Transforming Rehabilitation

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I indeed pay tribute to the work not just there, but across the prison service. We have some first-rate professionals in the probation service who have a strong future in delivering support to offenders in our communities, whether as part of a high-quality, specialist public sector probation service or, indeed, as part of one of the new generation of organisations.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The Labour party suggests that there is no evidence on mentoring. I spent the past 12 months studying that particular issue for my book, “Doing Time”, which, amazingly, is still available in shops. The fact of the matter is that the Labour party introduced custody plus in 2004 to 2007 on this exact issue, but it did not follow it through. It is this coalition that has the guts and determination to address the crucial bridge between prison and release.

Literacy and Drugs (Custodial Sentences)

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

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

Prison works. It locks people up effectively so that they cannot then commit a specific crime. Yet for many years, prison has failed to change prisoners’ behaviour. Despite multiple new laws and increasingly tougher sentences laid down by ever more robust politicians, prisoners throughout the 1990s and the Blair and Brown Governments have still reoffended in the tens of thousands upon release. It cannot be a satisfactory Government investment when 70% of offenders reoffend on release.

Some 50% of prisoners have a drug problem, and 50% lack basic literacy and maths. Although we can bring much change within prisons to combat drug use and illiteracy rates—I support what the Government are trying to do, although we cannot discuss that today—we can and should start the reform process at the point of sentencing, before offenders even enter prison.

I argue that when passing sentence, a judge should be able to prescribe, as part of the sentence, compulsory completion of a literacy course when the offender is illiterate and of a drug testing and rehabilitation course when they have a drug problem. I would go further: I do not believe that we are sufficiently addressing the incentive to the prisoner. I seek a change to the process for release on licence and, possibly, a change whereby deductions are offered for specific success at passing either literacy or drug rehabilitation courses.

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of my speech, I should make a declaration that I have written a book on the issue, the worthy “Doing Time”, all proceeds from which go to charity. There is no personal benefit to myself. My ideas, which I talk about today, are more fully expressed in the book. I am a former criminal and legal aid barrister. I conducted nine murder trials on both sides of the fence and between 150 and 180 Crown court and magistrates court trials. As most criminal barristers will know, I am still owed money by the state, even though I have not practised at the bar for two years and seven months. I am grateful to all those who assisted me in the creation of the ideas in the book and to all the prisoners, governors and charities who helped and suggested the ideas that we are trying to expand on today.

The principle today is that we require prisoners to do something to qualify for the privilege of early release, thereby benefiting the wider community by being better able to cope with the outside world on release. At present, if a prisoner does not start a fire in the prison or does not commit some tremendous offence, release on licence is effectively automatic, the consequence being that the persons released are, by and large, ill equipped to deal with the outside world that they have to face. How do we know this? There is copious evidence from august bodies, such as the Centre for Social Justice, showing that 82% of all prisoners have writing abilities less than an 11-year-old’s, approximately 50% were excluded from school and have no qualifications and only one in five could complete a job application form. And we wonder why those people fail to become law-abiding members of society after release.

Prison numbers have doubled from 43,000 to 87,000 over the past 20 years and literacy and drug problems are often worse than before. In the prison in Durham, 300 out of 1,000 prisoners are on methadone or Subutex and 20% in most prisons will be taking illegal drugs. Many prisoners combine both. It is not surprising that we are struggling, if we are releasing people who are drug addicted into the community.

Many of the clients I represented as an advocate were incapable of giving meaningful written instructions or even reading the prosecution papers. Too often, they would say, for example, “My letters aren’t so good”, and they too frequently signed their names with an X. Reading and writing are the fundamental precursors to any job. Someone cannot even be a builder’s labourer in this day and age without the ability to read and write. There should be, where possible, a compulsory requirement for a prisoner to learn.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I declare an interest. I, too, was a barrister and prosecuted and defended. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and pay tribute to him for his excellent book, “Doing Time,” which contains a comment from Lord Justice Maurice Kay, saying what a wonderful book it is. It is a good book.

I agree with my hon. Friend about literacy: defendants often go into and come out of prison illiterate. Does he agree that when an individual goes into prison their skills should be assessed? For example, they may suffer from dyslexia or other issues. At the moment, everything else is assessed, but dyslexia is not. As my hon. Friend knows, dyslexia affects communication.

[Guy Opperman]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s point. One could go further on dyslexia. Dyslexia, like total illiteracy, is hidden by many prisoners in prison, because it is effectively a crime for them to admit that they cannot read or write or are dyslexic or dyspraxic. Unless that is tested for on arrival, there will be no awareness in the prisons of what kind of person they are dealing with.

Let us be in no doubt. No hon. Member in this Chamber, and no one in my party, has any difficulty sending people to prison, because they clearly should go there for the appropriate offence. That is not an issue. What is at issue is what we do with them when they are in prison, because that is when the redemption and rehabilitation should take place. Once the prisoner is captive, we need to teach them the basic skills that their parents, their school and their society have failed to provide them with.

There are many areas in which we can work to correct the issue. Notably, there could be a better approach from the Ministry of Justice, although doubtless we will hear many of the great things that it is trying to do. I am a massive supporter of peer mentoring, both outside prison—I welcome what the Secretary of State is doing—and inside. I will try to address that. Staff training needs to be improved. I welcome the improvements that I gather are taking place at prison officer training courses. There has to be a change in the attitude of, and constraints on, governors. It is scandalous that for too long, the 47 key performance indicators that determined how a prison governor was operating were all fundamentally to do with security and not about rehabilitation. That is patently wrong and I am glad that we are changing it.

[Rehman Chishti]

On rehabilitation, does my hon. Friend agree and understand that there is a problem in respect of prisoners on short sentences, because proper continuity of treatment cannot be provided if they are transferred between prisons?

[Guy Opperman]

There is no question but that the problem with short sentences is the most difficult task that the Minister who holds the portfolio at the present stage has to deal with. It is much easier dealing with a longer term prisoner, because there are all the benefits of time and, hopefully, security of tenure in a particular prison. I deprecate our moving prisoners around all the time and that there is no specific locality. I accept that it is difficult, but it is not impossible. The mentoring schemes and the work that we are trying to do must be the answer, and the basis on which we are trying to deal with the short sentence problem.

There is take-up, and we have discussed it briefly, and doubtless I will be told that there are programmes to teach basic literacy skills. However, participation in such programmes is highly limited. Prisoners are, without question, unenthusiastic to volunteer for such programmes, swallowing their pride about their failure in respect of literacy. There are also issues to do with whether they could earn more money doing work, rather than learning a skill. There is lack of incentive.

The National Audit Office recently summed up the current system with a damning statistic:

“Only one fifth of prisoners, with serious literacy or numeracy needs, enrol on a course that would help them.”

The consequence is that even if there were all the classes in the world and money was poured on to the problem, if there is only 20% take-up, the ability to transform such individuals will be seriously compromised.

