Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse

John Howell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered achieving quality information and support for adult survivors of child sexual abuse.

It is a true pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I declare an interest as an ambassador for the National Counselling Society. Child sexual abuse in the UK is a public health crisis. The number of victims is simply staggering: 7% of people aged between 16 and 59 report being sexually abused as a child, which equates to more than 2 million survivors in England and Wales alone.

The all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, which I chair, recently published the results of a six-month inquiry into the impact of abuse, and the support and information that survivors need to recover. Of the 365 survivors who responded, 90% said that their intimate relationships had been negatively affected by abuse, 89% said that their mental health was negatively affected, 72% said that it was damaging to their career, 65% said that their education was affected, and 46% said that it had a detrimental impact on their financial situation.

It is common, if not typical, for mental health conditions triggered by the trauma of childhood sexual abuse to have a detrimental impact on all aspects of a survivor’s life if left untreated. They can cause survivors to fall out of employment, which jeopardises their financial situation and puts a strain on their family life. Some survivors accrue substantial debts while trying to pay for private therapy after they have failed to access appropriate support on the NHS. Others struggle to find jobs in the career they want to pursue, because their education was severely disrupted as a result of missing education because of abuse. For many survivors, the trauma of abuse makes it difficult to develop close trusting relationships.

The APPG’s report recommends that the Government publish an assessment of the economic and social costs of child sexual abuse, as the Home Office has recently done for domestic abuse. Having that information will help policy makers and the public to understand the scale of the issue.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent point. Of course, we have all seen many sufferers of sexual violence live with that for years and years, unable to express it, until a sudden trigger point means that they can come forward and say what has happened. Will she review those trigger points, so we understand them and can encourage them? Can she also tell us what she would recommend to encourage people to come forward as early as possible to discuss such issues? The earlier they are discussed, the easier it will be for the person involved.

[Sarah Champion]

The hon. Gentleman makes profound points that go to the nub of the argument. If survivors had confidence that the system would support them, I genuinely believe that they would come forward earlier. Early intervention is key—having a few sessions where people are listened to and fundamentally believed, and can then continue with the rest of their lives.

What tends to happen, however, as the hon. Gentleman has alluded to, is that survivors do not have that trust, so it can take decades for them to come forward, if they ever do. As a result, the spectre hanging over them infiltrates every aspect of their life. A trigger can be anything—the same aftershave that their abuser was wearing or a feeling of being enclosed in a space—so unless we address the actual issues and recognise that these people are victims of crime, they will not be able to lead their full lives and reach the potential that we all deserve to achieve.

Probation Reform

John Howell Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Clearly, there have been difficulties about the payment-by-results model in this context, and Dame Glenys Stacey has been very clear about that. She described herself as being delighted by the announcement today. I am delighted that she is delighted.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The attempt to bring in transforming rehabilitation failed partly because it failed to take into account and wait for the end of the pilots at Doncaster and Peterborough prisons. Does the Secretary of State agree that that has been part of the failure? Will he tell me what effect his reforms will have on those who want to introduce new services, such as a much better rehabilitation process through paid work?

[Mr Gauke]

With regard to previous experience, there is always a balance to be struck between trying to deliver something in good time and waiting to see all the evidence emerge. On where we are now, we should move to a different model. We will lead with Wales, and by the end of this year, we should have moved to a unified model. England will follow in 2021. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of work. He knows that that is a key issue for me in terms of rehabilitation. Both paid and unpaid work have important roles to play. I do want to encourage innovation; I want to make sure that, in such areas, we have innovation and a diversity of suppliers who can play a role in ensuring that we try new things, learn from experiences and get things improving.

Marriage and Civil Partnership: Minimum Age

John Howell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I thank our new Minister for replying to this important debate and look forward to his response. The debate is about whether the House should consider increasing the legal age of marriage and civil partnership in the UK to 18.

Whatever our differences, I confidently predict that everyone in the House believes that it is sacrosanct that we protect our children; indeed, I suspect that all agree that we should be at the forefront of protecting children across the world. Laws in this country rightly consider young people differently until they are 18, and in the wider world the United Nations convention on the rights of the child relates to those under that age. It is clear that 16-year-olds are not adults. Some may outwardly appear more mature, but the reality is that they are still developing in both body and mind. In their teens, boys and girls are still guided by parents and teachers; after all, it was us who insisted that they need to be in full-time education until they are 18.

Could Members possibly imagine the 16-year-olds they know—their own children or grandchildren—getting married at that age? My granddaughter will be 15 later this year, and the idea of her getting married in just over a year’s time is mind-boggling, and she would agree. She will not be forced into marriage, but sadly that is not true of all young people, either in the UK or, just as importantly, across the globe, and specifically in countries where this country, and indeed this House, still hold significant sway.

The ability to marry under the age of 18 with the consent of parents is an important legal anomaly; I would argue that it is an absurdity. The reality of child marriage is extremely complex and wide-reaching.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Has she looked at minimum ages around the world? There seems to be quite a large variation, particularly in places such as Africa, where it can be as low as 13 in some countries. Has she looked at comparative ages in the rest of Europe?

[Mrs Latham]

I have not actually looked at comparative ages in the rest of Europe. However, certainly in Africa and other developing countries, there is a wide range. We ask African countries and anywhere that we send development money to not to allow children to marry, and to set the minimum age at 18. They turn to us and ask why they should listen, because we allow children to marry. That is another very good reason why we should increase the age to 18.

The problem cuts across religions, regions and cultures, and it happens at home in the UK too, in the 21st century. The fact that it is possible to marry at 16 effectively means that child marriage is written into British law, which is held up as a guiding light in legal systems across the world. By not changing it, we give regimes an excuse to say, “What’s good for the British is good for us.”

I previously advocated changing our marriage law to increase the legal age to 18—with no exceptions—through a ten-minute rule Bill. Unfortunately, I had to withdraw it on Second Reading. Among the arguments I made in the House in support of the Bill were those relating to maturity levels, negative social implications, meeting international standards and helping to prevent forced marriages. I will reiterate all those arguments in more detail in this speech, to stress the importance of increasing the legal age of marriage in the UK.

Statistics on marriage among 16 and 17-year-olds are limited, but a limited dataset can be found on the Office for National Statistics website. It shows that 40 boys and 200 girls aged 16 to 17 married an opposite-sex partner in 2014, which is the most recent period for which we have data. Same-sex partners can now also marry at 16, but there is no recorded data on same-sex couples getting married at 16 or 17, which might be because there are so few cases, or none at all, of same-sex couples marrying below 18. The numbers might be relatively low, but the negative impact on the individuals involved in the marriage are large and wide-ranging.

Hon. Members should keep in mind the wider influence that our laws have. Increasing the marriage age in the UK to 18 has been gathering political momentum for some time. It should be noted that in 2017 Parliament considered the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, which sought to raise the minimum age of consent to marriage or civil partnership to 18 and create an offence of causing a person under 18 to enter into a marriage or civil partnership. Unfortunately, the 2016-17 Session was prorogued and the Bill made no further progress. I attempted to reignite the process with my ten-minute rule Bill, but this failed on Second Reading.

Frustratingly, previous efforts to amend the existing law have been rejected or delayed for a number of reasons. One argument is that the number of people who get married under 18 is so low—and ever decreasing—that it is not worth the legislative time to change the law. However, for those who get married at such a young age, the social impact is enormous, and as we have not legislated for more than a month, we could have fitted it in. The reality is that the largest body of people that this change in the law will protect are not foolish, love-struck teens but vulnerable young women forced into marriages permitted by their own families for a host of social and cultural reasons.

