Criminal Legal Aid Reforms

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I begin by registering my interest. I, like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), practised in the criminal courts for some time, and I, like him, was very much a thin cat. I recognise and agree with the comments that he has made about the quality of advocates who practise in our criminal courts. I also agree, of course, with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) on that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East on securing the debate and thank all Members who have spoken or intervened in it. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a debate and a discussion that has been ongoing for a considerable time and that the Government have listened to a variety of different contributions. He knows that, for example, Ministry of Justice officials have travelled across England and Wales and met approximately 2,500 practitioners, members of the judiciary and members of the public.

We have heard and considered views expressed by the hon. Members who participated in a previous Westminster Hall debate on these proposals, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), and of course the views expressed in the Backbench Business Committee debate, which has also been referred to today and which I had the pleasure of responding to. There have also been meetings of the Justice Committee; a moment or so ago, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) about those. In addition, there have been meetings of the all-party group on legal aid.

Furthermore, Ministers have met a variety of different stakeholders. We have received just under 16,000 responses to the consultation, which have all been considered in order to inform the development of the policy. We have also had a variety of letters from the public and from parliamentarians, a multiplicity of parliamentary questions and debates in the other place, which Lord McNally has responded to. Of course, there is also what has transpired in the media. So there has been a good deal of engagement and that process will continue. I certainly welcome the contributions that have been made to it today.

Let me be clear on one or two points in general. I think that the first point is recognised; I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) referred to it late on in his remarks. It is that we have to make savings in the legal aid budget. There is simply no getting away from that; in fact, I think that it is also well understood within the legal profession. So that point is not in dispute; it is a question of how we make those savings.

In that process, it is important that we listen to all the people I have mentioned, and to those in the legal profession. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East asked us to sit down with those in the legal profession and listen to what they have to say to us. Well, we have done that and I think that he will see the fruits of that when we respond to the consultation, which we will do as soon as possible.

Let me try to deal with some of the other points that the hon. Gentleman made. As he will understand, I will not be able to respond to everything he said in the time that I have—indeed, I will not be able to respond to everything that other Members have said in the debate. However, I will do my best to pick out some of the things that he referred to.

The hon. Gentleman and others referred to inefficiencies in the legal system and in the courts process that need attention. They are all absolutely right about that. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) all referred to such inefficiencies, as did the hon. Gentleman. Of course, it is an area that we must look at, but it will not exclude the need to find savings within the legal aid budget.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and others said that we should look at the very high-cost cases, and they are absolutely right. We are looking at the issue; our proposals include a 30% reduction in the fees paid for cases of that nature. Again, however, dealing with those cases on their own will not do the necessary job of delivering savings.

Many Members who have spoken in this debate have been concerned about quality, and of course they are right to be. No part of the proposals that we are making suggest that quality is not important in the provision of legal aid services, and any system that we institute will require those providing those services to maintain standards of quality. In addition, those standards must be properly monitored.

It is important when we talk about eligibility for legal aid that we are clear about what these proposals actually are. It is not sensible to refight all the battles over the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; we certainly do not have the time to do so and you, Mr Davies, would not let me. However, in relation to the particular proposals about criminal legal aid, the argument over eligibility is limited to whether it is right to set an eligibility threshold at a disposable income of £37,500 a year. The only people who will not have access to legal aid for criminal cases will be those who have a disposable income of that level or above. That is a generous level, and I think that the majority of our constituents would consider it right that people with substantial wealth should pay up front for their legal fees, which of course will be refunded to them if they are, in the end, acquitted.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Does that not counter a tradition in British law that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty? The fact that the Minister is suggesting that somebody who is yet to be found guilty will not have access to the law is an absolute affront to the criminal justice system in this country.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady, because we are not talking about changing that presumption of innocence. What we are saying is that people with the means to pay—sometimes, very substantial means to pay—should not have access to taxpayer-funded subsidy for their legal fees if they are, in the end, found guilty. If they are found innocent in the end, the amount that they have paid for their legal fees will be considered for refund. That is important, but it is not about a presumption of innocence, which remains intact, as—of course—it should.

I will say something about prison law, because that is an issue that many people have raised. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked some sensible and detailed questions about it. If she will forgive me, I must say that in the five minutes I have left to me I will not have the opportunity to respond to those questions, but I will write to her about the specific points that she has made.

However, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough is entirely right that the nature of the case that is being considered and that may be litigated is crucial. It is not the case that every instance of grievance raised by a prisoner should be litigated through the courts. Also, the changes that we are proposing say that it is important that when a prisoner’s liberty or the length of their sentence are considered, they should still have access to legal aid. However, there are a whole range of other complaints that can be more properly and more effectively dealt with through other methods, rather than involving the courts and costly lawyers.

I will also say something about the residence test, because the right hon. Member for Tottenham and others expressed concern about it. Again, I think that in principle it is right that those who have a strong connection with the United Kingdom should have access to taxpayer-funded legal aid, and that those who do not have a strong connection to the United Kingdom should not have access to it. There are exceptions to that principle, which we have made clear. For example, these changes will not apply to refugees or asylum seekers. In general, however, applying that principle is the right thing to do, and I think that it will have the support of the public.

Judicial review has also been referred to. We absolutely support the principle of judicial review. Those who have spoken up in favour of it were right to do so; it is a crucial tenet of our system that the public should be able to hold Government to account through the judicial review system. However, it is equally important that that system should not be abused, and we simply have to face up to the fact that there has been a huge increase in the number of cases pursued through the judicial review process that are not found to have merit.