I have no doubt that the Minister will tell me that the offenders’ learning and skills service phase 4 programme and the prisoner sentence plans are good ways forward, and to a degree they are; but prisoner sentence plans are, with no disrespect to the Opposition and the former Government, a classic, old-style Labour, tick-box Ministry of Justice approach, which, however worthy, has little positive effect. During the preparation of the book, I spoke to prisoners and I am clear that there is lack of incentive. The incentive is the key.

There is a solution from the courts. We can identify the problem at an early stage, on a relatively cost-neutral basis, and the judge can then pass a sentence imposing a literacy course as part of that sentence. Instead of the prison choosing to do that, the judge makes the order, which is part of the sentence. If it is left to a prison governor’s choice, depending on where an individual is sent, it will be a struggle. It would make the efficacy of prison so much better, because that prisoner could then be sent to a place that specifically deals with literacy or drugs courses, in the context of all our prisons.

Sentence deductions for completing such courses is the way forward. Such an approach is radical and, I accept, needs some piloting—it will not happen straightaway —but professionals at organisations such as the Shannon Trust, which I urge the Minister to hold close to him as the leader in this particular field, are enthusiastic about the idea. They make the point that unless the inmate is willingly engaged, we will struggle to deal with the problem. To make progress, therefore, we have to incentivise. The individual prisoner’s knowledge that the acquisition of literacy and other skills could secure him an early release date is a proper incentive, producing the manifest benefit of a cheaper prison system, which is of less cost to the taxpayer and allows us to spend our money on all the other things that we wish to spend it on. Furthermore, the people who emerge at the end of the process will be far better able to deal with their difficulties.

In short, at present the judges lack such a power; it is held only post-licence. In other words, the judge has the power to order those conditions for release on licence but, frankly, the horse has bolted and is gone. The moment that people are released on licence, their fundamental behaviour cannot be changed—we have to change it while they are captive. The power already exists on licence, so it is a short step for it to be acted on in prison. We need to teach prisoners to read and write, which is a proper part of their sentence, in addition to simple captivity.

To move on to the matter of drugs, the Government are doing good work following the CSJ, Huseyin Djemil and Blakely reports—all of which I endorse—to address progress in rehabilitation. The failure to test prisoners on entry to and release from prison, however, is bizarre. We end up with a form of Russian roulette. Fifty per cent of people in prison are drug addicted in some shape or form, but when they arrive they are only asked a voluntary question, “Are you drug addicted?” Patently, many lie. Some even bring drugs in with them when they enter prison, but we do not test them. Five in 10 going into prison are drug addicted, but we do not know who they are. How on earth can the governor properly deal with such matters and how on earth can the Government money that we are spending on such expensive institutions properly be targeted on those individuals? It is all very well teaching inmates to read and write—literacy—and all manner of skills, but if they are drug addicted when they emerge, whether to substitutes such as methadone or still to heroin, the drug of choice in prisons, it will be of no benefit.

I want compulsory testing, because it is surely better to know the problems before people enter the system. I stress the need to test at prison, although it might be considered for courthouses, because the problem is fundamentally obvious when one enters a Crown court. All Members present in the Chamber were lawyers in their former lives. In my time I represented a man who stole more than 150 times over 150 days, at £25 a pop, breaking into cars to get money for a heroin fix. The police would very much like the information that such a person was heroin addicted upon his release. We do not know what we are dealing with, but we can do something about it.

If a judge was able to order drug treatment and testing as part of a sentence, and it was properly enforced—there are plenty of schemes in prison, the best known and most successful being the Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust or RAPt programme—the prison, and the authorities on an inmate’s release, would know whether it had been successful. As well as simple incarceration, surely the object of the custody exercise is to change the behaviour of the individuals; if we are not detoxing them to become non-addicted to drugs, what on earth are we trying to do by sending people to prison? We should bear in mind, too, that 20% of all people who take drugs say that they tried them for the first time in prison. That is a sobering statistic.

I want incentives and deductions applied for automatic release, and release on licence must also be addressed in that way. If a prisoner is proposed for release on licence and has a drug condition as part of their sentence, but is not shown to be clean at its end, why on earth should we release that individual on licence? Release is a massive incentive for them. I would go further and ask the Ministry of Justice to consider whether, if we wish to incentivise, we should tie the two fundamental conditions that are key to changing prisoner behaviour to possible further sentence deductions. Hypothetically, on a two-year custodial sentence, one might be looking at a one to three-month deduction for successful completion of a literacy or drugs course. Surely that must be the way forward.

To conclude, if we simply ignore prisoners, lock them up and then discharge them with no skills, we will continue to have a repetition of the appalling statistics of 60% to 70% reoffending, in spite of all the best efforts of governors and Government. What I suggest is a potential way forward.

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

It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on securing it.

The debate is not only important but timely, because the Government will soon be publishing our plans to make a radical change in how we support the rehabilitation of offenders. My hon. Friend is rightly concerned with that new focus on rehabilitation both in this debate and in his excellent book “Doing Time: Prisons in the 21st Century”—no doubt available in all good booksellers and an excellent stocking filler. I congratulate him. He has eloquently set out today the issues that face us in tackling offenders’ problems with literacy and substance misuse. Both are significant causes of offending and reoffending.

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend suggests, but let me respond in detail to some of the specific issues that he and others have raised in this debate and elsewhere. Let me start with his suggestion that the courts should mandate participation in literacy programmes and drug treatment. The courts already play an important role in framing the content of community orders and suspended sentences. Informed by pre-sentence reports and medical evidence, the courts can use treatment requirements to address drug addiction. They can also impose programme or activity requirements that might involve literacy courses. My hon. Friend suggests that offenders sentenced to custody should be compelled into education, that early release could provide an incentive for completing courses and that offenders entering custody with drug problems should be compelled to receive treatment.

In his book, my hon. Friend acknowledges—I agree with him—that using sentencing in that way is “admittedly difficult”. It is important to remember that drug treatment ordered by a court would be lawful, or effective, only if it happened with the offender’s consent. That is how drug rehabilitation requirements work at present.

Equally, we need a release framework that operates fairly for all offenders, whether or not they are literate on arrival in prison. That said, I want to ensure that prisoners have incentives to engage in positive and constructive activity during their time in custody. For example, I am reviewing privileges in prison and the rules that currently apply to them. In this and other areas of policy, I want to ensure that we have a system that encourages offenders to engage with the support we offer, as my hon. Friend said.

On literacy, my hon. Friend mentioned his experience as a barrister dealing in criminal law—an experience I share, so I ought to declare my interest as everyone else in the debate has, although the last time I received any legal aid fees was even longer ago than he did. From my experience, I am aware, as he is, of the difficulties that many prisoners have with basic reading and writing. Many prisoners also experience a range of other barriers to learning, whether they be mental illness, poor thinking skills, communication difficulties, sight and hearing problems or previous negative experiences.

