from future offending. We understand that we can help to break the cycle of offending by working to strengthen family ties, to improve family and other relationships, to improve parenting behaviour and to increase acceptance into communities and social networks. He was right—my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made this point, too—to say that research has shown that ensuring a prisoner keeps in contact with his or her family while in prison can help in reducing the likelihood of reoffending. We know, too, that most prisoners regard their families as important to them and want them to be involved in their lives, and that they believe that support from their family and seeing their children would be important in stopping them reoffending in the future. It is therefore important that we support and allow contact, and the involvement of families in prisoners’ sentences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon asked, in particular, about phone contact. He will know that there are private prisons that currently allow phone use in cells. Rochester prison, in the publicly run estate, is also trialling the use of phones in cells. It is important that we look at what the evidence is showing us about that. He makes a fair point that if a prisoner is to be encouraged to make more phone calls home and to speak to the children more often, they are more likely to do that if the phone is located in the cell than if it is located on the landing. However, he will recognise that we cannot allow unrestricted access to telephones, and whatever we do there will still be a restricted list of numbers that prisoners are able to call.

[Guy Opperman]

We all know that at least 8,000 mobile phones are confiscated by the Prison Service every year, so by supposition another 8,000 that are not confiscated are probably in the system. It must be accepted that mobile phones are already in the system. Due deference must be paid to security, but does the Minister accept the broad principle that a greater degree of communication, whether by phone, e-mail or computer, in whatever shape or form, must be the way ahead if we are to have this family relationship encouraged, as we would like?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend rightly says that, sadly, mobile phones find their way into prison, but that is an offence and we do not tolerate it. It cannot be wise to allow for unrestricted access to communications, be that telephone contact or e-mail contact. What is sensible is that we consider ways in which, within the restrictions of a limited amount of approved phone numbers or approved contacts that a prisoner can have, we look at the best way of ensuring that that contact can happen, for the reasons we have been discussing.

This debate is also important because of the effect that parental imprisonment has on children. It is estimated that in any given year approximately 200,000 children are affected by a parent being in or going to prison. Most children who experience parental imprisonment are likely to experience it more than once. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon referred to the figures, and we know that children with parents in prison are more vulnerable than other children. They are more likely to become offenders themselves and to develop behavioural problems and poor psychological health than children who have not had a parent in prison, and they may lose contact with their imprisoned mother or father. So we do understand that by supporting offenders’ families and children we can help to reduce the likelihood of intergenerational crime.

We take that responsibility within the Prison Service very seriously. Prison Service instructions on rehabilitation services outline expectations on prisons to: help staff in recognising the impact of imprisonment on prisoners’ families and to understand their role in the maintenance of family relationships and supporting offenders’ families; to provide advice, support, signposting and to refer prisoners to services; and to reflect the involvement of families in the offender management process.

Prison rules require prisons to encourage prisoners to maintain outside contacts and meaningful family ties. Prison governors have duties under the Children Act 2004, many of which are associated with either the child’s right to contact with parents who are held in custody or the safeguarding and well-being of children with whom they have contact. There are also minimum standards relating to how prisons support family visitors, including having visiting times that maximise opportunities for prisoners and families to meet and ensuring opportunities for reasonable physical contact. That goes to the point my hon. Friend made about the presence of glass screens and the like. He will appreciate that there is always a balance to be struck between the security of the prison and ensuring that contraband cannot be passed, and the need to ensure that relationships with family members are maintained with as much normality as can be managed in a custodial environment.

My hon. Friend was right to make the point early on in his remarks that in many ways the families of prisoners are victims of what that prisoner has done, too. In many ways, the prisoner’s family also undergoes a sentence. There is a period of separation that cannot be helpful to domestic life and that certainly is not helpful to the relationship a prisoner might have with his or her children. When we can maintain physical contact and where it is compatible with security to do so, my hon. Friend is right that we should seek to do that. We can take practical measures too, such as providing facilities for children to play while visiting and providing decent, indoor facilities with toilets and baby changing facilities. The National Offender Management Service also encourages additional activities such as enhanced children’s play facilities, family support worker services, family days, child-centred visits and the like.