It is important that the crucial pre-court phase does not cover the initial preparatory work on a judicial review case. In that phase, lawyers should think carefully about whether a case has merit, and they should have something at stake when they do so. That is the basis for the proposals that we are making.

[Dr Huppert]

Can the Minister just clarify the position about really strong cases, where the case does not proceed because it is won so quickly through a settlement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point in relation to settlement. Again, if he will forgive me for now, I will write to him about it, because it is not something that I can go into in the two minutes I have left. Nevertheless, he is right to make the point, and we will certainly explore it—

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jeremy Wright]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I would rather not give way to him; I want to deal with the point about price-competitive tendering that he referred to. Obviously, it is a crucial question. Should we deal with legal aid reform in that way? I am sure he is aware that as recently as last year, the hon. Member for Hammersmith was still saying that there was no reason not to do price-competitive tendering in legal aid, and that he said that he had seen nothing in the past two years to say why we should not press ahead with it. The hon. Gentleman may want to speak to the hon. Member for Hammersmith about whether price-competitive tendering is a deeply flawed concept that could never work.

However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will also know that we are considering a range of submissions—we will also consider his submission—and that the Government will respond to the consultation that we have held. In addition, he knows that there will be a further period of consultation on some of the proposals. I hope that he will be a little more patient and see what those responses entail, because we will want to consider carefully a number of things and to decide what our response to them should be. He will forgive me if I cannot give him a sneak preview today, but he will not have to be patient for very much longer to see how we intend to respond.

There are crucial points to be considered—they have been raised again in this debate today—about the nature of rural areas and the advice to be provided to people there. As I say, hon. Friends and hon. Members have made those points, and they have been listened to and understood. Similarly, the point was made about Welsh language requirements. Any contracts that are issued will include a requirement that Welsh language services be provided. That is the law and that is as it should be.

Again, I stress that this process is an opportunity for people to contribute their views about what we have set out. With our legal aid reforms, the intention is to do two things: first, to address the real financial challenge that we face; and secondly, to reinforce public confidence in what is a very important system of providing taxpayer-funded subsidy to those who need it in our courts. Our proposals have those twin objectives. We will listen to the submissions that have been made to us, but in the end those objectives are what we seek to achieve.

Probation Trusts (Triennial Review)

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Written Statements

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

On 27 March 2012, in his written statement—Official Report, column 129WS, announcing the launch of consultations on community sentences and probation reform, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Justice explained that the consultation exercise and subsequent Government response would form the basis of stage 1 of the triennial review of probation trusts. That is, it would identify and examine the key functions of these non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), look at how they contribute to the work of Government, and consider whether they were still needed.

Triennial reviews are a central part of the sponsorship and governance relationship between a Department and their NDPBs. All NDPBs are subject to triennial review, and the probation trusts formed part of the wider programme of such reviews for the Ministry of Justice.

On 9 May this year, following a further public consultation, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary announced the publication of “Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform”. This set out the Government’s plans for transforming the rehabilitation of offenders by opening up rehabilitation services to a more diverse range of providers, drawing from the best of the voluntary, community and private sectors, equipped with the flexibility and incentives to reduce reoffending, extending statutory support to some 50,000 offenders who receive prison sentences of under 12 months and putting in place a nationwide “through the prison gate” resettlement service.

As an integral part of developing the strategy, we looked in detail at the full-range of probation trust functions and at how we could organise the public sector probation service in the most efficient manner to discharge its new responsibilities. This is in line with the requirement of a triennial review to look at the function and form of an NDPB and to consider the best delivery model, options for which would include moving delivery from an arm’s length body to an in-house provision. On that basis, we will create a new national probation service, working to protect the public and building upon the expertise and professionalism already in place.

The design of our delivery model is based on our goals of harnessing the expertise of a more diverse market of providers to reduce reoffending, making use of new payment incentives and protecting the public from the most serious offenders through a strong public sector which is organised in the more efficient way for the delivery of its new functions. By sharing back-office functions within the public sector we can release efficiency savings to invest in rehabilitation, and by MOJ through National Offender Management Service (NOMS) managing the new public sector probation service directly, we can ensure that contract managers can effectively oversee the work of both the public sector probation service and competed providers, and how they interact. In considering the most appropriate delivery model, the consultation and strategy have addressed the central questions asked by stage 1 of a triennial review.

In line with the Cabinet Office central guidance on triennial reviews, where a review recommends that an NDPB no longer continue in its current form, there is no need to proceed to stage two of the review. This statement, therefore, marks the formal closure of the triennial review. In line with Cabinet Office guidance, my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, has signed off the outcome of the triennial review.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Triennial Review)

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Written Statements

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

Today, I have published the report of stage 1 of the triennial review of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB). I have placed a copy in the Library. I have taken the unusual step of publishing the stage 1 report in advance of completing stage 2 as it is important that there is clarity about the future of the Youth Justice Board ahead of recruiting a new chair of the YJB to replace the current chair when she finishes her second term of office in January 2014 and to ensure that the recommendations can be considered as part of my ongoing reform of the youth secure estate.

In line with the process and methodology established by the Cabinet Office, stage 1 of the review assessed the continuing need for the YJB to carry out each of its functions in their current form. The responses to the consultation have informed how these functions should be delivered in the future.