We are placing a strong focus on assessing prisoners’ learning needs and when a literacy need is identified, it will be addressed as a matter of priority. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) mentioned other learning difficulties, dyslexia among them, and was right to identify that as a significant issue among the prison population. We make every effort to identify that as early as possible, and learning providers in particular have a responsibility to do so.

Other things are being done to target prisoners with literacy problems, and to incentivise them to address those issues. We are working with education providers to develop engaging and motivating courses to target resistant learners particularly. Those courses will be marketed by prison staff as part of the prison induction process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham talked about the Shannon Trust, and he is right to recognise its significant contribution. I fully support its work, and have met its staff for discussions, and I am sure I will do so again. We are committed to the use of peer mentors to support reading schemes such as its Toe by Toe project, and my officials are looking at how prison staff can better support its work. My hon. Friend is right to identify peer mentors as a significant step forward in dealing with prisoners who do not, as he said, want to admit their literacy problems.

[Guy Opperman]

Does the Minister accept that there is a potential role for long-term prison inmates—prisoners in prison—to be peer mentors to other prisoners who have just arrived and need literacy or other courses? Clearly, the people prisoners trust most are other prisoners, and that is no disrespect to individual staff.

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I agree. That is absolutely right, and it is very much what happens now, although we would like it to happen a lot more. The Toe by Toe project particularly is a good example, but there is considerable scope for more peer mentoring, and for more established prisoners helping those who are newly arrived—not only with reading and literacy, but across a whole range of other things. I have seen very good examples of that, and I want to see more. Prisoners often find that working with carefully selected and trained peer mentors—they must be that—can be much less threatening than the classroom environment.

There is a problem, as my hon. Friend said, with shorter sentences, and the difficulty of addressing such problems over a short time frame. That is why we are piloting intensive maths and English courses in prisons, similar to those used by the Army, particularly to address the needs of prisoners serving short sentences.

We have also focused on vocational training and preparing prisoners for employment during their final year in prison. Those courses are closely linked to developing the skills needed by employers in the areas in which offenders will be released.

[Guy Opperman]

May I take the Minister back to consent? He said that it would be difficult to impose conditions on a judicial sentence attached to custody without consent. Indeterminate sentences for public protection were introduced in that way, and it is also the case with community orders, so there is no fundamental principle between a community sentence and a sentence on licence, both of which exist with a condition attached, and a sentence of custody with an imposition of a requirement to carry out these matters. Does he accept that?

[Jeremy Wright]

The issue is practical rather than legal. My hon. Friend will recognise that to get an offender to engage properly, whether they have a drug addiction or literacy problems, they must do so voluntarily, because a compulsory arrangement will not deliver the results that we all want. That is very much the message that I have heard from the Shannon Trust, as he has.

I recognise that there are always opportunities to impose restrictions on offenders, whether in the context of community sentences or licence conditions, but we must seek to incentivise prisoners to do what we know they need to do to minimise their risk of reoffending. That will be partly by persuasion, and partly by ensuring that they are prepared to engage with the provision so that they get out of it what they need. I understand my hon. Friend’s point.

Church of England (Women Bishops)

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I support wholeheartedly the argument for women bishops and believe strongly that it will happen; the question is not if, but when. The recent decision was a great disappointment. It is a great honour and privilege to follow three of the finest speeches that I have heard in some time, by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy).

I was a lapsed member of a religion. It was well and truly bred out of me by having to go twice a day and three times on Sundays as a child. It may have also been assisted by the fact that I discovered horse racing, and my talent as a bookmaker did not endear me to the local vicar where I went to school. When I became a jockey—a very poor one, I admit—many people prayed that I would improve, because I kept losing on favourites, which upset them tremendously.

I have now reverted to the faith and am an enthusiastic member of the Church of England. I rise to speak not because I believe that I have a great deal to contribute to this debate, but because I want to address one specific issue. I urge that the Church be allowed to resolve this matter—I strongly endorse this—of its own volition and in its own way. It concerns me desperately when the state starts to interfere with matters of the Church. I accept entirely the points made by the right hon. Member for Exeter and endorse the comments made by some of those who intervened on him. It is accepted that this place has a role to play, by reason of its statutory controls, in overseeing and ultimately endorsing the Church’s actions. However, we would take a large and significant step—in this I disagree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—if we attempted to mandate, order or empower the Church to take any action that it could manifestly resolve itself.

It is self-evident that rights are often won very slowly. Some parties to the argument wish the debate to move speedily and for the matter to be resolved. I am one of them, but that does not mean that I should tell the Church how it should behave such that it would not be able to resolve its own difficulties itself. In that respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who said after a previous debate:

“This is not an issue which can in any way be parked for the next couple of years or so, waiting for another round of synod elections…This has to be an issue that has to be resolved as soon as possible.”

That implies that Parliament should get involved, but I disagree.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

That was certainly not the implication. With all due respect to my hon. Friend, he has misunderstood what I said. I was saying that the Church has to get on with it, and I am very glad that it is getting on with it, as evidenced by this week’s meeting of the House of Bishops and the programme of work that it set out.

[Guy Opperman]

I am happy to take that guidance and clarification, because some people will have interpreted some of our debates and the questions that have been asked over the past month or so as giving the impression that we wish to get involved, rather than allowing the Church itself to make those decisions. I endorse entirely my hon. Friend’s point that the Church has bravely taken the step to expedite matters as fast as possible. Tomorrow, some of us will meet Bishop Justin Welby, who I understand is anxious to resolve the matter as quickly and efficaciously as possible.

It is right that we discuss this issue. We should take this opportunity to celebrate the role of women in the Church. It is patently obvious in my constituency that their presence has transformed the Church and improved it immeasurably. The Church is much more open and is much enlivened by the presence of females leading the congregation. That can only be a good thing.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s argument that it would be better if the Church resolved this matter itself, but does he not accept that there will be limitations on that, given, for example, that there is currently a bloc of Members in the other place, all of whom happen to be men? There is a limit to how long that can continue.

[Guy Opperman]

I would go further. I see it as the natural progression from this debate that there will be women bishops, that there will be women bishops in the other place and, ultimately, that there is the potential for women archbishops, although I have no doubt that that will not happen speedily. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says and he moves me on to my next point, which is that there cannot be partial equality. Eventually, equality must be total. In that respect, what goes on in the other place must follow what is taking place in this debate.

As one of my female priests put it to me, the Church is not actually about the House of Laity, but about the work that it does locally in its parishes. That is the most important part of its work. In my constituency and across Northumberland, I am certain that it is providing a fantastic service. Although I may have been a lapsed sinner in respect of the vices of horse racing, bookmaking and being a poor jockey, I am happy to now be in the right place.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I cannot say too much about all the detailed plans I have at the moment—I am in the early stages of thinking through some of the broader issues—but one point I will make is that I have asked the question about the use of the legal aid system for purposes that I do not believe it was designed for. I hope to bring forward further thoughts on that before too long.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my recently published book on prison reform.