My hon. Friend asked about what will happen in the future. As he knows, by opening up probation to a wider range of providers, we can bring additional skills and ideas into play, while the national probation service will continue to have a key role in managing risk, including the direct management of higher-risk offenders.

My hon. Friend also asked about smaller organisations and I understand his concern. We, too, are concerned that we should ensure that those smaller organisations, particularly those in the voluntary sector, can play their full part in the new landscape. We need to do that in a number of ways. Let me give him two of the most important. We must ensure that in the bid assessment process we take full account of what the sustainability is likely to be of the relationships between larger and smaller organisations. We anticipate that many of the bids we will receive will come from a group of organisations, some large, some small. It is important that the smaller organisations are looked after in those arrangements and we assess bids with that in mind. We will also need to ensure that over the duration of the contract period we have robust processes of contract management in place to ensure that the sustainable relationship between larger and smaller organisations is maintained.

[Guy Opperman]

Does the Minister accept that there is a genuine problem with the bid assessment process in that the smaller providers—charities, community groups—are effectively being frozen out of the process? We need to be very certain that there is a flexible system rather than a one-size-fits-all system to accommodate those small providers.

[Jeremy Wright]

I can understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but I think that many of the small organisations about which he, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon are concerned will be involved in the bid process. The trick is to ensure that they are still involved on a sustainable basis throughout the period of the contract. I can see the attraction of those smaller organisations and we are all familiar with excellent voluntary sector organisations that offer something special in a particular aspect of rehabilitation. I am confident that they will be involved; we must ensure that they stay involved and that they can remain in a sustainable relationship as time goes on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon asked about funding. He will understand that the central premise of the system we are looking to establish is that what works should receive support. I think, as he does, that the evidence is good that involvement with families demonstrates effectiveness and I am confident that providers of rehabilitation services will look to provide that. Similarly, on his point about the justice data lab, it is important that we consider ways in which we can display information about what works in the most effective way, and I will consider his specific point about that.

My hon. Friend will understand that the delivery of services to the children and families of offenders must be considered in the context of the Government’s wider approach to supporting families. Tackling troubled families is a priority for this Government and supporting offenders’ families is an important aspect of that work. That involves a partnership approach, which is embedded elsewhere with other Departments and is part of a legacy of earlier cross-government work.

No one imagines that changing entrenched patterns of reoffending is a simple matter, but the Government firmly believe that the measures we are putting in place will help to achieve a fundamental transformation. Supporting offenders’ families has an important part to play in that.

Question put and agreed to.

Football Referees

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, that is absolutely the case, and it is something I intend to come to later, so I thank my hon. Friend for his point.

In fact, over the past year, the number of cautions has fallen: all cautions fell 10%; dissent cautions fell 13%; dismissals fell 13%; and in general all misconduct on the football pitch fell 9%. Some put this gradual improvement down to the Football Association’s respect agenda, and I would tend to agree, but whatever the reason, it is obviously to be welcomed. I still find it astonishing, however, that in the last year for which full records are available 528 referees—more than 10 a week—were assaulted during a match.

Obviously, in these cases, the Referees Association and the FA step in, the first helping the assaulted and the county FA offering some punishment post-disciplinary hearing. There were concerns that county FAs were being too lenient in the punishments handed out, so several changes were made to the appeals process. Now anyone, not just the person subject to the violation, can appeal a decision and ask the FA to review the case. For the police to take action, referees must report incidents to the police themselves. The FA recommends that they do this but cannot intervene or compel an official to do so. If criminal action is taken in a case of assault or physical contact on a referee, the player in question is automatically suspended pending the outcome of the case.

The purpose of this debate is singular: to ask the Minister for his help. Referees up and down the country are becoming more and more concerned that neither the police nor the Crown Prosecution Service is following through with the investigation of assaults, believing that footballing sanctions—bans for a certain period—are enough of a punishment. It would be fantastic, therefore, if he could help. The FA could do with improved feedback from the courts.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which one might think a game of two halves: the soft cop in the early part and the rougher stuff coming later. Does he agree that the FA could improve conviction and prosecution rates by launching private prosecutions where other parties do not wish to get involved? That would, I suggest, still be possible.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is true, actually. The Referees Association offers insurance to referees, so if someone joins it—not all referees do, but most do—it will help and guide them down that route. If, though, there is a physical assault on a football pitch, it should first be a matter for the police, but if they choose not to act, perhaps there could be this second way of doing it.