As a nation, we have a moral duty to do everything in our power to reduce the number of forced marriages and close loopholes that make it possible to obtain such marriages by legal means. This relatively simple and straightforward change to the existing law would have a significant impact on young people. Marriage is a major life decision for which children are not emotionally or physically ready. Marriage is intended to be a lifetime commitment and should not be rushed into. Setting the minimum age of marriage at 18 provides an objective, rather than subjective, standard of maturity, which safeguards a child from being married when they are not ready.

I passionately believe that it should be our priority to protect children, and that may mean from themselves as well as from potential dangers from others. The very fact that children of 16 and 17 need the consent of their parents to be married shows that they are not mature enough to make the decisions themselves—they are children. Increasing the age to 18 ensures that teenagers do not recklessly and naively rush into marriage, but it also protects them from the demands of parents who try to push their offspring to marry early. I say this as somebody who believes in marriage; I am not trying to stop marriage, just for those who are too young. In both cases, child marriages suffer from complications that too often end in divorce.

This year marks 101 years of the suffragette movement. We should recall that it was pressure from those brave campaigners that brought about the Age of Marriage Act 1929. Until then there was no defined minimum age, and making it 16 was seen as protecting children. However, 90 years ago, most young people aged 16 would have been working, probably since they were 14, unlike now, in England, where they must stay in either full-time education or training. My own mother started work at 14, so it would not have been unreasonable for her to get married at 16. She did not; she waited until she was 19, which in my view is still too young. However, life has changed. In other words, that was then and this is now, and we need to move with the times. Culture has changed, and so has our commitment to protecting young people—or at least it should have done.

There are a number of negative consequences from marrying at 16 or 17. Research has shown that child marriage is often associated with leaving education early, limited career and vocational opportunities, serious physical and mental health problems, developmental difficulties for the children born to young mothers, and an increased risk of domestic violence. A clear example of that is that if married children drop out of school and fail to finish education and training, they can subsequently be locked into poverty. It is clear that that phenomenon disproportionately affects girls. Child brides in particular are often isolated, with limited opportunities to participate in the development of their wider communities and reach their full potential in modern society. It is difficult for child brides to pursue education, employment or entrepreneurial opportunities. Child marriage therefore hampers efforts to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development goals. It leaves young brides at risk of premature school drop-out, sexual activity—often without consent or contraception—and the myriad health-related consequences that accompany teenage pregnancy.

The Campaign for Female Education notes that teenage birth rates are highest where child marriage is most prevalent. When girls become pregnant before their bodies are ready, they are at high risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth, which endanger the life of both mother and child. Human Rights Watch noted that girls who marry are at higher risk of domestic violence than women who marry as adults. The Campaign for Female Education supports that assertion.

It is interesting to note that, in general, fewer people are getting married at a young age. For marriages of opposite-sex couples, the average age for men marrying in 2015 was 37.5 years and for women it was 35.1 years. People are less likely to settle down quickly when they are young.

There is a far greater focus on education for both men and women now. Quite rightly, ambition and expectation are higher for many young people in the modern day and age. The late teens and early twenties are seen as key development years to study, travel and consider options for the world of work. Historically, women may have got married younger, but in the modern world their education and employment prospects are far greater. Some 37.1% of young women go to university, which did not happen in previous years.

The Campaign for Female Education states that women who are employed reinvest 90% of their earnings in their families, lifting themselves, their children, their siblings and relatives out of poverty. However, when a girl is married as a child, that can often mean the end of her education and impede her ability to become financially independent. The campaign concludes:

“One girl’s potential to lift an entire family, and even a community, out of poverty disappears. This is happening millions of times over. As the inter-generational cycle of poverty continues, youth unemployment and economic instability can lead to migration, conflict and violence.”

Every child bride could have been a doctor, teacher, scientist, entrepreneur or politician even. There is a huge social as well as economic cost to child marriage.

British law should act as a gold standard internationally and reverberate around the world. That should be the case with child marriage. We should be using our influence with other countries to end child marriage. Unfortunately, the UK is out of sync with other western countries and ignores the advice of the international human rights conventions on this issue. The international human rights conventions on women’s rights and on children say that countries should end the practice of enabling child marriage below 18. The UK is violating those commitments. Under the UN sustainable development goals, countries around the world have pledged to end child marriage—any marriage in which one or both spouses are under 18—and we have promised to do that by 2030. Human Rights Watch has asserted that the EU could do more to help to end child marriage, and I understand that the European Parliament is working towards that.

Many countries’ legal systems prevent marriage before the age of 18. I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that I had not researched the position in Europe, but I have looked at Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain, because they recently reformed their laws on child marriage, as did the US state of Virginia. Similar laws are pending in other US states, but not in this country yet. Other countries permit marriage among the young only for certain groups. For instance, according to the US State Department’s human rights report on Trinidad and Tobago from 2014, the official marriage age is 18 for men and women, but Muslims and Hindus have a separate Marriage Act.

International law is very specific about who should be allowed to marry. If a country wants to permit exceptions to the minimum age of 18, “mature, capable” children are allowed to marry, but only “in exceptional circumstances” at age 16 or older, when

“such decisions are made by a judge based on legitimate exceptional grounds defined by law”

and

“without deference to culture and tradition.”

By allowing 16-year-olds to marry without consent from a judge, the UK is in reality breaking international law. However, the great hypocrisy here is that we ask other countries, in the developing world, to abide by international law and ensure that the legal age of marriage is 18. I believe it is vital that the UK live by the standards that it is keen to advocate for in the developing world.

Following the first Girl Summit in 2014, the Department for International Development allocated up to £39 million over five years to support global efforts to prevent child marriages. There is a vast body of work to do, as globally 15 million girls under 18 are married each year. By its proactive contribution, the UK recognised that child marriages result in early pregnancy and girls facing social isolation, interrupted schooling, limited career and vocational opportunities and an increased risk of domestic violence, so why are we not leading the way by increasing the legal age of marriage in this country?

Sharia Law Courts

John Howell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sharia law courts in the UK.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members who have turned up on a Thursday afternoon when there is not much business on and at a time of local elections. That shows their devotion to this House and to the subject of this debate.

The genesis of this debate is a report prepared for the Council of Europe in January, at which I happened to speak. The report was led by a paper prepared by a member of the Spanish Socialist party, and it looked at the compatibility of sharia law with the European convention on human rights. I will turn to that topic later. The report singled out the UK, not completely approvingly, for how it approached this issue, as well other countries, such as Greece, which have taken a different approach.

When approaching this issue, I am aware that the charge of Islamophobia may be levelled against us, but it is right that we consider sharia law courts or councils in terms of their conformity with the European convention on human rights, just as we do with other aspects of UK society. I am also aware of “The independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales”, which was produced in February 2018. The review was chaired by Professor Mona Siddiqui of the University of Edinburgh, and the panel included distinguished lawyers and religious and theological experts. I read that report with great interest.

The Council of Europe called on the authorities of the United Kingdom to do a number of things. I will read them out but comment on only one of them. First, it called on the UK to

“ensure that sharia councils operate within the law, especially as it relates to the prohibition of discrimination against women, and respect all procedural rights.”