I have represented hundreds of people who were in prison, not one of whom ever said to my good self that they were busting for a chance to vote; I assure the Secretary of State that that was not the intention of many I represented. What is the proposal in the option for considering short sentences of a few weeks or even a few days in custody?

[Chris Grayling]

Under the proposal to give the vote to prisoners who have received a sentence of either six months or less or four years or less, someone given a very short sentence would be eligible for a postal vote in prison. Of course, whether or not they are given that vote would depend on what Parliament and this House decide.

Sentencing (Female Offenders)

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies]

No, they are not. For the benefit of the hon. Lady, I have every single category of offence. I have figures for the likelihood of men and women being sent to prison for exactly the same offence. What she is saying is simply not the case.

The Home Office undertook statistical research some years ago to try to ascertain the best comparison for similar situations. Home Office Research Study 170, “Understanding the sentencing of women”, edited by Carol Hedderman and Loraine Gelsthorpe, looked at 13,000 cases and concluded:

“Women shoplifters were less likely than comparable males to receive a prison sentence...among repeat offenders women were less likely to receive a custodial sentence. Women first offenders were significantly less likely than equivalent men to receive a prison sentence for a drug offence”.

The Ministry of Justice publication I mentioned earlier also covers the issue of pre-sentence reports and their recommendations for sentences in the courts. It says:

“In 2009, a lower proportion of women who had a pre-sentence report that recommended immediate custody went on to receive this sentence than men (83% compared with 90% for males). For all other sentence options recommended in pre-sentence reports (Suspended Sentence Order, all community sentences or fines), a higher proportion of males received custodial sentences than females.”

Even probation officers, and we all know how soft on sentencing they are, recommend a higher number of custodial sentences than are actually given, and women again are on the receiving end of that particular benefit.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am not sure, however, that I agree with the entire thrust of what he is saying. What he is driving at, and the argument behind his thesis, is that women are being treated more preferentially, but would he accept at the very least that one of the reasons why women should be treated more preferentially is that, as mothers, they are in the position of having to look after those who might, if their mothers are not present to support them, lapse into the criminal justice system? I am sure that that is one thing with which he would wish to agree.

[Philip Davies]

I will come to the issue of women looking after children. As it happens, a large number of mothers who are sent to prison are no longer looking after their children when they are sent to prison. None the less, my hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. There may well be good reasons for women to be treated more favourably in the criminal justice system in the courts than men. That is a perfectly legitimate argument to follow. If people want to use the facts to prove that women are treated more favourably than men and then actually give reasons why that should be the case, I am perfectly content for them to do so. What I cannot allow to happen is for the myth to perpetuate that women are treated more harshly in the sentencing regime than men, because that palpably is not the case. If we can start having a debate along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests, I would be perfectly happy, but we are a long way from even getting to that particular point.

In addition to the undeniable evidence that women are less likely to be sent to prison than men is the fact that their average sentence length is shorter than that of men, too. Again, I refer to the Ministry of Justice’s own published figures of November 2010. “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System”:

“In 2009, women given an immediate custodial sentence for indictable offences received shorter average sentence lengths than men (11.0 months compared to 17.0 months for males).”

That is not a minor difference. The figures show that the average male prison sentence is over 50% more than the average female prison sentence. That is something that those who allege to be so keen on equality should think about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady is right. That is a fact that is given in the courts, which is why women are less likely to be sent to prison than men. That was a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made earlier. Let me emphasise my point with a case from earlier this year. Rebecca Bernard, who had 51 previous convictions for crimes including violence and threatening behaviour, led an all-girl gang that brought terror to her town. She has been the subject of two antisocial behaviour orders for making the lives of her elderly neighbours a misery. When this 23-year-old attacked two innocent men in a night club with a champagne bottle, it was thought that a custodial sentence was inevitable. However, she walked free from court after a judge decided that she was a good mother to her three young children. Bernard had smashed a bottle over one victim’s head and then stabbed the other in the arm with its jagged neck. A court heard that she had launched the attack because she believed wrongly that the men were laughing at her. Quite clearly, those factors are taken into account by the courts, which explains why someone such as Bernard, who clearly should have been sent to prison, and who, if she had been a male, would definitely have been sent to prison, was not sent to prison. That is the explanation. I am perfectly content for the hon. Lady to say that that should be the case, but at least let us argue from the facts, because then we will be acknowledging that men are more likely to be sent to prison than women.

[Guy Opperman]

I understand the basis on which my hon. Friend is making his case. Will he address the nature of the sentence for female offenders and the degree to which they are required to work, take literacy lessons and address drug and alcohol addiction as part of the offending management programme?

[Philip Davies]

No, I will not, because that is a debate for another day. These are all important issues, but this particular debate is about the sentencing of female offenders, and I am concentrating on the likelihood of people being sent to prison. If my hon. Friend was listening carefully at the start of the debate, he would know that the myth that I am currently exposing is that women are more likely to be sent to prison than men. As the figures that I have just quoted show, that is palpably not the case. I will go through other myths as we go through the debate, but there may not be time to go through every aspect of the criminal justice system at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

These women are in women’s prisons, which are not “masculine regimes”. They are in female prisons, for goodness’ sake.

[Guy Opperman]

Everybody accepts that those women are in women’s prisons, but at the same time we cannot ignore a statistic that says that upwards of 70% of offenders—male or female—reoffend. Therefore, does my hon. Friend accept that we have to look at a different approach, not only to sentencing male offenders—both Governments in the last five to 10 years have tried to do that—but to sentencing and dealing with female offenders.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend might be right if it was not the case that according to the MOJ—so I am sure it is true—the longer people spend in prison the less likely they are to reoffend, and quite markedly. The high rates of reoffending that he mentions only relate to people who spend short periods of time in prison. The longer people spend in prison, the less likely they are to reoffend. The figures are something like this: for those sentenced for up to 12 months, 61% of people reoffend; for one to two years, the figure goes down to about 47%; for two to four years, it is about 37%; and for more than four years, it is down to about 17%. So the longer that people spend in prison, the less likely they are to reoffend. If my hon. Friend and other people are suggesting that—

[Guy Opperman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

Hold on, hold on. If my hon. Friend and other people are suggesting that the 5,442 women who are sent to prison each year for up to six months should not be in prison, presumably they must also be saying that the 51,588 males who are sent to prison each year for less than six months also should not be in prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I will make an offer to the hon. Lady today: I am happy to go to Manchester and debate sentencing with her, any time that she wants to fix up a debate, and we will see what the majority of her constituents think. I think that the point that she makes is nonsense, but if she wants to argue it, that is perfectly fair. However, the point is that those things apply to men more than women, so this argument that this is all about women is complete nonsense. All of these issues relate to men just as much as they do to women.