To return to the subject on which I would like the Minister’s help, the FA would appreciate automatic feedback from the courts on football cases to ensure that any criminal cases involving footballers are also subject to football disciplinary hearings. A simple communication would suffice to ensure that if a banned player tried to play for a different football club, they would not be allowed to. Furthermore, assaulting a referee should automatically mean a formal interview by the police. It has been suggested that sometimes the police only log details and do not formally charge a player with assault, saying that it is a footballing matter. Any player who assaults a referee should be formally interviewed by the police as a matter of course, and witness statements could be taken to prepare for appropriate action. A simple interview after an assault would also act as a strong deterrent.

In the more serious cases, we need to urge the CPS to treat this type of assault seriously and to ensure that football offences do not receive more lenient sentences than the same crimes committed off the football pitch.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. and learned Friend raises an issue in which he is well versed. If I do not provide a complete answer, then I will get back to him with all the details. Clearly, if somebody is not a relevant publisher then they are not drawn into the self-regulatory scheme. They would not be subject to exemplary damages or be eligible for the scheme. Therefore, they would not be caught within this remit. We have so drawn the definition of “relevant publishers” to ensure that the scheme does not catch people we do not need to catch, and that is why we have been careful to set out the three tests in new clause 29—to ensure that we are clear about who is covered. Some individual organisations might well fall close to the line, but then it would be for the courts to decide.

New clause 23 sets out matters to which the court must have regard in deciding the amount of exemplary damages appropriate, and the key principles governing the court’s consideration are that the amount should be no more

“than the minimum needed to punish the defendant for the conduct complained of”

and that it should be “proportionate”. New clauses 24 and 25 ensure that those provisions will operate effectively in cases involving more than one claimant or defendant.

For completeness, I shall also mention new clause 26 and amendment 121A. New clause 26 implements recommendation 71 in Lord Justice Leveson’s report and confirms that, in cases under the new system, aggravated damages should be awarded only to compensate for mental distress and should have no punitive element. Amendment 121A provides that the provisions on exemplary damages come into force one year after the date on which the body is established by royal charter. That will be a powerful incentive to the press to establish the new regulator on a timely basis. For all their rarity, the availability of exemplary damages should send a powerful signal to publishers.

I turn to the provisions relating to costs in new clause 27A. The proposals are designed to give further real and powerful incentives and give effect to Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation that the award of costs should be another tool to encourage publishers to join the regulator. The new clause would provide a clear presumption that where a claimant took a publisher inside the regulator to court, even if the claimant was successful, the normal rule that their costs would be met by a losing publisher would not apply. In other words, a defendant publisher that had joined the regulator should pay a claimant’s costs only in limited circumstances—if the issue could have been resolved at arbitration, had the defendant agreed to its being referred, or if it was just and equitable for the defendant to pay the claimant’s costs.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The fundamental problem is not necessarily the costs paid at the end of the case, but the costs of a litigant’s bringing an action against a publisher. I and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) have represented many individuals who would have struggled to bring such actions without protections. Will the Secretary of State advise the House of what protections are in place, and may I highly recommend the protective costs order regime that provides protection to an impoverished, but justified, litigant as against a very wealthy publisher?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend pre-empts something that I will cover in more detail later. I will not only deal with the cost regime, but explain that to comply with Leveson the new self-regulatory regime will include free arbitration, so giving those individuals the access to justice that he rightly says they should have.

New clause 27A establishes a second presumption—that a relevant publisher that chooses to stay outside the regulator would generally have costs awarded against it in proceedings for media tort, whether or not the claim is successful. In other words, a defendant publisher that does not join the regulator should always pay the claimant’s costs, unless the issue could not have been resolved at arbitration if the publisher had been a member of a regulator, or unless it were just and equitable for the defendant publisher not to pay those costs. These provisions deal with defendants and the costs they should or should not pay to claimants. The issue of claimants and the costs they might have to pay to defendants is also important and is addressed in subsection (5).

Lord Justice Leveson endorsed Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendation that qualified one-way cost shifting should be introduced for defamation and privacy cases. QOCS is a form of cost protection. The Government accepted that recommendation, and we have asked the Civil Justice Council, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, to make recommendations by the end of this month on appropriate cost protection measures to be introduced for defamation and privacy cases. The Government then expect to introduce a cost protection regime through the civil procedure rules.