Secondly, it called on the UK to review the Marriage Act 1949,

to make it a legal requirement for Muslim couples to civilly register their marriage before or at the same time as their Islamic ceremony, as”—

the report claims—

“is already stipulated by law for Christian and Jewish marriages.”

As an aside, I am aware that a number of imams are also qualified registrars and can therefore conduct the civil service at the same time as the religious service. Similarly, a number of Catholic priests are qualified registrars. However, I do not think there is a legal requirement for that to go ahead.

Thirdly, the Council called on the UK to

“take appropriate enforcement measures to oblige the celebrant of any marriage, including Islamic marriages, to ensure that the marriage is also civilly registered before or at the same time as celebrating the religious marriage.”

Fourthly, it called on the UK to ensure that vulnerable women are provided with safeguards against exploitation and informed about their right to seek redress before UK courts. The Council also called for awareness-raising campaigns to be put in place, to encourage Muslim communities to acknowledge and respect women’s rights in civil law, especially in marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. As an aside, I think there is a lot to be said for emphasising that particular point and ensuring that we indulge in awareness campaigns.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about awareness. Like him, I carefully read the independent Home Office report, which said:

“It is this misrepresentation of sharia councils as courts that leads to public misconceptions over the primacy of sharia over domestic law and concerns of a parallel legal system.”

Although the hon. Gentleman has been careful with his language, as I would expect, the Order Paper says “sharia law courts”, which is precisely what the Home Office report said we should avoid.

[John Howell]

I realise that the independent report calls them sharia law councils, but we can come on to look at that in the moment. I was reading out the Council of Europe’s descriptions, which calls them sharia law courts. We should continue with that, at least for the moment.

The Council’s next point was that the UK should

“conduct further research on the ‘judicial’ practice of Sharia councils”—

to use that term—

“and on the extent to which such councils are used voluntarily, particularly by women, many of whom would be subject to intense community pressure in this respect.”

The Council of Europe committee held meetings with Professor Ruud Peters of the University of Amsterdam and Professor Mathias Rohe of Erlangen University in Germany. On 5 September 2017 it held another hearing and the participants included Mr Konstantinos Tsitselikis, professor in human rights law and international organisations at the University of Macedonia, and Ms Machteld Zee, a political scientist and author. Finally, I was pleased that the committee held an exchange of views with Professor Mona Siddiqui, whom I have already mentioned.

Professor Sandberg from Cardiff University has recently said:

“Surely the issue of concern is whether people are pressurised into the form of alternative dispute resolution provided by Sharia councils? The Resolution distinguishes between situations where Muslims submit voluntarily and, alternatively, where they submit under social pressure”.

He says that the report does not pursue that any further and:

“That, however, is the nub of the issue.”

He goes on to say:

“Where the decision to use a religious authority for dispute resolution is genuinely voluntary on the part of both parties then this should be no more objectionable than any other form of alternative dispute resolution”—

provided that it also conforms with UK law.

As the Council’s report makes clear, sharia law is understood as the law to be obeyed by every Muslim. It divides all human action into five categories: what is obligatory, recommended, neutral, disapproved of and prohibited. It makes two forms of legal ruling: one designed to organise society and one to deal with everyday situations. It also has a legal opinion, intended to cover a special situation.

Sharia law, therefore, is meant in essence to be a positive law, enforceable on Muslims. Although most states with Muslim majorities have inserted in their constitutions a provision referring to Islam or Islamic law, the effect of those provisions is largely symbolic or confined to family law. Those religious provisions may have a legal effect if raised in the courts, and a political effect if they intrude into institutional attitudes and practices.

I shall consider the general principles of sharia law in relation to the European convention on human rights, particularly article 14, on the prohibition of discrimination on grounds such as sex and religion, and article 5 of protocol 7 to the convention, which establishes equality between spouses in law. Other aspects of the convention may also have an effect.

In Islamic family law, men have authority over women, because God has made the one superior to the other. It goes on to say that good women are obedient. It encourages women who stray from those norms to suffer punishment. In sharia law, adultery is strictly prohibited, and legal doctrine holds that the evidence must take the form of corroborating testimony from witnesses to prove an individual’s guilt. In the case of rape, which is seldom committed in public, there must be four male witnesses who are good Muslims, so punishing the rapist is difficult, if not impossible. In practice, women are obliged to be accompanied by men when they go out, which is not conducive to their independence.

Under Islamic law, a husband has a unilateral right to divorce, although it can be delegated to the wife and she can therefore exercise her right to divorce. Otherwise, she may initiate a divorce process but only with the consent of her husband, by seeking what is known as khula, in which case the wife forgoes her dowry. In cases where the husband has deserted the wife, has failed to co-operate with the divorce process or is acting unreasonably, the marriage may be dissolved, but only by a sharia ruling. While divorce by mutual consent is enshrined in Islamic law, the application must in this case come from the wife, since the husband can repudiate his wife at any time. There is also the question of equal rights regarding divorce arrangements, such as custody of children.

For the division of an estate among the heirs, distinctions are made according to the sex of the heir. A male heir has a double share, whereas a female heir has a single share. In addition, the rights of a surviving wife are half those of a surviving husband. Non-Muslims do not have the same rights as Muslims in criminal and civil law under sharia law. That applies, for example, to the weight attached to their testimony in court, which is discrimination on the grounds of religion within the meaning of articles 9 and 14 of the convention.

The European Court of Human Rights had the chance to rule on the incompatibility of sharia law with human rights in the early 2000s, in its judgment on the Welfare party v. Turkey, which held that

“Turkey, like any other Contracting Party, may legitimately prevent the application within its jurisdiction of private-law rules of religious inspiration prejudicial to public order and the values of democracy for Convention purposes (such as rules permitting discrimination based on the gender of the parties concerned, as in polygamy and privileges for the male sex in matters of divorce and succession).”

In that particular case, the decision by the Turkish constitutional court to order the dissolution of the Welfare party, which advocated the introduction of sharia law, was held to be compatible with the convention, and the Court clearly affirmed the following:

“It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”

With respect to sharia law itself, the Court expressly stated that

“a political party whose actions seem to be aimed at introducing sharia in a State Party to the Convention can hardly be regarded as an association complying with the democratic ideal that underlies the whole of the Convention”.

However, although the Court has ruled that sharia law is incompatible with the convention, that does not mean that there is absolute incompatibility between the convention and Islam. The Court also recognised that religion is

“one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life”.

Accordingly, the Court’s relatively firm position should not be taken as a rejection of all elements of sharia or of Islam as a whole, while taking into account the existence of structural incompatibilities between Islam and the convention which, as far as sharia law is concerned, are sometimes absolute and sometimes relative.

It is also likely that a large number of cases concerning the position of Muslim women under Islamic law never come before the ordinary courts or the European Court of Human Rights because women are under enormous pressure from their families and their communities to comply with the demands of the informal religious courts. Such cases give rise to the question whether to use the concept of public order to refuse to recognise, or enforce, discriminatory decisions, even if they are not challenged by the women concerned.

There is currently no single accepted definition of the term “sharia council” in the United Kingdom, where such bodies generally provide advice and attempt to resolve disputes relating to family or personal issues according to the principles of sharia law. However, little is known about their work, which is conducted in private, and decisions are not published, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability. There is also uncertainty about the number of sharia courts operating in the UK. A study by the University of Reading identified 30 groups involved in such activity, and a report by the think-tank Civitas estimated that at least 85 groups are in operation, although that figure also includes informal tribunals run out of mosques or online forums.