[Guy Opperman]

All of us in this House would agree that those who are convicted of serious offences should go to prison. That is not in dispute, and neither is the desire to make prison more effective at rehabilitation. The statistics that my hon. Friend has produced show that longer sentences produce a lower likelihood of reoffending. Does he not accept, therefore, the overwhelming logic that if short sentences do not stop reoffending, short sentences are not necessarily working?

[Philip Davies]

We are getting slightly off the point, but I will respond to my hon. Friend’s intervention. The statistics do not suggest that. They suggest two things. The first is that people should perhaps have longer sentences, for which the reoffending rate is lower, not that they should have no sentences at all. The high reoffending rate for short sentences is an argument for longer sentences, not for no sentences.

The second point is that, in the main, someone has to have committed many offences to get to prison. If someone goes to court with more than 100 previous convictions they are more likely not to be sent to prison than to be sent there. People have community sentence after community sentence, and the only reason they go to prison is that those community sentences have not worked—they have not prevented them from reoffending. The reoffending rate for that cohort of people in prison, therefore, is lower than for those people when they were on community sentences.

Defamation Bill

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

For the second time the hon. Gentleman has made an intervention about a point that I am coming to. I shall come to the procedural pre-action work that I think is missing from the Bill and which the Committee should look into.

Let me move on to concerns about access to justice. The Justice Secretary will not be surprised to hear me say that under this Government we have seen access to justice seriously curtailed. The recently passed Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 will have an impact on defamation cases. Claimants in defamation actions will no longer be able to insure themselves against costs, and even if they are successful, they may have to pay some or all of their damages in lawyers’ fees. Although some other claimants—for example, in personal injury cases—will be protected against costs, no such protection is in place in libel cases. It is not clear whether high profile cases brought by individual members of the public—such as that brought by the McCann family against tabloid newspapers—would now happen. We would like to see similar protection for such cases as that given to personal injury cases, rather than simply limiting defamation cases to the most wealthy.

The Justice Secretary will be aware of the campaign co-ordinated by Hacked Off and the Libel Reform Campaign, which included a letter that the McCanns recently sent to the Prime Minister expressing their concern about access to justice. I want to quote part of that letter, which is very powerful, and which I hope will be considered by the Committee during the passage of the Bill.

“A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy libel clients…In future, ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke would also be unable to get support for legal action against them often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That will be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest...And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jeffries, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann, and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations and for gross misrepresentation”.

On that subject, my colleague Lord Prescott made it clear during the progress of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in the other place that his successful defamation claims against newspapers would not have been possible if the Government’s proposals on civil litigation had come into force. In response to Lord Prescott’s remarks, the Minister, Lord McNally, assured the other place:

“I cannot imagine that the kind of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, has raised tonight will not be dealt with fully in that Defamation Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 March 2012; Vol. 736, c. 1332.]

Yet I do not see those issues being dealt with anywhere in the Bill. If the Government do not bring forward proposals to address this deficiency in Committee, we will have to do so.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that, as a result of Lord Leveson’s review into press intrusion and the ability of the man in the street to get access to justice in libel, the issues that he is now raising could be readdressed?

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I know that he practises in this area of the law. In answer to his question: there is no guarantee that that will happen. This Defamation Bill gives us an opportunity to ensure that access to justice remains a possibility for all our citizens, and we ought to take that opportunity in the hope that another judge in another inquiry might come up with a solution. Let us bear in mind that there were two defamation Acts in the last century, and just one in the century before that. It is possible that there will not be another during our parliamentary careers, so it is appropriate for us to take this opportunity to ensure that this Bill is as perfect as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I was trying to illustrate the point by saying that there is a fine balance to be struck between freedom of expression and the rights of individuals to protect not only their privacy, but their reputation.

It has been said that reputation is a question of taste, but it is also a question of approach. Some take a very relaxed approach to attacks on their reputation. For example, when in his old age the Duke of Wellington heard about a book that was to be published about his private life, he famously said: “Publish and be damned.” That might well have been because he realised that most of the allegations in the book were true—I can say that only because the noble duke is long gone. Some take Groucho Marxs’s attitude. To Confidential, the infamous magazine published in the US from the ’50s onwards, he wrote:

“If you don’t stop printing scandalous articles about me, I’ll be forced to cancel my subscription.”

Sometimes, however, when there is no alternative, the only reasonable response to defamatory or libellous representations is for the individual to seek legal advice and to take action. That very much depends on the individual, the circumstances and the context. The Bill addresses, as well as primary legislation can, the nuances and the infinite range of contexts within which libel and defamation actions can be brought.

On alternative dispute resolution, to which many hon. Members have referred, no matter what we do to reform the law, the question of the cost of the legal procedure will remain. Like the Ritz, the law remains open to all, to adapt a well-worn phrase. The Jackson reforms were much criticised in the context of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, but they will not serve to change significantly access to justice in libel cases. Legal firms seeking to build their reputation will always be interested in taking the cases of well known individuals who have had their reputations besmirched, such is the way of practice.

[Guy Opperman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the practice of libel is such that a potential claimant will be massively dissuaded from seeking to bring an action without some degree of cover for the costs they could incur? Does he also agree that the way out of that situation is to institute protective costs orders for actions brought in the public interest?

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestion on what—I concede—is a problem. Jackson has recommended an uplift in damages to help to deal with the non-recoverability of after-the-event insurance and success fees. I accept that that will not be enough in some cases to deal with the loss to the individual that the recouping of costs and the plaintiff’s damages will mean. That is why alternatives such as the one he suggests have great merit. I would like to think that we will see a more sophisticated development, such as a before-the-event insurance market. Perhaps a person who becomes a celebrity or goes into public life could gain an advantage by taking out before-the-event insurance, but I accept that we are in the early days of such a market, if one can exist.

On the public interest defence in clause 4, I support the understandable reluctance of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and the Government to seek to define the term in law. The Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions found that what “public interest” means evolves from year to year and from case to case. It is far better to leave the term to be defined according to the case in which it is invoked.

The question of determining whether the defendant has acted responsibly in the public interest is dealt with in the Bill; the Bill suggests that the court may have regard to a non-exhaustive list of factors. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor dealt with that in his speech, but in my intervention on him, I highlighted the danger of such a list becoming a set of hurdles over which defendants would have to jump before establishing their defence. My view is that if the Bill contained a catch-all consideration—namely, a provision that allowed the court to consider all the circumstances of the case—the danger of that non-exhaustive list becoming a set of hoops through which defendants had to jump would be adequately addressed. With that caveat, therefore, I support clause 4.

Much has been said about the internet. I do not need to rehearse those arguments, so I will turn instead to clause 12, an interesting clause that gives the courts the power to order publication of the summary of a judgment made in a defamation case. That is a welcome change, which is a reflection of the public interest not only in allowing damages to be claimed by people whose reputations have been unjustifiably besmirched, but in obtaining proper restitution for that individual—in other words, in restoring, as much as possible, the reputation of the person aggrieved to its previous state. However—coming back to dear old Mrs Trellis—let us face it: that is what the object of the law should be all about. It is not just a question of damages; sometimes—I would say in most cases—damages should be a secondary consideration. It is all about trying to restore the wronged reputation of the individual concerned, although in privacy cases, once the secret has been brought out into the public domain, it is impossible to put the cat back into the bag, so to speak. Nevertheless, the question of intrusion remains and, in that context, there can be proper redress of grievance for the individual concerned. Once again, the two issues come together in an inevitable way.