Let us be clear: the new provisions on the awarding of costs, coupled with the provisions I have set out on exemplary damages, provide a powerful incentive to join the regulator and for disputes to be resolved through arbitration that meets the standards set out in the royal charter. Those defined as a “relevant publisher” for the purposes of the new legislation will, if they choose to sit outside the regulator, be exposed to the full force of the new exemplary damages and costs provisions. We want to ensure that the new provisions act as a powerful incentive—as I am sure you can hear me say, Mr Deputy Speaker—but we do not want to draw in too broad a range of publishers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I would say to my hon. Friend that when I have heard people talk about the approach they want the Government to take, they say that they want regulation of the press to be very much at arm’s length from politicians. What we are talking about is a self-regulatory body for the press, set up by the press. The royal charter is a verification panel that will ensure that the press is doing what it should do. It will not be under the eyes of Ministers; it will be independent. However, I urge him to look at the detail of the charter so that he does not take just my word for it, but sees it written down in black and white.

[Guy Opperman]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Miller]

There are lots of people who want to take part in the debate on these amendments, so if my hon. Friend lets me make a little progress, perhaps he can intervene on me a little later.

In new clause 29 we set out a definition of “relevant publisher” that captures national newspapers and their online editions, local and regional newspapers and their online editions, and online-only edited press-like content providers, as well as gossip and lifestyle magazines. Exemplary damages and costs are designed to catch larger news publishers—those at the centre of the circumstances giving rise to Leveson. As highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who is no longer in his place, many of those are not necessarily the smaller publications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Government new clauses in the group and the manuscript new clauses standing in the name of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The manuscript new clauses arise out of the cross-party talks, into which I thank the Secretary of State for inviting us. That explains why hon. Members have not, I am afraid, had much time to look at them. We all want to be sure that hon. Members have the opportunity to scrutinise provisions in advance, but because we worked late into the night in attempting to agree them, they have been brought before the House with inadequate notice. I offer my apologies for that.

I hope to add to the points made by the Secretary of State, with which I greatly agree. Also, because hon. Members have not had much chance to look at the manuscript amendments and consider what they mean, I shall try to explain my understanding of how they sit with the new framework set out in the royal charter.

As the Secretary of State has said, the choice Leveson made was not to impose direct regulation on newspapers as a complaints system, but to invite them instead to set up their own regulation system and to encourage subscribers to it, not only because it is a good idea as the framework is fair and reasonable, but because incentives and disincentives have been provided. That, of course, leaves the choice to them—the point of incentives and disincentives is that they incentivise and disincentivise—but encourages them to go into the new regime.

It is also crucial—this is a major change—that a new arbitration system is being set up. Over the years, people have wrung their hands about how inaccessible the courts are to people who have been defamed, while newspapers have wrung their hands about being tied up for ages with the enormous costs that can arise if some oligarch takes a newspaper to court. Importantly, therefore, arising from the Leveson report is not just a new complaints system but a new arbitration system. Media torts, defamation and privacy claims that would otherwise have gone to court will instead go into the arbitration system. The manuscript new clauses on cost will incentivise not only newspapers but individual complainants to go into an arbitration system and not straight to court. There is an incentive for a complainant who wants to bring an action against a newspaper that is a member of a regulatory body to agree to arbitration, which will be available to members of the body and which will be run inexpensively. A complainant who does not want to go to arbitration, who says “I will take my chances in court” and who then wins the case will not win the costs, and costs may be awarded against that complainant. Arbitration will involve no cost to complainants, and they will benefit from a top-rate, legally kosher procedure without having to go to court.

[Guy Opperman]

rose—

[Ms Harman]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to ask me a difficult, complicated question, I can tell him the answer. It is “The Secretary of State will respond on my behalf.” However, he is welcome to ask the question anyway.

[Guy Opperman]

I am delighted to observe that the Labour party studied the legislation in such detail before presenting it.