Sharia councils provide a form of alternative dispute resolution, something I am very familiar with, having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution for the past three years. Members of the Muslim community voluntarily consent to accept the religious jurisdiction of sharia councils. Marital issues and the granting of Islamic marriage divorces account for about 90% of their work. They also advise in matters of law, including issues of inheritance, probate and wills and Islamic commercial law contracts, and they provide mediation, counselling and religious ruling services.

Sharia councils are not considered part of the British legal system. They are not courts and their decisions are not legally binding. However, despite having no judicial authority, some councils see themselves as authoritative on religious issues, and the power of sharia councils lies in how they are perceived by their communities.

A significant number of Muslims do not have a marriage recognised under British law. Those who do not register their marriage under civil law, and some who have been married abroad, have little redress available to them, as their position under British law is similar to that of unmarried cohabitants who have few financial remedies on the breakdown of their relationship. A significant number of Muslim couples fail to civilly register their religious marriages, and some Muslim women therefore have no option of obtaining a civil divorce. Some women may have no other option but to obtain a religious divorce, for which the judgment of a sharia council is normally required.

Furthermore, even in cases where women have a civil law marriage, some might seek the decision of a sharia council for reasons of self-identity or community standing, or to provide reassurance that they have the religious freedom to remarry within their faith. Those who obtain a civil divorce but not a religious divorce might find it difficult to remarry—a position sometimes referred to as a “limping marriage”. One of the experts invited to testify before the committee, Ms Zee, denounced what she described as “marital captivity”.

There are numerous reports citing examples of how Muslim women have been discriminated against by sharia councils. Examples of such discrimination include women being pressured into mediation, including victims of domestic abuse; greater weight being given to the husband’s account of reasons for divorce; women not being questioned impartially by council members, who are almost all men, and feeling blamed for the breakdown of the marriage; and unjustified requirements to pay back their dowry.

There are also allegations that sharia councils have issued discriminatory rulings on child custody. The Casey review cited claims that

“some Sharia Councils have been supporting the values of extremists, condoning wife-beating, ignoring marital rape and allowing forced marriage.”

Researchers were told that

“some women were unaware of their legal rights to leave violent husbands and were being pressurised to return to abusive partners or attend reconciliation sessions with their husbands despite legal injunctions in place to protect them from violence.”

The majority of the evidence, however, is anecdotal, as little empirical evidence has been gathered in relation to users of sharia councils. Further research is therefore necessary; I am aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has done some work. Mechanisms are required to provide safeguards and ensure that vulnerable women are not exploited or put at risk. Many of the women are not aware of their rights to seek redress before the British courts.

Sharia councils should not be confused with arbitration tribunals. The Muslim arbitration Tribunal was established in 2007 under the Arbitration Act 1996. It operates within the framework of British law and its decisions can be enforced by civil courts, provided that they have been reached in accordance with the legal principles of the British system. Its legal authority comes from the agreement of both parties to give the tribunal power to rule on their case. In cases where decisions do not conform to the principles of British law, they may simply be quashed. Moreover, the 1996 Act cannot be used to exclude the jurisdiction of the family law courts. The MAT can therefore conduct arbitration according to Islamic personal law on issues such as commercial and inheritance disputes. Many of those issues were considered by Baroness Cox, who promoted the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill in 2011. I will leave hon. Members to look at that.

The independent review was set up because sharia courts were deemed to be discriminating against women, as I have outlined. It has three recommendations. The first is to ensure that civil marriages are conducted before or at the same time as the Islamic marriage, in line with the way in which most Christian and many Jewish marriages are conducted. It also states that there should be a requirement for Muslim couples to civilly register their marriage, and that there be consequential changes to divorce.

I will skip the second recommendation and go to the third recommendation, which is to carry out some regulation of the sharia courts. The Government have declined to do that, for the obvious reason that that would legitimise the courts as part of the judicial establishment, which they have no intention of doing. To go back one, the second recommendation is for a general awareness campaign to acknowledge women’s rights and to inform women of those rights, including the fact that arbitration that applies sharia law in respect of financial or child arrangements falls foul of the Arbitration Act.

The independent review sets out several bad practices, including inappropriate and unnecessary questioning about personal relationship matters; asking a forced marriage victim to attend the sharia council at the same time as her family; insisting on any form of mediation as a necessary preliminary; and inviting women to make concessions to their husbands to secure a divorce. Lengthy processes also mean that, although divorces are rarely refused, they can be drawn out.

There are several other faults with the system, such as inconsistency, a lack of safeguarding policies or clear signposting, and the fact that, even with a decree absolute, a religious divorce is not always a straightforward process. Civil legal terms are adopted inappropriately, which leads to confusion. There are few women panel members of sharia councils, and some panel members have only recently moved to the UK, so they have no understanding of the UK system.

It is often proposed that, based on the evidence of discriminatory practices in some sharia councils, they should all be shut down and banned. The main problem with that argument is that a ban cannot be imposed on organisations that can set up voluntarily anywhere and that operate only on the basis of the credibility given to them by a certain community. The evidence that the review heard indicates that women use sharia councils almost solely to obtain religious divorces, for a number of different reasons, such as community acceptance of the divorce and their own remarriage hopes.

It is clear from all the evidence that sharia councils are fulfilling a need in some Muslim communities. There is a demand for religious divorce that is being answered by the sharia councils. That demand will not simply end if they are banned and closed down; instead, that could lead to them simply going underground, which would make it even harder to ensure good practice and would make discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder to detect.

The main point is that there needs to be an acceptance of the law of the land, as there is within other communities, particularly the Jewish community, whose members accept that British law overrides their religious law. It is impossible to understand why somebody would enter a sharia court voluntarily, when they know that they are going to be under pressure to conform with whatever is said there. I discussed that with another Minister, who had better remain nameless. She was incandescent about sharia courts and told me to warn the Minister not to give a mealy mouthed response, or she would be after him. I mention that as an aside; I do not want to influence what the Minister will say at all, but that is a good indication that, particularly among women—that Minister was a Muslim lady—the effect of sharia courts is quite controversial. I am glad that the Home Affairs Committee took evidence on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on having secured this important debate about sharia councils. I take part in this debate with some trepidation, as it is a complicated issue, touching on family law, freedom of religion, culture, gender relations and many other issues in between. It is quite right to say that our response should first and foremost be informed by the experiences and views of those most affected: those are, of course, Muslim women, 90% of whom are seeking a divorce. Their experience of sharia councils varies greatly, which reflects the fact that sharia councils themselves vary significantly. Unsurprisingly there is no unanimous opinion, even among Muslim women, on how—or whether—we in Parliament or the Government should respond to some of the issues that have been raised, both today and in other reports.

I too was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when it was looking at the issue of sharia councils. It was probably one of the most polarised issues that I looked at during my time on that Committee, involving widely diverging and strongly held opinions. On the one hand, at some of the events that the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) has described, I spoke to women who were absolutely positive about their experience with sharia councils and how they had secured divorces there; others pointed to horrendous practices and discrimination, which we have heard about.

Dr Siddiqui’s report found similar disparities in practice, but that review, as we have also heard, concluded that banning sharia councils is not a realistic option; I support that conclusion. There is demand for advice and guidance, for determinations on the meaning of religious texts and procedures, and for religious divorce. That review warned that if anything, such a ban would likely drive councils underground, making transparency even more difficult and risking more widespread bad practice and discrimination.