The report concludes that all of the functions remain necessary and makes 14 key recommendations relating to the delivery of these functions. It further concludes that it is appropriate for the majority of these functions to be delivered together as a critical mass of expertise. This decision recognises that the Government have repeatedly and recently stated their commitment to maintain a distinct youth justice system. Finally, the report concludes that the appropriate delivery model for the delivery of these functions is, at this time, as a non-departmental public body.

The Government will now continue to conduct stage 2 of the triennial review, reviewing the control and governance arrangements in place for the YJB with a particular focus on increasing ministerial accountability and a closer degree of control of financial management. I will report back to Parliament on the outcome in the autumn once this has been completed.

I am very grateful to all those who took the time to respond to the call for evidence. Their contributions and varying perspectives were extremely valuable.

Support for Prisoners’ Families

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

Members: Correspondence

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Bridget Phillipson]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice will reply to the letter from the hon. Members for Houghton and Sunderland South and for Sunderland Central of 20 March 2013.

[Official Report, 20 June 2013, Vol. 564, c. 792W.]

Letter of correction from Jeremy Wright:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on 20 June 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Jeremy Wright]

I can confirm that a response was sent to the hon. Member in response to her letter dated 20 March 2013. The response was dated 22 April 2013 and a copy of the letter was sent to her office based in the House of Commons.

The correct answer should have been:

[Jeremy Wright]

I can confirm that a response was sent to the hon. Members in response to the letter dated 20 March 2013. The response was dated 2 July 2013 and a copy of the letter was sent to their office based in the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

4. If he will introduce mandatory drug testing for prisoners on entry to and exit from prison.

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

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we already have a system of random and intelligence-led drug testing in prisons. He knows, too, that we are not persuaded of the merits of adding further testing for all prisoners at the fixed points of arrival and departure from custody. However, we are working with the Department of Health to test an end-to-end approach to tackling addiction from custody into the community, which includes looking at which prisoners should be tested and when.

[Keith Vaz]

The Minister is right: I do, in fact, know all that. However, it does not deal with the problem. The problem is that 35% of those in prison have a drug addiction and 6% acquire that addiction once they are in prison, so more come out with an addiction than went in with one. Why do the Government not feel that mandatory testing on entry and exit will help break the cycle of drug dependency?

[Jeremy Wright]

We are in agreement, because I knew all that, too, but it is worth saying to the right hon. Gentleman that we have one or two issues with the suggestion he and his Select Committee make in what is, I concede, an excellent report that makes a substantial contribution to this debate. The concerns we have are that if tests are done at a fixed point of exit, particularly from custody, the offender knows that is coming and can do things to try to mitigate the effect of the test. We think it is important to test on a random, and perhaps frequent, basis. We entirely agree with him and his Committee, however, about the importance of extending our testing to include prescription drugs as well as illegal drugs, because of the widespread abuse of those drugs, and I hope he will support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), which will achieve exactly that.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the effectiveness of drug recovery wings in prisons?

[Jeremy Wright]

We are very much in favour of the approach that attacks this problem in an intensive way and makes sure that prisoners understand that they need to get off drugs and stay off drugs. Drug recovery wings are extremely effective in that regard, and of course prisoners have an opportunity to move on to another wing thereafter, where they will be able to stay drug-free. That is an extremely important approach.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

If the Government cannot control the taking of unlawful drugs in a prison—a completely controlled environment—what messages does the Minister think that sends out to the rest of society for reducing the drug problem?

[Jeremy Wright]

It is important to recognise that the rate of mandatory drug testing producing a positive result has dropped considerably, from 25% or so in 1996-97 to about 7% now. So it is not that we are without success, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is no cause for complacency. We do everything possible to prevent the influx of drugs into our prisons, but that is an extremely difficult exercise. It is important to attack demand as well as supply, and to make sure that prisoners come off drugs and stay off them.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I warmly welcome last week’s announcement of a new prison to be built in north Wales. Will the Minister undertake that from the moment the new prison opens it will be 100% free of illegal drugs?

[Jeremy Wright]

I suspect it would be unwise for me to make such a pledge, but we will make sure that in all our prisons we do everything we can to restrict the inflow of illegal drugs, by whatever means. As I said, we will also make sure that we provide the maximum effort to get prisoners off drugs and keep them that way.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

5. What progress he has made on his plans to reform the probation system.

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

6. What his plans are for the future of the probation service.

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

We will open up rehabilitation to a diverse range of organisations and introduce new payment incentives for providers to focus relentlessly on reforming offenders. We plan to commence the competitive process for our new providers at the end of this summer. We will also create a new national public sector probation service, which will work to protect the public.

[Mark Tami]

Given the magnitude of the proposed changes, why is the Minister not piloting this scheme?

[Jeremy Wright]

It is a myth that there is no learning already available to the Government on payment by results; learning is available across government activities, and a number of pilots within the probation field have begun. Not all of them have been completed, but, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, it is possible to learn something from a pilot even if it is not completed. We are confident that payment by results is the right way to approach this matter. It is also the right way, of course, to release the savings we need to pay for an additional 50,000 offenders who currently receive no supervision. If he has a better way of doing that, we look forward to hearing it.

[Paul Goggins]

The Minister is in the unusual position of wanting to both privatise and nationalise the probation service at the same time. Will he explain to the House why the probation service is to be trusted with the supervision of the most dangerous, but will not be allowed to bid to work with less serious offenders?