This Bill is the product of much careful consideration. It is the better for it, which is why I am happy to support it on Second Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is a fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee. It will come as no surprise to Members that I support the Bill. I do so because it defends the sanctified right of freedom of speech that this House has sought to protect for generations and, I expect, will continue to seek to defend. But it is also a good Bill because it recognises that there are limitations to the right of freedom of speech—sadly, the courts have not always recognised in recent years that there are limitations to certain rights. With every right there is a responsibility, for example, and it would not go amiss to notify the human rights courts of that point occasionally. The right to freedom of speech has been recognised in the courts for many years but, to use the classic example, it does not extend to allowing a person to go into a crowded theatre and shout, “Fire.” We have to recognise that those rights must be curtailed.

The Bill will rebalance the law to ensure that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputations, and it is right that they should be able to do so. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are not, and must not be, unjustifiably impeded by actual or even threatened defamation or libel actions. The reality is that sometimes even the threat of a defamation suit can prevent a person from making a fair comment on something, giving an opinion about a product, service or individual, or expressing a doubt about something. Many will take the view that it is simply not worth it and decide it is easier not to refer to a particular area of controversy because they do not want to risk getting a solicitor’s letter and the very expensive defamation actions that would follow. The Bill will ensure that the threat of libel proceedings is not used to frustrate scientific, medical or academic debate, for example. Sadly, there have been examples of the peer-reviewed work of academic experts and others and their freedom to speak freely on those subjects being endangered by threats or actual suits for defamation.

We need to reduce the potential for trivial claims and address the perception that has arisen in some parts of the world that this country is suitable for libel tourists, the people who come to this country, despite the fact that only one or two of their books or magazines have been sold here, to take an action for defamation because the law in their home country is in some way unsuitable for their purposes. We do not want this country to be seen as a libel tourism haven, and that is addressed in the Bill.

In my judgment, it is right that the test for determining that a statement is suitable for defamation proceedings is whether it has caused “serious harm”. Cases sometimes go before the courts in this country when even a reference to someone being ugly or in some way antisocial is enough to justify a libel action. It is a matter of fact and degree, but in my judgment it is right that serious harm should be proven before a statement can really be considered defamatory.

The Bill also deals with the new statutory defence of responsible publication on matters of public interest, to which I have already alluded. Such things as peer-reviewed academic, medical and scientific analysis, which sometimes necessarily has the effect of rubbishing someone else’s academic work, should be appropriately open to debate, so long as there is no clear malice, and not subject to over-sensitive legal actions. The Bill updates and extends the circumstances in which the defences of absolute and qualified privilege are available, including extending qualified privilege to peer-reviewed material.

I am also impressed by the way the Bill goes some way towards addressing the issues that have arisen in recent years concerning the publication of defamatory material on the internet. The single publication rule that the Bill introduces will prevent an action from being brought in relation to the publication of the same material by the same publisher after the one-year limitation period. It has been quite easy for people to take defamation actions against newspaper websites, for example, and others if they repeat the libel that was originally the subject of an action. It is very easy for those websites to be insufficiently monitored so that they repeat the libel and a further and new action can then be taken. It is right that a limitation of one year be put on that, because the nature of the internet is such that it is very easy to draw down the material that was the subject of the libel and repeat it.

Another feature of the Bill that has been referred to in the Chamber is that it will remove the presumption of a jury trial in defamation actions. I would passionately seek to defend the right to a jury trial in almost every case, and certainly criminal cases. There are now very few civil cases that would be subject to jury trial—I can think of malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment, but very few others.

This Bill will not remove the right to a jury trial in defamation proceedings, but it will remove the presumption that a jury trial should be the forum that is utilised. We should of course trust our judges to exercise their lawful discretion to order a jury trial when they think it appropriate, and there will be some cases in which a jury trial will be appropriate, especially one involving one person’s word against another when there is very little other ancillary evidence, because juries are equipped to make a judgment on witnesses when they hear them from the witness box.

[Guy Opperman]

On jury trials, does my hon. Friend not accept, however, that in civil liability trials and in all number of other pieces of litigation, the judge is taken out of the assessment of the truth of individual witnesses, and that credit is something judges are well used to judging on a regular basis? Does he not also accept that there is a possibility of our merely returning to a situation in which we have endless jury trials, instead of trusting the judges to get on with the decision?

[Michael Ellis]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, and the common law will no doubt develop in this area, but I hope that, if this Bill becomes law and removes the presumption in favour of jury trials, judges will recognise that jury trials will be less frequent than heretofore. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that until relatively recently juries in defamation cases had a part to play in deciding the quantum of damages after successful defamation proceedings, and I recall also some rather large figures for damages awarded against various periodicals. I am a great fan of Private Eye, possibly because I have not featured in it—[Interruption.] I am not inviting it, and I emphasise that!

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I, too, support the Bill, and on defamation I fundamentally believe, as Shakespeare wrote:

“The purest pleasure mortal times afford

Is spotless reputation: that away,

Men are but gilded loam or painted clay.”

That was said in “Richard II”, a king who sadly did not last long enough as a Yorkist to enjoy much of his spotless reputation, as he was shortly killed thereafter, but his reputation, spotless as it was, went with him to the grave.

The world is clearly changing. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) and I shared an illustrious, or non-illustrious, career as barristers in a former life, and my old copy of “Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander”, the definitive edition from 1997, features not a single paragraph about libel and slander on the internet, because of course such a thing did not exist in those days.

We now face the dreaded heretic that is the internet troll. Many of us would not have known, until a couple of years ago when we took public office, what an internet troll was, nor would we have been subjected to the great delights of annihilation in print or prose, such that we all now have to face the slings and arrows of outrageous internet fortune on a regular basis, but the development of the law requires this Defamation Bill, which we are considering, and it can only be a good thing.

My hon. Friend said that we must move with the times, but sadly the reason why we have Lord Leveson’s inquiry is that too many political parties moved with The Times for far too long, and Mr Murdoch and his empire have been far too close to too many people on a repeated basis—such that I am beginning to distance myself from The Times.

[Michael Ellis]

I didn’t mean The Times newspaper!

[Guy Opperman]

I accept the possibility that my hon. Friend was not referring to that, but was referring to the development of events over the past few years.

It is absolutely vital to ensure that we have a free press and an ability to speak out without fear or favour—that is fundamental—but justice must be accessible to the people who receive comments from such a press. The Bill definitely increases that accessibility, and I welcome that wholeheartedly. Any interpretation of such legislation must take account of the countless stories told throughout this debate of people whose reputations have been annihilated on the internet and elsewhere.