The second issue I want to touch on is how civil marriage law can play a role in this area. I make absolutely clear that I am not a family lawyer, so I will not go into fine detail about the specific proposals for marriage law reform in England and Wales that Dr Siddiqui’s review put forward. However, it does seem—the evidence suggests this—that a significant number of Muslim women in the UK have a religious marriage, but not one that is recognised by the civil law. As we have heard, that seriously limits the options and powers available to women, should that marriage then break down.

However, I went on to the website of Glasgow Central Mosque today to see what options there are for marriage. I was met with a well set-out and positive page that starts by celebrating the fact that

“Family life is a building block of a successful society, and marriage is an occasion of great joy.”

That page goes on to say:

“We can perform religious marriages, which are recognised by the law. A marriage ceremony (Nikah) at Glasgow Central Mosque must also be a religious marriage (i.e. the legal equivalent of a civil marriage conducted by a registrar). Our Imams are authorised to solemnise religious marriages, therefore it is not necessary to have a separate civil marriage. If the civil marriage has already taken place, please bring the marriage certificate on the day.”

I read an article by a Muslim woman who is a solicitor in Glasgow, who wrote about how the culture in the Glasgow mosques is one of working together to ensure that the civil requirements are met at the same time as the religious ones. It seems—of course, I stand to be corrected—that the general practice in that city has become to meet both religious and civil requirements at the same time. It would be good to know how that culture has come about. It would be good to find out what impact that has had on the number of women who are without a civil marriage in Glasgow and Scotland, and whether the doubling-up of those processes has been encouraged or helped by provisions in family law—slightly different in Scotland from those in England and Wales—or whether something else has made that happen. That could inform our thinking, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, as to whether there needs to be legal change or whether we can do more in terms of culture and awareness raising, as the hon. Member for Bradford West has said.

[John Howell]

For many years I have been an organist, and I have played at Catholic weddings. In many cases, the service has been delayed because of the late arrival of the registrar. A marriage conducted by a priest is religiously legal, but in order to make it civilly legal, a registrar has to be there. That seems to be the established position in the Catholic Church; as I understand it, only in the Anglican Church and the Church in Wales is the priest automatically a registrar.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is interesting to hear. If there is a way to remove such complications to ensure that such delays can be avoided, it should be looked at. I understand—I repeat, I am not a family lawyer, so I might be completely wrong—that that is not the position in Scotland, where priests are generally able to conduct both the religious and civil ceremonies in one go without the presence of a registrar. To my mind, that clearly makes things simpler.

The second group of recommendations in the Siddiqui report is essentially about empowering women, a topic on which I suspect we will all be at one. That seems to be front and centre of the issue that we face. There absolutely must be awareness raising about rights; for example, many of those who have ended up with a religious but not a civil marriage have done so purely because they did not know about the law or their status.

Awareness-raising about civil rights is only the first step in empowerment. Support is also needed to ensure that all are able to overcome the potentially “huge cultural barriers” described in the report, which can inhibit the exercise of rights even when people are aware that those rights exist. Those barriers stop women choosing to pursue civil remedies instead of religious ones. We need to give greater backing to all the NGOs, advice centres, human rights bodies and others that can provide that support. That is not just about supporting women to overcome barriers; those organisations can help to lower the barriers in the first place, encouraging a culture that respects women who choose to use their civil rights in the first place.

Do we need to go further? That question takes us on to the third group of recommendations in the Siddiqui report. The steps that we have just discussed about empowerment tend to focus on providing alternatives to sharia councils. We also need to ask whether we can improve practices in sharia councils themselves, which is perhaps the toughest issue.

As we have heard, the Siddiqui review recommended a form of regulation via a state-constituted body and a code of practice, and many sharia councils and women’s organisations supported such an approach. Presciently, the report acknowledged that the Government could be reluctant to adopt a wholesale regulatory approach for fear of being seen to legitimise a different system of law. I can understand that response, but it should not be an end to the matter. Not adopting full-scale regulation does not absolve us of the need to look at the seriously bad practices that have been recorded in some cases, how that relates to the law, and whether the law can be changed in other ways to stop those practices. If I understood it correctly, that was what the dissenting opinion in Dr Siddiqui’s report was getting at.

For example, should we require in law that anyone providing advice about family law matters must provide signposting to civil remedies? How should the law respond if an institution is seen to aid and abet domestic violence by coercing a victim to mediate with the perpetrator? Are there existing regulations in respect of “service providers” that could be strengthened and better applied to stop the serious issues that we have seen? What should happen if evidence shows that councils are undertaking tasks that should be exclusively for the courts? Crucially, given that consent is so important, what is the legal response when certain councils are engaging in proceedings, providing opinions and making judgments when there was never genuine consent to the process in the first place? I do not have the answers to all those questions, but we have to consider them and be led by the evidence, particularly the evidence we hear from those who have been caught up in these processes.

On balance the Siddiqui review is correct that banning would be ineffective, counterproductive and not justified. The main objective must be to encourage the use of civil processes and access to civil redress and rights where appropriate. Marriage law changes might help with that, but more importantly, so too might policies that empower women, such as support for NGOs and other groups. While a distinct form of regulation and a complete new regulatory regime may not be the right approach, that does not mean that we should not be looking at whether other civil and criminal laws and regulations could be better applied to stop or prevent some of the bad practice we have heard about. If we do all that, hopefully we can continue to protect the sharia councils that are doing a job that accords with all the values we want to be upheld, while at the same time clamping down on those that are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

Once again, may I express my gratitude to all Members who stayed for this debate, especially the three Front-Bench Members? It has been very useful.

I said earlier that sharia councils should in no way be abolished, and that they provide a useful function in Muslim communities. I stick by that—they certainly do. However, there are two issues that I think we all agree are important. The first is the protection and empowerment of women; I am as keen that that should happen as any Member of this House, and a lot of my remarks were directed towards ensuring that it does. The second issue is human rights, which the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned and to which, as a delegate to the Council of Europe, I am absolutely committed. I pointed out how differences in human rights approaches have been raised in the Council of Europe; if we had the time, we could go through the situation in all the countries that the Council has looked at.

I am grateful to hon. Members for their participation and their help in raising this important subject. I agree that it is very sensitive, but that does not mean that we should not raise it or talk about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Sharia law courts in the UK.

Youth Inmates: Solitary Confinement

John Howell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). She and I talked about this issue before the debate, so there will be a lot of overlap in our presentations. I am glad that she has interpreted the title of the debate very widely. It talks about youth inmates, which includes not only children but young adults. I will say a little bit about that in a minute.

As well as the hon. Lady’s Select Committee, the Justice Committee published a report, “The treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system”, some time ago in 2016-17, because we were concerned about the effectiveness of the treatment of young adults in the justice system. We looked at the needs of young offenders, their characteristics and the effective ways of working with them. We also went on a visit—this was in the days when Select Committees could go on international visits—to New York and Boston. Hon. Members may view the American system of governance as much stricter and tougher than ours. I could not disagree more. We found a much more liberal approach to the situation, with children treated kindly and efficiently, which had an enormous impact on their rehabilitation.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, although I fully accept his experience on his visit to that part of the United States, does he agree that, given the complexity of its judicial system, there may well be rapid and significant variations from state to state in the United States of America?

[John Howell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. However, we chose New York because it has some of the toughest criminals. It was interesting to see how the situation was dealt with in that sort of tough environment. As I said, we found a very liberal approach.