[Jeremy Wright]

We think that a combination of approaches will work best. We think that the probation service has particular skills in dealing with the most dangerous and high-risk offenders, so we want to give it the opportunity to concentrate on those offenders. We also think that there is a huge range of innovation and good ideas among bodies of all sorts, in the voluntary sector as well as in the private sector, and we want to bring those ideas to bear on what has been an extremely intractable problem—driving down reoffending rates.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Despite record spending on prison and probation services, reoffending rates are still far too high. Will the Minister give an assurance that the new probation reforms will seek to address that issue, while also delivering value for money for the taxpayer?

[Jeremy Wright]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. She is right to say that reoffending rates are far too high; 50% of those released from custody reoffend within 12 months. That is unacceptable, and people within the probation service know that. We need to bring those rates down, and the best way to do so is to unlock the innovation I spoke about a moment ago and to have a system where, if people succeed in driving down reoffending rates, they receive the maximum reward and if they do not, they will not.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

One of the biggest weaknesses of the criminal justice system has been a failure to engage with short-term prisoners. Does the Minister therefore agree that probation assistance with that group of offenders is vital to curb reoffending rates?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. He puts his finger on a big gap in the system up to this point in that those offenders who receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or less receive very little or no supervision at all. It is very important that they should, because that is the group with the highest rates of reoffending. Some 60% reoffend within 12 months. We need to address that and we will do so.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Highly respected former chief inspector of prisons Lord Ramsbotham has called on the Justice Secretary to withdraw his plans for probation as they are too complex to be achieved safely. Concerns about public safety meant that not a single Cross Bencher voted with the Government on his amendment in the Lords. The timetable is unrealistic, the IT is not ready and the Department’s risk assessment states that the proposal is unlikely to work. Is it not time for the Government to take stock and rethink before they waste any more resources on this rapidly unravelling plan?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with her. This is an important and urgent reform. She must recognise that every single year 600,000 offences are committed by people who have previously committed an offence. Until we start to address reoffending effectively, that number will not come down and we will not avoid the creation of tens of thousands of new victims every year. That is why this is urgent. As far as I understand the position of the hon. Lady’s party, she agrees that reoffending rates are too high, that something must be done about that and that there is a problem with the group with sentences under 12 months, yet we hear nothing from her about what she would do about that if it was not what we propose to do. If she has an alternative, let us hear it.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effect on barristers of his proposed changes to legal aid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

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

Under our “Transforming Rehabilitation” reforms, every offender released from custody, including those sentenced to less than 12 months in custody, will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community. We are also putting in place an unprecedented nationwide through-the-prison-gate resettlement service, whereby most offenders are given continuous support by one provider from custody into the community.

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister has already referred to the number of offenders who reoffend within 12 months, and we know that prisoners are spending an awful lot of time banged up in their cells, when what many of them really need is education, because all too many failed in or were failed by the education system before embarking on a life of criminal activity. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that more time in prison is devoted to prisoners’ education, so that they are better prepared for life outside and for employment?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right: education is extremely important, especially for offenders who have very low levels of educational attainment before going into custody, of whom there are many. We are working on that. More prisoners are now doing education courses—more this year than last year. Of course, it is also important that prisoners go to work while they are in custody, and more hours were worked last year than the year before. I hope very much that that trend will continue.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Just last week, I met the Prisoners’ Education Trust and was told that much prison work is low skilled and does not in any way improve employability on release. What will Ministers do to ensure that prison work increases people’s qualifications, improves their CVs and gives them a genuinely better chance of taking up work following release from custody?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady will understand that there are restrictions on the types of work that can be offered in a custodial environment, but there are jobs that will contribute to prisoners’ qualifications and experience. However, there is a wider point, which is that, for a great many prisoners, who simply have no experience of the world of work, the softer skills they need to be employable—working in a team, getting up in the morning and going to work for a full day—are valuable, too, and we will seek to extend those skills as far as we can.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

11. If he will take steps to ensure that in cases where a person has disappeared and is presumed dead, their family and loved ones are better able to deal with the practical and administrative issues that arise. [R]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to improve literacy among prisoners.

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

Part of a prisoner’s induction involves screening for literacy needs, and where such needs are identified, prisoners are offered teaching and support as a priority. Improving prisoners’ literacy is a key objective of the learning and skills service in custody. Improving literacy skills means that a prisoner has a greater likelihood of getting and holding on to a job when released, which helps to reduce reoffending.

[Mr Raab]

According to a recent Ministry of Justice survey, one in five prisoners needs help reading and writing. Charities such as Shannon Trust have pioneered peer mentoring and synthetic phonics to improve literacy rates. What steps is the Minister taking to expand such innovative programmes, and does he agree that they are absolutely crucial to equipping offenders with the skills they need to go straight on release?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to cite the Shannon Trust. Its Toe by Toe project is an extremely good example of what we are discussing. We will help it in any way we can. I hope that he will hear a little more about that over the rest of the summer. The important changes we have made to the incentives and earned privileges scheme go beyond simply what we may take away from prisoners; they are also about the incentives we give them to help other prisoners. In order to reach the enhanced level of the scheme, a prisoner will have to help someone else in prison. That is a good opportunity for more mentoring and more learning coaching of the type he describes.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

How supportive is the Minister of creative agencies getting into prisons to help improve language and literacy, and is he aware of any barriers they might have experienced to running workshops in prisons?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am certainly in favour of anything that can be demonstrated to assist in reducing reoffending, but there is another test that needs to be applied: a public acceptability test. The public have certain expectations of what should and should not happen in prison, so we need to apply that filter, but I am certainly interested in imaginative ideas that will help to drive down reoffending rates.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Can the Minister assure the House that improving literacy among prisoners is provided equally across the United Kingdom? What consultation has he had with the Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Assembly?