I should probably declare that I am a qualified mediator and arbitrator. Under the current system, people involved in arbitration can appeal against the process if they are not happy with it, and the litigation can begin anew. Would that arrangement continue, and how would an individual litigant defamed by a newspaper or any other publication bring an action, given that—contrary to what the right hon. and learned Lady has just said—the costs of arbitration are very high?

[Ms Harman]

The royal charter requires the regulator to provide for an inexpensively run arbitration service which will impose no costs on complainants. As the hon. Gentleman will know, things can happen further along the chain after arbitration has been agreed to, but the essence of arbitration is that both sides embark on it agreeing that the arbitrator will settle the issue.

I think that this will be a great step forward, because it will deal with the problem of inaccessibility. Most people who are defamed, or whose privacy has been invaded in what is termed a media tort, would never dream of being able to go to court, although many lawyers are prepared to act on the basis of conditional fee arrangements. A free-to-use arbitration service is therefore an important component of the Leveson package contained in the royal charter. It is good news for claimants, but it also means that newspapers will be well and truly incentivised not to remain outside the regulatory body. If they are not in the regulatory body and arbitration is therefore not available to those who may complain about them, it is possible that when the case goes to court, costs will be awarded against them even if they win.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I thank the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for introducing this section of the debate. It is clear that Members on both sides of the Chamber have worked extremely hard to bring the matter to a head. As I said in the debate opened earlier by the Prime Minister, everyone must be congratulated, but we must not oversell it or exaggerate the claims for the solution that may have been found.

I was interested in looking at some of the new clauses and new schedules to see that the statutory framework that seems to have been set down for the Crime and Courts Bill makes some changes to the law, but only up to a point. If one looks at new clause 21A, provision is made for the award of exemplary damages unless the defendant was a relevant publisher. But that is cancelled because the court can disregard subsection (2), and that is cancelled because under subsection (4) the court is not prevented from making an award of exemplary damages for other reasons. It rather disappears up its own grammar—I was about to use a rather unparliamentary term. We might need at some stage to reconsider the English used in the new clause if it is to be understood by the people we wish it to attract.

The other point we ought to think about—something my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and I were discussing only a moment ago—is that we must be careful not to set up two regimes for exemplary damages. There already exists a common law regime for exemplary or punitive damages. Broadly, it is available where a state actor has behaved in an unconstitutional or high-handed fashion, for example when the police or the Prison Service grossly misbehaves in relation to someone in custody. That example is perfectly easy to describe: the court will award punitive and exemplary damages to mark society’s disapproval of the behaviour of that arm of the state.

[Guy Opperman]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there appears to be, in effect, almost a mirror image of the common law system of exemplary damages? Under the present system, which he rightly describes, for an unlawful arrest involving a police officer verballing an innocent defendant, for example, a judge would give exemplary damages. Surely that would be mirrored in exactly the same way in the provisions proposed in the new clause. All that might be good, but surely those provisions would apply on an ongoing basis in any event. Does he agree that the concern is that the provision on exemplary damages does not necessarily change the common law?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I think that I largely agree with my hon. Friend. The first limb relates to unconstitutional state behaviour, which he described and I mentioned, but the second limb relates to situations in which, under the common law, the defendant has calculated that the gain he could make from the civil wrong he commits will lead to greater profit for him than any potential damages he might have to pay as compensation to the wronged person. The court can recognise that by punishing the defendant, and deterring others from doing the same thing, through the separate and additional award of exemplary damages. Those two limbs of the exemplary damages regime are well described in the 1964 case of Rookes v. Barnard, but I will bore the House no further on that.

What we are creating is a regime that will be similar to the common law regime but not exactly the same and that will be limited to “relevant publishers”. We need to think carefully about whether we are setting up two systems that are close, but not quite parallel, for securing exemplary damages. While we are legislating to adjust exemplary damages for the perfectly sensible and understandable motive of encouraging newspaper publishers, or those who will become “relevant publishers”, to enter a scheme under a regulator, I wonder whether we ought to bring together everything relating to exemplary damages under one statutory umbrella. I say that not simply because I think that it would be neater, but also because of what is said in subsection (4) of new clause 30, which defines a relevant claim. It states:

‘“Relevant claim” means a civil claim made in respect of any of the following—

(a) libel;

(b) slander;

(c) breach of confidence;

(d) misuse of private information;

(e) malicious falsehood;

(f) harassment.’