Back here, we interviewed the parents of people who had been to youth offender institutes or prison, and I have to say that the feedback was utterly tragic. The personal circumstances of the individuals there had to be heard to be believed. We have to do all that we can to stop those sorts of occurrences. We looked at a wide range of ages—from 10 to 24—encompassing everything that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle talked about, and one thing we found was that men and boys account for a disproportionate number of people going through the criminal justice system. There is something about men and boys that needs to be tackled, and seriously.

One thing we looked at was the neuroscience involved—neuroscience has become a very trendy subject these days. A lot of work has been done on how the brain develops and matures. The evidence we heard showed that the brain develops over a much longer period, and that what we would generally describe as maturity is the last thing to develop. The hon. Lady may have experienced that with some of the children she used to teach. I hope that rings a bell with her.

It was also interesting that, as people got nearer to 18, their risk of reoffending actually increased, not decreased; there was something about reaching that age that created much more turbulence for the individuals. We all ought to look very carefully at how solitary confinement or segregation is imposed on people in that situation, because it is not something that immediately jumps out. In fact, there is strong evidence that involvement with the criminal justice system actually hinders the development of boys and men.

We need to do a risk assessment of people who are segregated or put into solitary confinement, and I will give a few examples of the stunning evidence as to why. Learning disability among young people in the general population is between 2% and 4%, but among those in custody it is 23% to 32%—an enormous increase. Communications impairment in young people in the country is between 5% and 7%, but for those in custody it is 60% to 90%—almost all the people there have a communication difficulty. Those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are 1.7% to 9% of the general population, going up to 12% of those in custody, while those with autistic spectrum disorder run at a maximum of 1.2% of the general population, going up to 15% of people in custody.

We are dealing with a group of people who are, by any stretch of the imagination, vulnerable and who tend to need a risk assessment in order to assess how they are doing. I know that it has already been mentioned, but the number of people in youth custody who have already been in statutory care is running at two thirds—an enormous number. Again, that suggests that we are dealing with a very vulnerable population.

To produce the report, we went to the young offenders institution at Aylesbury, where we found that segregation was used to reduce movements among young people. However, staff said that it was used when there was a risk of gang violence. Dealing with gangs in that young offenders institution was one of the biggest tasks for staff. We asked the young people there whether they would like to be in a young offenders institution or a prison—many there at the time had been in both—and they said that the change in the justice system when going from a youth institution to an adult institution was like dropping off a cliff face. It is very important to bear that in mind, because it goes back to how they are treated in relation to solitary confinement.

The Justice Committee interviewed, and I have subsequently spoken to, Lord Harris of Haringey, who produced a very good review that looked at young people detained in cells for a long period. He found there might be occasions when it was to the benefit of the individual young person to be confined to their cell. If they were being threatened, it was better to put them in their cell. However, it needs a risk assessment of their mental health and their ability to function there. Whatever the Minister says, in my experience and that of the Committee, that does not happen routinely enough, and that is a big lack in the system.

I will quote one of the witnesses we interviewed, Dr Gooch from Birmingham Law School:

“It is the decisions that are made about how you use segregation and how you use adjudications, which are the disciplinary hearings within the prison. It is the values that you instil about where the boundaries are and what is appropriate behaviour. When you talk about grip, it is not about punitiveness. It is understanding when to lock down and when to use your security measures to their full potential”.

That sort of understanding of the situation suggests there needs to be much greater flexibility in the youth justice system.

I want to pick up on one last point: the question of purposeful activity, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle also mentioned. I have a strong view that we need to instil as much purposeful activity as possible, whether it is in the adult or the youth section of the criminal justice system. On a former Justice Committee, I went to a prison in Denmark where the prisoners, who had a wide range of ages, cooked their own food. For safety’s sake, the knives were chained to the wall. Nevertheless, the very fact that they were able to cook their own food had a big impact on their ability to be rehabilitated. It made a great impression on me and when I came back I mentioned it to the then Secretary of State, and there are prisons where that happens now in the UK. Instilling purposeful activity into young people through education and skills training or whatever is absolutely essential. We need to keep that going if we are to tackle the problem.

I know the Minister will say that this situation never happens—he is laughing at me now—but that when it does happen a risk assessment is done. All I am saying is that in the Justice Committee’s experience, that did not happen. It is not commonplace for it to happen all the time in every case. Given the history that I have given of the differences between the mental illnesses that the general population of young people have and that those in prison have, it needs to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, but I suspect I will not detain the House for 42 minutes.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing what is—she is absolutely right—an important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond. The issue has attracted much scrutiny in recent months, and rightly so. As the hon. Lady will be aware, I gave evidence on the subject to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last year. I will of course carefully consider the recommendations from the inquiry.

I am responsible, through my ministerial portfolio, only for under-18s institutions in the youth custodial estate, and of course Aylesbury is not in that group. However, in response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), I want to point out that in the adult estate segregation should be used only as a last resort, when prisoners pose such a risk to themselves or others that no other suitable location is appropriate, and where all other options have been tried or are considered inappropriate. However, there is a specific approach for the under-18 estate.

I want to reassure hon. Members from the outset that children are never, and should never be, subject to solitary confinement in the UK. There is no universally agreed definition of solitary confinement, but rule 44 of the UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners—the Mandela rules that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle referred to—state that

“solitary confinement shall refer to the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact.”

Removal from association, or segregation, is different. I appreciate that the shadow Minister referred to it as segregation, while others refer to it as removal from association, but I think we are talking about the same thing. It is a last resort for the protection of the child or others. It should never be used as a punishment and our rules are explicitly clear on that. To reiterate, it can be used, and is used, only when a child in custody is putting themselves or others at risk, when no other form of intervention is suitable to protect both the individual or their peers, or staff. I just want to mention in that context that segregation can be removal to one’s own cell rather than to a segregation wing. I shall talk later about the statistics and the impact that that matter has on them.

As to safety, the shadow Minister referred to the 2017 report, and I am sure that he would acknowledge that the chief inspector of prisons subsequently acknowledged that there had been improvement, and that the 2017 verdict on the youth estate was not the current one. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight what was said in 2017, because it was a shocking and important report, and we rightly considered it carefully.

Under rule 49 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, children may be removed from association for the maintenance of good order or discipline, or in their own interests, for up to 72 hours. The presumption is that children should be separated—placed in their room —rather than segregated to a segregation unit, wherever it is possible to do so. Children in YOIs cannot be segregated for more than 72 hours without the authority of senior managers in conjunction with the independent monitoring board and healthcare assessments. Segregation can be authorised by the young person segregation review board for up to 14 days at a time to a maximum of 21 days; a prison group director’s authority is required for anything beyond that. The prison group director must review any segregation of a young person that continues for 21 days, and for each subsequent period.

The youth custody service closely monitors the number of children removed from association under rule 49 of the Young Offender Institution rules, to ensure that all relevant management checks are in place—in a moment I will come on to points about mental health and educational assessments, which I know are of particular interest to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. Those checks include the number of instances of children being removed for more than 21 days, which require a prison group director review and approval. The PGD will review the situation again after each subsequent 21-day period.

The reasons why children may be removed from association for longer periods of time vary. As the Children’s Commissioner and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, some may choose to “self-isolate”, and refuse to engage with the regime or mix with other children. That can happen for a variety of reasons, some of which I may come to. Other children have been involved in multiple violent incidents, and display violent behaviour towards other children or staff. Each individual case is carefully considered and reviewed to ensure that when children are removed for long periods of time, the reasons for that are appropriate, especially if they are putting themselves, or others, at risk. I labour the point about rules because it is important to be clear that safeguards are in place, and such measures are regarded very much as a last resort, often driven by safety considerations.