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think it is important to learn from good practice wherever it happens across the United Kingdom, and we will continue to try to do that.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

15. What impact assessment he has conducted on the potential effect of his proposed changes to legal aid on the quality and equity of legal representation in criminal cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T5. If it is true that there are still almost 11,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons, what steps are being taken to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with other nations so that these people can be sent back to secure detention in their own countries?

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is the right objective. We have negotiated a compulsory prisoner transfer agreement with Albania, which is a high-volume country. That was concluded in January. We are making better use than ever before of the European Union prisoner transfer agreement. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that some 200 cases are currently processing through that method. We will remove as many as we can because, as my hon. Friend has heard me say before, the right place for foreign national offenders is their own country, not ours.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. Is the spoof Twitter account @FailingGrayling a reference to the failing Work programme or to the rushed probation reforms, which are sure also to fail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

My constituents expect prison to be a place of punishment and rehabilitation, not to provide a more comfortable lifestyle than the one inmates enjoy on the outside. Will the Minister explain how the incentives and earned privileges scheme will operate in the new prison planned in north Wales, and say whether daily life will be significantly different from elsewhere?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the incentives and earned privileges scheme will operate in all our prisons from 1 November. It will mean that prisoners have to earn their privileges by doing more than just keeping their nose clean, and by engaging in their own rehabilitation. That is good for combating reoffending, and is the sort of process that people would expect to happen in our prisons.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Justice

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Jeremy Wright]

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not record whether the prosecuting authority is the RSPCA. I can confirm that the LAA does not fund prosecutions, including those carried out by the RSPCA.

Legal Aid Reform

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

May I start, as others have, by declaring an interest, as a non-practising barrister? I practised in the field of criminal law and a great deal of what I did was legal aid work.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing this debate, which has been a very good, and understandably passionate, one. Having listened to a good deal of mock outrage from Opposition Members about the absence of the Secretary of State and their being stuck with me—I am trying not to take it personally—it is worth my reminding them of two previous occasions when we have discussed matters of great importance in the context of justice policy. The last statement in this House on a justice matter was about the rehabilitation reforms. It was a statement that Opposition Members had called for repeatedly, but the shadow Secretary of State was not here for it. Neither was he here the last time we had questions on justice matters, when we covered a range of important issues, including legal aid. I am sure we would not want to read too much into that, just as I am sure Opposition Members would not want to read too much into the Secretary of State’s absence today. As hon. Members have said, he will be appearing before the Justice Committee next week to discuss this very matter.

[Sadiq Khan]

Why does the Minister not just share with us where the Secretary of State is?

[Jeremy Wright]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to share where he was the last two times, but I suggest that we might want to move on.

This is an important debate, as hon. Members from all parts of the House have said. Before I try to respond to a number of the specific points made—the House will understand that the time constraints we face mean that I will not be able to respond to everything, and I apologise for that in advance—let me say something about the context of these reforms.

It is right to say that the previous round of legal aid reforms, culminating in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, will have already removed about £320 million from the legal aid budget by 2014-15, but those proposals were primarily focused on civil legal aid scope and eligibility. Alongside those changes, we have made sweeping reforms to the central administration of the legal aid system. We have strengthened accountability and introduced a more rigorous approach to financial management by creating the Legal Aid Agency. But the successful delivery of that programme has not eliminated the need for reform. In order to meet the ongoing financial challenges facing the justice system, which many who have spoken have recognised, the Government have had to look again at the cost of civil legal aid, as well as turning their attention to arguably the most difficult part of the legal aid reform agenda: the reform of criminal legal aid.

[Mr Lammy]

The saving the Government would make by looking at civil legal aid is £6 million in relation to judicial review. Does that really make it necessary to run a coach and horses through judicial review?

[Jeremy Wright]

The position is, as I have just said, that the bulk of the work done under the 2012 Act dealt with civil legal aid and the bulk of the work being done under these proposals will deal with criminal legal aid. The total value of the savings that these reforms would make if fully implemented as currently proposed would be £220 million by 2018-19. That is a significant figure, given our financial circumstances.

Many hon. Members have questioned the need for further reform, while others have said we should go much further. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made an interesting speech about more radical options we could pursue. The answer is simple: criminal legal aid accounts for £1 billion of the overall legal aid budget, and in the current financial climate, the Government, being committed to eradicating the deficit and the national debt, cannot overlook such a sizeable portion of Government spending. We have had to make extremely tough choices in other areas, and it would not be right to exclude this one.

Many hon. Members have said that we should look for savings in other areas of the criminal justice system. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) made that point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). All of them were right about the importance of looking at other areas. I think we heard some good suggestions today, and of course the Government will look in all those areas for savings, too, but that does not get us away from the need to keep the legal aid budget under proper scrutiny.

The package of proposals on which we have consulted is intended to ensure that our legal aid system commands the confidence of the public—that is important—and remains financially viable both now and in the years ahead. We are looking carefully at the 16,000 responses to the consultation, and, with reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central said, I can reassure the House that I and my ministerial colleagues will treat everything said in this debate as important contributions to that process. We will listen carefully to what has been said today as well as to what was said in the consultation.