Under the common law, libel, slander and malicious falsehood are already susceptible to punitive and exemplary damages, but as we know from Max Mosley’s case against Mirror Group Newspapers—I will not rehearse the facts of the case—the judge, when asked to award exemplary damages to the claimant in respect of the behaviour of the defendant newspaper, said, “Under the common law I do not think that I can extend the ambit of exemplary damages beyond the categories of libel and slander and so forth to a claim involving a breach of confidence or the misuse of private information.”

In the Bill we are extending by statute what that judge could not do, but we are extending it only to cases involving “relevant publishers”; we are not extending it to what I will crudely call “irrelevant publishers” or individual defendants who might misbehave in such a way that brings them within the regime of either of the two limbs of exemplary damages. I do not want there to be two separate types of exemplary damages. One statutory system should govern the consideration and awarding of exemplary damages, not one and a half or two systems. I urge the Government to consider this when they are thinking about how to take these matters forward. Perhaps having done so they will think that my concerns are of no importance or account, but I raise them nevertheless, admittedly in the light of having seen the document only during the course of this afternoon.

New clause 27A on the award of costs mirrors the arguments about exemplary damages. I entirely understand that the policy behind exemplary damages and the statutory costs regime as described in this set of manuscript amendments is intended to incentivise relevant publishers to come within the regulatory scheme. That is understood and perfectly sensible. However, we are in danger of misleading ourselves if we think that that is going to lead to easy and early resolution of media disputes. A moment ago I had a brief discussion with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) on arbitration and so forth. New clause 27A(2) —I will read it, if I may, because it might be helpful—says:

“If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must not award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that…the issues raised by the claim could have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or…it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.”

That involves a bit of saying, “On the one hand but then on the other.” It is not quite clear which is the desired policy because there is a bifurcation.

On the question of whether

“the issues raised by the claim could have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator”,

we would of course first have to see what that arbitration scheme looked like. Going back to the days of the now-no-longer-regretted Press Complaints Commission, that organisation, because of how it was set up and staffed and how the panels of adjudicators were composed, was wholly incapable of dealing with hugely complicated factual issues or with matters that required quite a nice calculation, or a nice discussion, of matters of law.

One might think that it would be very sensible that if a series of grossly defamatory allegations were made in a front-page article in a tabloid newspaper, or any other newspaper, that would lead to a dispute resolution process of the sort envisaged under this regime. Of course, it has a spurious attraction: “Let’s mediate, let’s settle, and let’s get it all dealt with quickly and cheaply and with the least possible intervention by lawyers.” As a matter of theory, that is a jolly good idea, but disputes come in different shapes and sizes. One can have the simplest possible dispute that does not require evidence or looking at complicated documents. I give the example of the meaning of words. If an article is defamatory on the face of it, a professor of English does not need to come and give a lecture about what this word means or that word means. The judge, if he is the arbiter, or the arbitration panel, can say, “This, in its natural and ordinary meaning, bears the following defamatory meaning”—end of story. Then the defendant, or the respondent to the arbitration, can say, “Okay, I accept what you say and I apologise—I didn’t mean that.” If meaning is the only question that has to be considered, some form of early, non-court dispute resolution, assuming that the panel is competent, would be a perfectly sensible way to do it.

Let us assume, however, that four contended meanings can be derived from the words under discussion. The defendant newspaper, be it a relevant publisher or otherwise, may say, “We don’t think that the words have those two highest meanings, but we do think that they have the two lower, less serious and less defamatory meanings. In so far as those meanings are to be derived from the words, we say they are true and we intend to justify them. We will also go further by saying that those meanings are not only true as a matter of fact, but that, in so far as they comprise or include comment, they are honest comment.” That will require the proposed system’s mediation procedure to go into all sorts of complicated questions with regard to the disclosure of relevant evidence, documents and so on.