As I said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—the hon. Member for Bradford East rightly highlighted this issue—accurate data is vital for the operational running of any organisation, and to understand what is happening. I asked the chief executive of the youth custody service to look into how data can be better collected and collated in a consistent format. Such data is often reported by different institutions in different ways, which limits our ability to draw the clear conclusions that we need to make evidence-based policy.

It is not true that during removal a young person will have no meaningful human contact. The child will continue to have regular contact with staff, and individual regime and reintegration plans are agreed, with the primary aim of reintegrating children back into regular association and a normal regime as swiftly as possible. Staff are expected to focus on helping children to manage their behaviour, so that they are able to return to regular association. Such reintegration plans can include visits back to residential units for activities such as association, and they could even include sleepovers in the child’s normal room as part of that process.

A member of the healthcare team must be informed within 30 minutes of a child being removed from association in a YOI, and they must complete an initial removal health screen for the young person within two hours. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is right to highlight mental health needs, which we seek to pick up through those screenings. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), the hon. Lady mentioned safety in custody and the risk of suicide or self-harm. She is right to suggest that in other contexts some evidence has established a link between isolation in any context and increased mental health challenges, but in England and Wales there have been no deaths among under-18s in prison custody since 2012. As she said, we must do everything possible to ensure that mental health is protected and there is no harm, but thus far we have been partly lucky, and—more importantly—thanks to the diligence of staff in our YOIs and STCs, there have been no deaths in prison custody of under-18s.

While removed, the child must be monitored at a frequency determined by an individual and tailored assessment of their needs. It is desirable to have greater interaction between staff and the child in segregation, to help that child manage their behaviour and return to regular association more swiftly. Such interaction will also alert staff to any concerns about mental health issues, and any risk of self-harm or worse. Every child who has been subject to rule 49 of the YOI rules for a continuous period of seven days must have a detailed short-term assessment of needs initiated. Children removed for a continuous period of more than 30 days must have a detailed care plan drawn up that states how their mental well-being is supported.

[John Howell]

I hear what the Minister is saying. Will he do me a favour and ensure that he keeps an eye on the situation he has outlined, so that it occurs in every case?

[Edward Argar]

I am always willing to do my hon. Friend a favour, and he is right to highlight that point. It is important to have processes, but we need to know that they are followed. In a number of cases, I ask for random individual updates and snapshots of information, so that I can get a feel for whether things are being done the way they should be done, and I look at those files as appropriate.

Wherever possible, children should engage with the regular regime, and other children, during their time in custody. However, there are occasions when it is necessary to remove a child from association because their behaviour is likely to be so disruptive that keeping them in an ordinary location would be unsafe, either for them or for others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

As I said clearly to the JCHR, removal from association and segregation is different from solitary confinement or isolation. The Mandela rules mention having no “meaningful human contact”, but that simply is not the case when someone is segregated or removed from association. I set out previously just how much direct, meaningful human contact continues throughout that time.

When a child in a YOI is to be removed from association, they must be supported in making representations, with governors taking into account literacy levels, whether they need help from the advocacy service and what might be behind their behaviour—I have met the Howard League, and others, who make that point forcefully and reasonably. Prior to a segregation or removal from association, our experienced staff will do everything they can to de-escalate the situation in other ways. If a young person is removed from association, it is not a case of, “That solves the problem”. That is a reaction and a last-resort response based on safety considerations, and the focus throughout will be on what can be done to support that young person back into association, and address their underlying issues or concerns.

Rule 36 of the STC rules states that a young person who has been removed from association and placed in their room cannot be left unaccompanied for more than three hours in any 24-hour period. Providers keep records on staff observations, which must be undertaken at least every 15 minutes. Authorisation for keeping children “removed from association” is escalated during that three-hour cycle, with authorisation from the duty director to extend beyond one hour. All episodes are discussed at monthly performance meetings as part of the governance and oversight arrangements. In contracted-out STCs, the YCS monitor is informed within 24 hours about any removal from association. The monitor is given a summary of every occurrence of a child being placed in their room within 24 hours, and they receive detailed incident reports that articulate the circumstances that led to that removal.

As I explained to the JCHR last year, when a child is removed from association, they are given as much access as possible to the usual regime, including education and healthcare. That includes not only the provision of education packs and in-room learning but teachers attending to children in their rooms to teach them in person so that they have regular human contact. Children in YOIs are also given time in the open air, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, and access to healthcare, physical education and legal advice, even when they are removed from association.

Individual regime plans designed around the child’s needs are agreed and reviewed frequently for each child by a multidisciplinary team. Staff in all under-18 YOIs have been given additional training on the use of segregation or removal from association, on the rules governing it and on how to ensure they comply with them. The use of segregation is heavily monitored by the youth custody service and the independent monitoring board, and indeed by me through my regular meetings with the chief executive of the service.

I am absolutely clear that the safety and wellbeing of the children and young adults in our care must be our highest priority, and I am committed to delivering wide-ranging reform to ensure that we are able to meet that priority in an increasingly challenging environment. The shadow Minister suggested that we needed a review of how youth justice, or youth custody, is conducted. I point him to the review conducted a few years ago by Charlie Taylor, which did exactly that. That review set out for us the direction of travel, which we are pursuing with the new secure schools programme, for example. I will touch on that before I conclude.

To provide some context, as hon. Members stated, there has been a sustained fall in the number of children entering the youth justice system in recent years. In the decade to 2018, juvenile cautions decreased by 91%, the number of first-time entrants into the youth justice system reduced by 86%, and, importantly in the context of this debate, the number of children in custody fell by 70%. The latest official statistics I have indicate that there were only 812 children in the youth secure estate as of January this year, a significant reduction from the almost 3,500 to 4,000 around a decade ago.

Those figures represent significant successes and are a testament both to the work and dedication of those who serve our youth justice sector in all capacities, and to the determination on both sides of the House to focus on rehabilitation and give young people the opportunity to reform and live a productive and successful life rather than being condemned at an early age to a life of going in and out of prison. However, that overall decline has resulted in a concentration in the youth secure estate of children who are convicted of the most serious offences—those who pass the bar above which custody is deemed the last resort for someone under 18 and demonstrate very complex behaviour.

The shadow Minister and others referred to the report by the Children’s Commissioner. We studied that carefully, but we challenged a number of her assertions, as I did openly at the JCHR. There are several reasons behind our challenge. The first is the change in the nature of data collection in the period that she looked at. That is not the only reason why we have seen the number of incidents we have, but we need to be careful about the data. Previously, if a young person was segregated in their own cell, it was not recorded as a segregation; a segregation was reported only if they went to a segregation unit or wing. It is important that we have clear data on any segregation or removal from association. That is one factor. It is not the only one, but it is a factor, so I just sound a slight note of caution there.

The other reason goes back to that really concentrated cohort of people convicted of the most serious offences. The average number of children held for violence against the person has increased by 11% in the last year. The proportion of children in custody for more serious offences, including violence against the person, robbery and sexual offences, has increased from 59% to 70% over the last five years. That is due to the increase in violence against the person offences, which now account for 41% of the youth custody population. The changing mix of offenders who make up that smaller overall number plays a part in both the rising levels of violence and the challenges faced by our youth custody estate.