[Bob Stewart]

Would it not be fair for people of little means to have the opportunity to go to, say, a defamation ombudsman who could give them advice and help them before they spend one penny? At the moment, the law seems to be available only to those who can afford it, and that is wrong. It should be possible for a man or woman of no means to be able to go and get decent advice from someone who knows what they are talking about.

[Guy Opperman]

I am delighted to say that to a certain extent such advice does exist. There more developed citizens advice bureaux and victim support organisations are able to provide such assistance, as are the Bar Pro Bono Unit and the Free Representation Unit. I have represented individuals in libel cases as part of the Bar Pro Bono Unit, and there will certainly continue to be such accessibility. However, my hon. Friend identifies one of the fundamental flaws in the Bill, which I hope will be remedied in Committee.

The Jackson report that was instituted by reason of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act 2012, which we passed on 1 May, ensured that there is no ability to recover the cost of insurance for the litigation. The consequence of that is that individuals who wish to bring such litigation against a newspaper would have to risk a great deal were they unsuccessful. There is a way round that. The way forward is for the courts is to develop what they have developed in other branches of the civil litigation arena—a protective costs order. In the case of Compton v. Wiltshire primary care trust, the protective costs order was extended to a local group of individuals to make the case a matter of public interest. This means that were someone to wish to bring a civil action against a public organisation or a newspaper and it was in the public interest for them to do so, they would be protected were they to lose the case because the very fact of bringing that action constituted something that was in the public interest. I suggest that we will see that development in libel and defamation law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North said, common law will develop to accommodate the fact that, sadly, there is no legal aid and precious little to assist the individual litigant in taking a case against the newspaper or public institution that has defamed them.

The nature of this Bill is such that there is general agreement that we need to move forward and have a better understanding of such access to justice, which is patently not there at the moment. I should make a declaration as a trained mediator and as someone who was at the Bar and has earned a moderate living as a barrister. [Interruption.] I was not a very good libel lawyer, I hasten to add. The shadow Minister just said that I used to practice extensively at the Bar in this field, but I assure him that I was of no quality whatsoever in libel cases; I got far too irate. A greater use of mediation at an early stage can only assist. Looking at the various problems that arise in libel, the mediation and the apology at the early stages are most important, not necessarily the damages that are ultimately sought, but we get so enmeshed in the process of litigation that we end up with a case that has mushroomed way beyond the reality of the loss entailed. I therefore welcome the extra mediation and alternative dispute resolution processes that the Bill will bring about.

I warn that there can be a sad tendency to have a great deal of discussion at the early stages of the litigation process. I have witnessed that in many a case. One has to clear hurdles at the outset to prove that the nature of one’s case gets over a certain threshold and it would be not unheard of for a newspaper or a public organisation with deep pockets suddenly to attack the individual and say, “We don’t accept the judge’s finding that you’ve got over this hurdle—we shall appeal this.”

I represented Mrs Compton in the case of Compton v. Wiltshire primary care trust, which concerned the health services in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). There were 14 separate pieces of litigation involving the primary care trust that went all the way to the House of Lords on seven separate occasions. Her original hurdle was overcome and tested all the way to the House of Lords. These early hurdles must have a finite end. If one has a preliminary hurdle to get over in a defamation case, as is now set by the Bill, there should be one single right of appeal and then the matter moves on. Without that sort of process, an individual may find themselves enmeshed in ever-deeper litigation before the case has even got off the ground. By that stage, years have passed, their reputation is gone, and their ability to respond to the libel or defamation has totally dissipated. I warn the Minister that there needs to be strict guidance on the maintenance of the alternative dispute resolution process as it goes through.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon has returned to his seat. I sat through his lengthy and impressive speech, in which he said, if I remember correctly, “The law, like the Ritz, is always open.”

[Mr Buckland]

I said that it is open to all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I apologise to my hon. Friend. It is possible that he dines in larger and more salubrious establishments than the rest of us, who are more Little Chef and Happy Eater people. I am sure that those days of the Ritz are sadly gone.

As lawyers practising in this field, we know that it is important to have accessibility, because without that there is no justice. There is a long history of those who have been defamed, from Oscar Wilde to Winston Churchill to Marie Stopes to W. E. Gladstone. It is good to see the Liberal home affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), in his place. Of course, Gladstone was the last man to be libelled from the grave. His son took an action on behalf of the reputation of W. E. Gladstone and his family, who he felt had been maligned and libelled, and was successful before a jury trial.

That brings me nicely, with a slightly Radio 2 link, to jury trials. That issue must be addressed with robust guidance. It is not sufficient to say to the courts that the presumption should be against jury trials. The Secretary of State said that in matters where there is a genuine test of credibility, there would be a jury trial. I entirely accept that, but it would be extraordinarily rare to have a libel case without a genuine test of credibility. The whole purpose of libel law is to test the meaning and intent of certain words.

[Michael Ellis]

Does my hon. Friend accept that in many cases it will not only be about the word of one person, the plaintiff, against that of the other, the defendant, because there might be supportive material that backs up one against the other, such as e-mails, an exchange of letters, other documentary or ancillary evidence, or supportive or corroborative evidence from other witnesses?

[Guy Opperman]

I regret that my hon. Friend—eminent lawyer, lion of Northampton and feared throughout the west midlands legal circles though he is—has identified the fundamental problem with his own argument in a sort of self-defeating prophesy. There will surely be an assessment of the individual merit of these e-mails and of whether they have been written by an individual who can be accounted for. All those matters will come under the test of credibility that he has espoused and that was put forward by the Secretary of State.

That all goes back to the issue of a jury trial. I have no problem with jury trials. I conducted nine murder trials and umpteen Crown court trials. The short point is this: if we are to reform the libel system so that defamation is no longer tried by a jury, save in the most exceptional circumstances, the test cannot be, “Who do we believe?” As I attempted to explain earlier, that question is assessed by district judges, county court judges, circuit judges and every other judge in the country on a daily basis. We do not need a jury trial to assess that. One could argue that 99% of all trials in this country are conducted in the absence of a jury, when judges assess the merits of an individual’s credibility. With respect, I urge the Secretary of State and the Committee to address this issue so that there is proper guidance on it.

This matter has rightly been dealt with on a cross-party basis. I support the idea of having a draft Bill. It is patently clear to those of us who have endured the delights of guiding such wonderful Bills as the Health and Social Care Bill through this House, drafted as well as they were, that we are now debating a Bill that has been considered by sane and intelligent persons on a cross-party basis, and that we are therefore fine-tuning rather than redrafting. That, I assure the House, is something that we should all welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Secretary of State, as always, for telling us what he really thinks.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

19. What his policy is on prisons being run by a charity; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Charities can apply to qualify as tenders in prisons competitions, but it is unlikely that they will have the financial strength to take the legal and commercial risks of running a prison. None is on our current list of framework providers.