We are duty bound to ensure, however, that taxpayers’ money is spent only where it is justified and only on those who genuinely need the state’s assistance. The taxpayers, who fund the legal aid scheme, have every right to demand that their money be well spent and to ask important questions. They have a right to ask why the taxpayer should be paying the legal costs of the very wealthiest Crown court defendants up front; why the taxpayer should be paying for criminal legal aid for claims made by prisoners that can be better resolved by other means—I will return in a moment to prisoner law— and why the taxpayer should pay the legal costs of those with no strong connection to the UK.

As others have said, our legal aid budget is disproportionately high. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made that point very effectively. We have an extremely good legal system—it is greatly admired and, as others have said, it contributes significantly to our society—but that does not mean that it should be immune to the realities that the Government face. Efficiencies have to be made, and reform is the mechanism for achieving them.

[Mr Lammy]

No one is suggesting that there should not be reform. Has the Minister considered the fact that 45% of criminal legal aid goes on high-cost cases, many involving bank fraud? Why does he not ask the banking industry to come up with an insurance scheme and take that out, rather than dismantling the whole system?

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that very high-cost criminal cases are an important area for us to focus on, and we propose to take about 30% of the cost of those cases out of the system, but he would be wrong to assume that those cases, on their own, could achieve the savings we need to make. We need to look more broadly.

I want to turn to the particular proposals and concerns that hon. Members have concentrated on. Many Members have focused on the effect of the proposals on smaller firms and on the issue of price competitive tendering. In 2011, we said that competitive tendering would likely be the best way to ensure long-term sustainability and value for money in the legal aid market. Some Members were concerned that this was a new idea suddenly springing into the political landscape, but of course that is not the case. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)was gracious enough to point out that the idea was first considered under his Government. In March 2010, the last Government produced a Green Paper entitled, “Restructuring the Delivery of Criminal Defence Services”. Among other things, it said:

“Currently the criminal defence service is highly fragmented, with a large number of small suppliers and relatively few large suppliers….We believe that these market trends are not sustainable. Therefore we believe a future tendering process would ensure a more consolidated market, with a smaller number of more efficient suppliers, required to undertake the full range of the services we need.”

That is what the Labour party thought in 2010, and lest we should run away with the thought that it has changed its view since then, let me quote from what I am sure is a very well-read blog written in October 2011 by the right hon. Member for Tooting. He said—as, to be fair, he also said today—that:

“I recognise that cuts need to be made…I would have carried through a new scheme for contracting of solicitors for criminal legal aid and lowered criminal defence advocate fees in the Crown Court…This more efficient contracting of legal services from solicitors has bizarrely not been implemented by the coalition government”.

So he criticises us for not doing it, then he comes here and criticises us for proposing to do it.

Another point that has been made repeatedly today is the effect that the proposals could have on smaller firms. I need to make it clear that the proposed competition model would see the number of contracts, not the number of firms, reduced from 1,600 to 400. Our proposals do not prescribe how many lawyers should be available or how those that have the contracts should divide up the work allocated to them.

The matter of client choice has also been raised by many hon. Members today. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised not only in the debate but by those who responded to the consultation. Let me reassure the House that quality-assured duty solicitors and lawyers will still be available, just as they are now. The Legal Aid Agency will need to ensure, as part of the tendering process, that all providers are capable of delivering the full range of criminal legal aid services across their procurement areas. That is also true in relation to the points raised about rural sparsity and about the Welsh language.

We have a number of things to consider, and we will consider them carefully. We will come back with our conclusions in the autumn. I am grateful that the debate has taken place today and for all the contributions that have been made. We will consider them properly and respond accordingly in the autumn.

Invisible Walls Rehabilitation Programme (HMP Parc)

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on securing this debate. On behalf of Her Majesty’s prison Parc and all the staff who work there, I thank her not only for how she made the case for the Invisible Walls programme, but for her support over a much longer period. The debate highlights an issue at the forefront of the Government’s plans to transform the criminal justice system.

The hon. Lady and I will be glad, as I am sure you are, Mr Caton, that crime has been coming down for some time. The overall level of crime recorded by the police decreased by 8% in the year ending December 2012, compared with the previous year. Such figures are encouraging, but they are not grounds for complacency. We can do much more to reinforce the downward trend, so that people can feel safe wherever they may be, at any time of the day or night.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, the key is to tackle reoffending by taking bold and effective steps to rehabilitate offenders—assisting, encouraging and guiding them away from crime into new, worthwhile and productive ways of life. That is precisely the intention of the Invisible Walls project at HMP Parc. It is worth saying that that matters because reoffending has been too high for far too long. Almost half of all offenders released from prison offend again within 12 months, and those with the very highest reoffending rates are prisoners with custodial sentences of less than 12 months. A staggering 58.2% of those released in the year to June 2011 reoffended within 12 months. The current system simply does not address the problem in the way we want, and many prolific offenders, with a host of complex problems, are released on to the streets with £46 in their pockets and little else, so the case for a new approach is clear.

We spend more than £3 billion a year on prisons, and almost £1 billion annually on delivering sentences in the community. Despite that investment, overall reoffending rates have barely changed over the past decade. The same faces come back through the system time and again, because most crime is committed by that relatively small number of prolific offenders. If we enabled them to turn away from crime, we could make a real difference.