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. and learned Friend is making a very good case. Does he agree that the PCC was notoriously fallible when resolving large newspaper disputes, but very effective at resolving disputes involving local media and newspapers, which genuinely respected and obeyed its procedures? The danger with the new system, which my hon. and learned Friend is outlining eloquently, is that the local paper will be stuck with the same regulatory process, which is clearly meant to be a sledgehammer, as large national newspapers such as The Sun and the Daily Mirror. I suspect that that will result in the process being more expensive for the smaller paper—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is exceptionally lengthy. I know that he has a distinguished record at the bar. If he were being paid by the word he would be greatly enriched, but I trust that he has made his point to his satisfaction. If not, he can always have another go in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

There are other victims of this whole process, some of whom were revealed in the evidence to Leveson by the National Union of Journalists. They were the journalists who stood up and said, “I refuse to implement some of these strategies”—these tactics, manipulations or whatever we want to call them—and as a result lost their jobs, while others were victimised. The culture of bullying in some newsrooms was exposed in the NUJ’s evidence. That is why part of the union’s policy was to advocate a conscience clause.

I am grateful that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, there is a “brush past” in schedule 2 to the charter, with the reference to Leveson’s recommendation that:

“The industry generally and a regulatory body in particular should consider requiring its members to include in the employment or service contracts with journalists a clause to the effect that no disciplinary action would be taken against a journalist as a result of a refusal to act in a manner which is contrary to the code of practice.”

That would add to the architecture of protection and lift the standards of journalism in our country. That is why I welcome the important reference in schedule 2, which my right hon. and learned Friend shared with us. I regret the fact that it is a brush past, rather than something more specific, but I understand the negotiations that had to take place. We will need to return to this issue in the coming months. As the board of recognition panel is established, the regulator then applies for recognition. Consideration of whether the regulator has taken the recommendations into account is critical. One of this House’s roles will be to explore whether full consideration has been given to the conscience clause.

When the idea of a conscience clause was introduced into the debate by Leveson, there seemed to be cross-party support for it. Certainly the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in support and the Prime Minister said he would consider the matter. Since then, the NUJ has been invited to go off and negotiate a conscience clause with individual employers. Unfortunately, that has not been taken seriously by a number of the employers. Negotiations have not proceeded and so far a conscience clause has not been inserted into a single contract. This is therefore an important factor to be taken into account by the recognition panel, and the regulator needs to put it firmly on the agenda for the future. A conscience clause would be an additional bulwark of support in establishing the point that we should not go through this cycle again and that there is a standard of journalism that we do not expect any journalist, editor or publisher to resile from. This will be beneficial in the long run. It will not impose onerous conditions on employers or publishers, and it should be welcomed as it will ensure a level playing field and a high standard of journalism right across the profession.

I am grateful for the reference in schedule 2 to Leveson’s recommendation 47, but I believe that the House needs to pay close attention to the roll-out of the process to ensure that it is considered by the regulator and that it forms part of the considerations of the recognition panel when the regulator is appointed.

[Guy Opperman]

Our constituents want a press that does not abuse the innocent, but that exposes the wrongdoer, the charlatan and the fraudster. I pay tribute to the work of Lord Justice Leveson, and to the people who have given evidence. Anyone who has ever given evidence or conducted legal proceedings will know that giving evidence is a traumatic and upsetting process, and to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry was a brave thing to do. Credit must be given to the Prime Minister for setting up the inquiry, and to all the parties for reaching some sort of agreement. However, it is a truism in legal circles and certainly in parliamentary circles that last-minute law is normally bad law. It is a matter of concern that the provisions have been produced overnight and that, even today, we are receiving manuscript amendments—only in Parliament are manuscript amendments typed—on important issues relating to exemplary damages, costs and the like.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is not the key to the matter the fact that this will be the law, and that it therefore constitutes statutory regulation of the press, with penalties and coercion if the press do not go along with it?

[Guy Opperman]

I hesitate at any stage in my parliamentary career to disagree on a matter either of parliamentary protocol or of statutory interpretation with the éminence grise that is my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). However, on this point I would disagree with him, because although the charter has to be brought to fruition through this House, it is clear that it is part of the common law. Its ongoing interpretation will be a common-law interpretation by a variety of High Court judges, who will spend a lot of time decoding, interpreting and attempting to fathom the provisions not only in the manuscript amendments but in the original proposals for the charter and the subsequent amendments that we received overnight. So, on this particular point, I disagree with my hon. Friend.