We are actively encouraging the participation of subcontractors, small and medium-size enterprises and voluntary and community sector organisations within the supply chain of custodial services. Fifteen such organisations attended the launch of the current round of prisons competitions.

[Guy Opperman]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Clearly, there are very good examples of charities working within prisons, and I urge him to work with some of them to see whether it is possible for them to take over a community-run prison that provides a local setting and a local response to offenders’ needs.

[Mr Blunt]

I am obviously delighted to recognise the valuable work of charities and of the voluntary sector in supporting the rehabilitation of offenders. It is the area of our society in which, if we can engage the voluntary sector in such work, we will find that there is significant extra capacity for people who want to do the right thing to help some of the most damaged and damaging people in society to go straight. We have to ensure that those links work and that people can do the work. As I have said, there will be concerns about whether a charity has the financial resources to underwrite the running of a prison, given the commercial and other risks concerned, but I welcome the general tenor of my hon. Friend’s remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to encourage the inclusion of peer mentoring in prisons as part of the training of prison officers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Prison officer training aims to give officers an awareness of the benefits of peer mentoring currently provided by voluntary sector and faith organisations, such as the Shannon Trust’s toe-by-toe reading plan and the Samaritan-trained listener scheme. Our rehabilitation policy will encourage and facilitate mentoring for offenders by ex-offenders and other members of the public, as all parts of the justice system focus more on outcomes than inputs. The early payment-by-results pilots at Doncaster and Peterborough prisons both use peer mentoring, and the experience of these and all other pilots will guide future training and practice.

[Guy Opperman]

Does the Minister believe that the expansion of private provision in prisons and the payment-by-results scheme will lead to more peer mentoring and better prison officer training, and that rehabilitation rates will improve as a result?

[Mr Blunt]

Yes, but the payment-by-results scheme is not limited to private sector prisons. We are piloting it in two public sector prisons as well. The National Offender Management Service is to contribute £1.4 million to eight voluntary sector organisations to help with mentoring, and is also involved in a Europe-funded project that is assessing the relative benefits of mentoring by peers and non-peers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am extremely grateful to Louise Casey for the work she did and the discussions I had with her while she was in office. I find the hon. Gentleman’s question amazing. The post of victims commissioner was created by Act of Parliament in 2004, but the previous Government failed to appoint anyone for five years and a fresh statute was introduced to revise the post in 2009. Louise Casey was appointed in early 2010. We are reconsidering—again—the basis on which we make the appointment, but to be accused of tardiness by someone who was in the last Parliament is positively farcical.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the causes of reoffending. [R]

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

Based on a survey of nearly 1,500 adult prisoners, we found a number of factors associated with reoffending on release: negative childhood experiences; poor educational backgrounds; low employment prospects; and poor health prospects, including drug usage. Research has also shown that criminal history, age and gender are strong predictors of future reoffending.

[Guy Opperman]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Almost half of all serving prisoners have very basic literacy and numeracy skills. What steps is he taking to transform the literacy training that offenders receive in prison?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the problem. The majority of prisoners do not have the necessary reading and writing skills to do most jobs in the labour market on release. That is why assessing literacy and numeracy skills is a priority in prisons and why those with a need are offered classroom-based courses and individualised support, but there is also a role for the third sector, with organisations such as Toe By Toe providing mentoring for prisoners and by prisoners to help them learn reading skills.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May we have brevity? We want to hear as many speakers as possible.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a former barrister and a former criminal prosecutor, who has worked on several murder trials.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that I am not soft on crime, but I support the Government in their reform of this untenable, shocking and wrong system. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), he should hang his head in shame for being party to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, both of which were useless pieces of legislation that introduced something that the Prison Reform Trust, the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, the Nuffield Foundation and the criminal justice joint inspectorate described as

“one of the least carefully planned and implemented pieces of legislation in the history of British sentencing.”

The flip-flops of the shadow Justice Secretary would put a kangaroo to shame. It is entirely right to reform a system that was underfunded, worked poorly and is manifestly wrong in the circumstances of a 21st-century country. I will speak only briefly but I remind the right hon. Member for Blackburn of the comments in the House of Lords on the 2003 and 2008 Acts, when the Lords addressed IPPs in the cases of the Crown v. James and the Crown v. Lee. In a decision that effectively lambasted the then Secretary of State, Lord Hope of Craighead said:

“There is no doubt that the Secretary of State failed deplorably in the public law duty…He failed to provide the systems and resources that prisoners serving those sentences needed to demonstrate to the Parole Board by the time of the expiry of their tariff periods…that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they should remain in detention.”

I could go on to quote from the judgments of Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, but I shall pause there.

I have made it clear that I am not soft on crime, as others have suggested. The debate has sadly been too short, but the new clause should certainly be supported by the House.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I share the concerns expressed by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the meeting he and his ministerial colleague held with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and I. I am also grateful for the Lord Chancellor’s assurance earlier that he would still be thinking hard about the provisions as they go from this place to the House of Lords.

I want again to assert briefly that the Northern Ireland experience was instructive, and if the Lord Chancellor was prepared to reflect on it, it would strengthen the flawed prospectus he has given us. The experience in Northern Ireland was based on a tragic case involving Trevor Hamilton, who murdered Attracta Harron when she was on her way home from mass in December 2003. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) remembers the case well because he dealt with the issues too. Hamilton had been released at the halfway point of a seven-year sentence for rape, indecent assault and threats to kill. The public were outraged that such a dangerous individual could be released with no control whatever by the public authorities.

The framework in Northern Ireland is based on two key principles. The first is absolute judicial discretion, with no presumptions about previous offences, such as there were in the 2003 Act—so complete judicial discretion. Secondly, judges have to go through a very clear process. Does the offence justify a life sentence? If it does, that is what the offender gets. If it does not, the judge must consider an extended sentence, which can give some degree of control over the release date, but the offender must eventually be released at the end of the extended custodial period. If that is not sufficient for public protection, only then can the judge give an indeterminate sentence.

The result is instructive. The Northern Ireland Justice Minister, David Ford, has sent us a report, for which I commend him—the report should be put in the Library. There has been no significant change in the number of life sentence prisoners. There have been 68 extended sentences and eight indeterminate sentences in three and a half years. That system is in control and it offers the public protection.

There are real risks with what the Lord Chancellor is proposing. If he is right and judges suddenly start to impose more life sentences, he will simply have replaced one problem with what he described as the original problem. He will have replaced indeterminate sentences with life sentences, which will bring all the issues relating to resources and parole that he faces currently. The most serious thing is that under his proposals all dangerous offenders not given a life sentence will have a definite date for release, which is a risk too far for this or any Government to take. It will leave a gap, bridged in Northern Ireland by the indeterminate sentence not as a first or a second option but as a complementary third option.

I am glad that the Lord Chancellor is listening. I hope he heeds that lesson and that when he takes his legislation to the other place he will make further amendments.