As the hon. Lady will be aware, on 9 May we set out our plans in “Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform”, which took account of the comments received in response to the consultation paper that was published in February. The document sets out that, for the first time in recent history, every offender released from custody will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community. We are legislating to extend statutory supervision and rehabilitation to all 50,000 of the most prolific group of offenders—those sentenced to less than 12 months in custody.

The market will be opened up to a diverse range of new rehabilitation providers, so that we get the best out of the public, voluntary and private sectors, at local as well as national level. We will also introduce payment incentives for market providers to focus relentlessly on reforming offenders, giving those providers the flexibility to do what works, along with freedom from bureaucracy, but paying them in full only for genuine reductions in reoffending. We will create a new public sector national probation service, working to protect the public, and building upon the expertise and professionalism that are already in place.

Of particular importance, and of particular relevance to what we are discussing, is that we are putting in place an unprecedented nationwide through-the-gate resettlement service, which means that most offenders are given continuous support by one provider, from custody into the community. We will support the service by ensuring that most offenders are held, for at least three months before release, in prisons designated to their area. The hon. Lady asked me to consider how we might extend that period. It would, of course, be desirable to have the longest possible period of stability during a sentence, and she will be reassured to know that we hope that many people, particularly those sentenced to periods of 12 months or shorter, will be able to spend the entirety of their sentence in a local prison, which will enable precisely the sort of work we are talking about to go on with them.

The hon. Lady described how the Invisible Walls project seeks to help prisoners at Parc to avoid reoffending, and it also addresses the genuine risk that those prisoners’ children may themselves be drawn into crime. She rightly highlights what I think we all agree is a shocking statistic: six out of 10 boys with a convicted parent end up in custody themselves. The project involves an extensive programme of support to assist offenders to repair, develop and maintain healthy relationships while in custody, and the support continues after release. Prisoners who may be eligible to receive support are those who have no restrictions on contact with their children, and who will be resettling with their families in south Wales when they leave custody. That gives rise to the point about continuity.

As has often been observed—not least this morning—prisoners frequently have a wide range of complex interrelated problems that need to be addressed as part of a rehabilitation programme, and Invisible Walls helps offenders to find accommodation, employment, training, education and volunteering opportunities. As the hon. Lady says, the programme promotes physical and mental health—by addressing substance misuse for example—helps offenders to manage their finances, and manages offenders’ attitudes, thinking and behaviour, to give them the motivation to begin afresh.

The main focus of the project is on reducing reoffending and preventing prisoners’ children from turning to a life of crime by strengthening family ties. Research has shown that ensuring that a prisoner keeps in contact with his or her family while in prison has a direct effect in reducing the likelihood of reoffending. Some 7% of children in the UK will experience having a parent in prison before they leave school, and research shows that positive and regular contact with the imprisoned parent significantly improves a child’s outcomes, not only in school and at home but in later life.

An interesting aspect of what goes on at Parc is that prisoners are assigned a family integration mentor—FIM—who, as the hon. Lady knows, supports them and their family during the custodial period, and through the gate, into the community. The FIM links with other mentors, who help the offender and the family to address problems. Where we can arrange it, the support begins 12 months before an offender is released from prison and, crucially, continues during their first six months in the community. It therefore reflects very much what we have in mind for the system in the future, not just at Parc but elsewhere.

HMP Parc is operated by G4S, which set up the project in 2009 and, as the hon. Lady said, a number of outside agencies are now involved as well. She also referred to the invitation from Invisible Walls to schools in the Bridgend area to work with them to offer discrete and sensitive support to children with a parent in the prison, and she asked me to ensure that the Ministry of Justice has regular contact with the Department for Education. As she would expect, we have regular conversations about all the issues, and I will ensure that that project features in them, so that everyone, on both sides, is fully informed.

Part of the thinking behind the project is the need to move away from an inward-facing prison culture to an outward-facing approach, with strong partnership relationships with outside agencies, and that is precisely what our through-the-gate reforms are designed to achieve. What we can see going on in Invisible Walls is a good indication of the sorts of things that can work well elsewhere in the country too.

Invisible Walls received additional funding from the Big Lottery Fund in 2012 to expand the scheme from its original design, and that is an example of the sort of creative thinking we need if we are to make the big difference to reoffending that I spoke about earlier. The hon. Lady was right to point out that formal assessment of the project will not be complete until 2015, and we will carefully consider that assessment when it is available, but I hope that she can take it from what I have said today that we do not intend to wait for 2015 to see a number of elements of the project replicated in other places.

By opening up probation to a wider range of providers, we can bring additional skills and ideas into play, and the national probation service will retain its key role in managing risk, including the direct management of higher-risk offenders. The reorganisation of probation, and the creation of 21 new contract package areas, has presented us with an opportunity to consider release alignment. That is very much along the lines of what the hon. Lady was describing, regarding the continuity of approach that we all wish to see. It has long been recognised that closeness to home is an important factor in an offender’s resettlement process, and our reforms will strengthen existing rehabilitation services by drawing on the best the market has to offer and combining that with access to offenders at the start of their time in custody, and again before release. It might not be possible for certain longer-sentenced prisoners to stay in a local prison for the entire duration of their sentence because of needs attached to their sentence that can only be met elsewhere, but we intend that they be returned to a local prison for the few months leading up to their release.