I suggest that this is a pragmatic resolution of a difficult parliamentary dispute. It is an all-party solution that accepts the fundamental principle that the Press Complaints Commission was patently not fit for purpose and was clearly letting people down. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) made clear in his well thought-out and eloquent speech, the PCC was unable to handle the large disputes of fact and law pertaining to the serious libels and slanders that take place in the media. It was extremely good at dealing with the local press and with low impact resolution-type cases such as those involving £10,000 payable for defamation, for example, but it struggled desperately to cope with the large media organisations and the particularly malign and difficult cases that, sadly, had to go to court.

That brings me, in the limited time I have, to the issue of costs. It fusses me tremendously that the position of an individual litigant in a case will not change that much. The royal charter might introduce a free process, in the sense that there is no claim form, unlike in normal litigation, but it will be free to those who are successful, because they will have some form of protection. The problem is that an individual litigant without means who lives in a suburban street in Hexham, for example, will still be unable to bring a course of action against a large media organisation. Contrary to the best efforts of those on both Front Benches, arbitration is still a complex, expensive and difficult process through which to navigate. It is also the case that while simple arbitration can and will be resolved on a relatively speedy basis, for the large cases that so concern us—everything from the Dowlers downwards—arbitration will take months at the very least, if not years, and will cost money.

That brings us back to the point of whether an individual who is so maligned by the press will be in a position to bring a course of action against a newspaper on the present basis of financial support. If that is lacking to such an individual, I struggle to see that happening. The individual would have to go to organisations such as the Free Representation unit or the Bar Pro Bono unit. I suppose I should make a declaration not only that I was involved with those organisations as a mediator, but that, statutorily speaking, I am still owed money by the Government for the work I did on behalf of the Government. That is, however, a side matter.

Finally, speedy laws done at the last minute—despite the massive efforts over many months by the Minister for Government Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) and others—will always need improvement. The improvement ability of this royal charter is exceptionally difficult and, as was explained earlier, is part of the problem of having a royal charter. The difficulty is now passed to the House of Lords, which has a solitary day to consider all the provisions in the charter, the amendments and the manuscript amendments in circumstances in which, I suggest with respect, there cannot be reasoned debate or reasoned assessment. If we could address that particular problem, things would improve massively. The reality in the end will be that High Court judges will assess the royal charter on a common-law basis and interpret it as best they can—with all the ramifications that we would not wish to see on an ongoing basis.

[Paul Flynn]

I rise to challenge the hyperbole of the Government Front-Bench team on this particular measure, which will not be a great Act that will bring new liberty to the country. It describes itself as a royal charter presumably in the hope that it will gain the respect that other royal charters have. One effective example is the one under which the BBC operates. At one time in my life, I had duties as a member of the Broadcasting Council for Wales to decide on political balance in broadcasts. Everything was decided on the basis of ensuring that those broadcasters who had air time represented the views of the country—not easy when it came to deciding on Welsh language broadcasts where one party was predominantly represented by Welsh speakers. It had to be done, and we found a way of dealing with the press that was effective and balanced.

No attempt could really be made to impose a political balance on our national press, which was described by Aneurin Bevan as

“the most prostituted in the world”.

We see that that is still true if we look at today’s newspapers and examine the way in which the Daily Mail, for example, devoted six days of front-page headlines, including in The Mail on Sunday, to one subject—to attack the Liberal Democrats. Other things were happening in the world, but day after day we had this political tract seeking to affect the results of a by-election.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said, we should look at the proprietors as people who have immense power—power without responsibility—so that even elected Prime Ministers pay court to them. John Major, for example, was threatened with having a bin dumped on his desk by the editor of The Sun. Tony Blair flew to Australia to pay court to the empire of Murdoch. We know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and the present Prime Minister were in close relationships, socially, with editors, and we have been given a very unhealthy revelation about cabals who are far too close to, and have too much interest in, the press, the police and politicians. That is a worrying situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

T4. May I thank the Minister, who has responsibility for broadband, for meeting me yesterday and for understanding the true complexities in the provision of broadband in Northumberland? Surely the true broadband nirvana for all rural MPs will be when we have the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—BT and county councils working as one, in joined-up government.

[Mr Vaizey]

I had a very enjoyable meeting with my hon. Friend yesterday to discuss the roll-out of broadband for his constituents in Northumberland. I assure him that I will work closely with my DEFRA colleagues to deliver nirvana.