Currently, 50,000 offenders each year are sentenced to custody for less than 12 months, and we anticipate that the majority of them will serve their entire sentence in a resettlement prison designated to their area. That means better continuity of supervision and rehabilitation services, as well as better family links and a network of prisons more specifically catering for the needs of that cohort of offenders.

Resettlement prisons are one strand of a comprehensive strategy of reform that seeks to tackle all aspects of reoffending. Invisible Walls displays the scope that exists for a wide range of organisations from the public, private, voluntary and community sectors to bring their skills to bear in enabling offenders to change their lives. I am glad that we have had the chance this morning to discuss the work of Invisible Walls and the wider context of offender management. No one imagines that changing entrenched patterns of offending is a simple matter, but the Government firmly believe that the measures we are putting in place will help to achieve a fundamental transformation, with enormous and lasting benefits for our society.

Football Referees

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Before I begin, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing the debate and on raising the important issue of how we deal with violence in sporting events. As he says, it is an issue that we need to take seriously, and we will. Such violence can be damaging not just for the individuals directly concerned but for all those who enjoy sport. They should be able to continue to do so in safety and in an atmosphere where the rules of justice and fair play are accepted and upheld. The respect that we show for the rules of a game such as football very much reflects our respect for others, for society and for the rule of law.

As my hon. Friend has made clear, football is one sport that has seen particular examples of violence on and off the pitch. Such violence sets a damaging example to young and possibly impressionable fans. We know of cases in which fans have been tempted to emulate the behaviour they see on the pitch. We must therefore make absolutely sure that we have the means available to prevent such violence where possible, and to punish it effectively if it does occur.

Looking at the cases that my hon. Friend has detailed, I can entirely share his concerns. I understand the frustrations felt by all the victims who do not feel that justice has been done. It seems that we have three fronts on which we should be tackling this issue. First, each sport’s governing body—in the case of football, the individual clubs—needs to deal with the incident to ensure that future events are not disrupted. They can and should discipline players and fans when enthusiasm spills over into violence and aggression. It is not clear from the cases that we have heard about whether clubs or the Football Association have always used the full extent of their powers, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that that would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Secondly, the criminal justice system has a role to play. My hon. Friend has rightly asked me and my Department to concentrate on the issue of effective sentencing, particularly for violence against referees. From that perspective, we would not want to see offences, sentences or procedures that applied only to football referees. The law must be seen to apply equally and consistently to everyone, and we would therefore need at least to deal with violence at all sporting events. We already have adequate offences, sentences and procedures in place that apply across the board, and ample guidance to help to ensure that they are applied consistently. With that in mind, let me first explain the offences available.

There is a range of offences that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service can use in the case of a violent incident of any kind, including when the violence occurs in a sporting context. These range from common assault through to actual bodily harm and to grievous bodily harm, and ultimately to manslaughter and murder. The penalties available range from a maximum of six months’ imprisonment for common assault to a maximum of life for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The police and the CPS have a full spectrum of offences that can be charged, and severe maximum penalties are available for those convicted.

Within those sentencing powers, it is for the courts to decide what the penalty should be in individual cases. The courts have the full facts of the case before them, and they can make an informed judgment about the overall seriousness of the incident. Sentencers are trained and experienced in arriving at appropriate penalties, and it would be wrong for any of us, particularly Ministers, to try to substitute our judgment for that of the court. I will not therefore comment on the individual cases that my hon. Friend has raised; instead, I will concentrate on how the courts arrive at their decisions.

The courts have guidance in the form of guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council. Courts are obliged to follow the guidelines or to explain why, exceptionally, they are departing from them. The guidelines are therefore rather stronger than the term “guidelines” might suggest. There are guidelines covering the general seriousness of an offence, and specific guidelines on offences of assault, and they can be found on the Sentencing Council’s website. As with offences, I do not think that it would be helpful to have specific guidelines that applied only to football referees, or even to sport in general. They must apply across the board.

The guidelines help to determine the seriousness of the offence by reference to the harm that the offence has caused, and to the culpability of the offender. Those factors can mitigate or aggravate the potential sentence. For example, in the case of assault, factors given in the guidelines as increasing the seriousness include the location and timing of the offence, and the community impact. General guidelines on the seriousness of any offence also include aggravating factors such as whether the victim is serving the public. That might arguably include functions such as refereeing a football match, as my hon. Friend does on a regular basis.

People often ask, not just in this context, why the maximum possible penalties for offences are not imposed more often. Sentences must be proportionate to the offending behaviour, and the guidelines help to ensure that the courts sentence in a proportionate and consistent way. The maximum penalty is set to deal with the worst possible case for each offence. The maximum is, therefore, rightly rarely used. Violence and threats towards match officials may be regarded as an aggravating factor, but should not be looked at in isolation as meriting the most serious possible penalty. It needs to be seen alongside all the other aggravating and mitigating factors in a case.

The third strand that emerges from the cases we have heard about this evening is how the police react in cases of violence against officials. That, I have to say, is partly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but it is largely, as my hon. Friend will understand, an operational matter for the police. I understand entirely what he says about the need to send the clearest possible message to the police about taking these matters seriously. We need to work with officers to ensure that they have guidance and training about cases involving match officials, so that those cases are treated in a way that properly reflects the harm such cases can cause.

I am afraid to say to my hon. Friend that there is no magic solution to the problem that he has rightly highlighted. I think he recognises that. I accept that we need to work together to raise awareness and to ensure that the system we have works better. We need to ensure that we signal that violence against match officials is wholly unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Question put and agreed to.