Furthermore, as I think the shadow Minister touched on, despite the reduction in overall numbers, there has been an increase in the proportion of children from the black, Asian and minority ethnic community in custody. They currently make up around 45% of the custodial population. I am deeply concerned about the proportion of BAME children in custody, and understanding and addressing that is a key priority for me. Since my appointment, I have had the great pleasure of working with the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on implementation of the Lammy review. We have created a dedicated youth justice disproportionality team, which is working with stakeholders and criminal justice agencies to follow the principles we set out in response to the review, either to explain clearly why this is the case or to change the way the system works to ensure that there is not unwarranted disproportionality of outcomes for BAME children.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is absolutely right about the importance of not giving up on anyone, however challenging they are. Young people in custody are some of the most challenging people in our society, for a variety of reasons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said. People may be challenging for mental health reasons or as a result of substance misuse. Often, people are challenging because they come from a background in which they experienced significant adverse childhood experiences or trauma, family breakup or domestic violence. There is a whole range of factors behind that. Where the severity of a crime justifies and requires a custodial sentence, our judiciary must have the power to impose one, but we should not give up on any of those young people, and we should work with them in custody to try to address the challenges and background issues they face.

[John Howell]

One of the other times children are at risk is when their parents are in prison. We at the Council of Europe have been very keen to ensure that there is very good treatment for that. Has the Minister come across that?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that factor. I have seen in my work on the female offender strategy the impact that a mother going to prison can have on a young person. It can put them at greater risk of offending or of becoming a victim of crime. I am not aware of the specific work by the Council of Europe, but I know that my hon. Friend is not only an extremely active and valuable participant in the Council of Europe but a strong advocate for its work, so I suspect that he will collar me outside the Chamber and raise with me the research and work it has done that I should consider carefully.

Like my hon. Friend, I believe that every child and young person in custody should have access to and be engaged in meaningful activities, including education and physical activities. The regime should be purposeful, meet the needs of the individuals, keep children occupied and active all day, and deliver the highest quality of education. That is why we have provided an additional £1.8 million of education funding for our YOIs in this financial year, and we are looking at the next iteration of the contracts for the provision of those services.

I am a particularly strong believer—even if my physique does not necessarily demonstrate it—in the benefits that sport and physical activity can bring, particularly in custody. As well as the obvious health benefits, they can provide children and young adults with a sense of achievement, discipline and purpose, and enhance their self-esteem, allowing them to take steps to transform their lives. That is why we are supporting organisations that want to work with children in the justice system and developing new partnerships between establishments, sports clubs and providers to increase access to such activities for those in custody. Members may well be aware of the twinning project that was launched last year to pair prisons with football clubs to deliver new coaching qualifications—33 premier league clubs are now signed up to that—and of the parkrun partnership, which currently operates in 11 prisons across the country, including Feltham, and is expanding.

As I said, engaging activities need to sit alongside effective behaviour management so that children can be out of their rooms and able safely to participate in the regimes and activities provided. That is why we have developed a new approach to behaviour management. Our new behaviour management framework for the youth estate, “Building Bridges”, which was published in February and began its implementation yesterday, draws on research and best practice across our establishments and those of related sectors. It introduces a range of requirements designed to create the right conditions to encourage positive behaviour and proactive, positive cultures, and sets high-level expectations for supporting positive behaviour across all sectors of the youth estate. That will sit alongside a conflict resolution strategy, applying restorative justice principles, and the custody support plan, which will provide each child with a personal officer to work with on a weekly basis in order to build trust and consistency.

I have been encouraged by the progress made by these safety initiatives so far, but there is no room at all for complacency, as both the recent report on youth custody by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the latest HMIP “Children in Custody” annual report, which the shadow Minister alluded to, have made clear. There is more work to do to ensure that youth custody is a safe and effective place for children to turn their lives around.

The HMIP report highlighted the disproportionate use of restraint and segregation in youth custody for BAME children in particular, so we have identified that as a priority area, within our wider strategy, to address race disparities within the criminal justice system. The IICSA report made a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening safeguarding arrangements for children in custody. Despite its shocking findings, we are grateful to IICSA for highlighting those issues. I have written to the inquiry’s chair, Professor Jay, to confirm that we will respond as soon as we are in a position to do so.

More broadly—I come to my penultimate point—we are underpinning all of these reforms with investment in our workforce. The shadow Minister has raised that issue not just in relation to our youth estate but more broadly; I know that he takes a close interest in it. Since October 2016, we have increased the size of our frontline workforce across the prison service by more than 4,700 officers to relieve day-to-day pressures and enable the delivery of more proactive, positive initiatives such as those I have mentioned and the key worker scheme in the adult estate. But we do not only need more staff; we must invest in their training and development to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to meet the complex needs of those in custody. That is why I was pleased to see that the Prison Officers Association endorsed our reform proposals for the youth custody workforce last week.

We are introducing a new youth justice specialist role and funding all of our youth custody prison officers to undertake a foundation degree in youth justice and transition to that new role on promotion and at a higher pay grade. The training and duties of the role will allow staff to engage with the root causes of children’s offending and more effectively build positive and proactive relationships. More than 300 frontline staff have already voluntarily entered into the qualification, and I look forward to welcoming the first specialists on to the wings in the coming months.

It is crucial that the workforce in the custodial estate are as representative as possible of the group of children they serve. Following the Lammy review, HMPPS made a commitment that at least 14% of new recruits would come from BAME backgrounds by December 2020. I am pleased with the progress we are making in this area; between January 2017 and December 2018 18.5% of the formal offers that were accepted for recruitment to the YCS were from BAME candidates.

Finally, as I said, we continue to work on our proposal to develop secure schools, which we believe are the transformational step in a new approach to youth custody. At present we have prisons with an educational element. What we seek with the reform, and the first secure school planned for Medway, is to reverse that presumption and create instead a school with security, with the education and progress of the young person at the heart of the vision.

I am under no illusions about the challenge we face. We are talking about children who display the most challenging needs and behaviours, and considerable vulnerabilities. Our reforms will support establishments to provide better levels of care, help meet young people’s needs and reduce the likelihood of the need to use separation. If it would be helpful, I am happy to meet the hon. Lady separately outside the Chamber to discuss the education screening, education work and mental health issues raised.

Ultimately, like all of us here, the Government wish to see a change in our system, with fewer young people entering it in the first place and, for those who do, a clear focus on rehabilitation and reducing the risk of reoffending, giving those young people a better chance at life. We want to see more children safer and happier, spending more time engaging in purposeful and constructive activities with a greater hope of a meaningful and crime-free future. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate.

Disclosure of Youth Criminal Records

John Howell Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

That is absolutely right, and it tallies with some of the examples given to us directly by people who have been through the system. I agree entirely that it does not make sense.

Let us look at the remaining bits of the system. We have filtering for single convictions. Single or multiple cautions for lesser offences can be filtered out once six years have elapsed, or two years if the person was under 18 at the time. That structure is complicated enough, frankly, but we then get to what we cannot filter, including convictions and cautions for listed offences and multiple convictions for lesser offences, no matter how long ago they happened and regardless of the circumstances.

Those of us who have practised criminal law can think of many instances in which it is perfectly possible to charge more than one offence arising out of the same set of facts. For example, actual bodily harm and a theft, both of which ended up in a conditional discharge or a fine; two offences of theft; or two assaults, because more than one person was involved in a stupid fight. Those are multiple and cannot be filtered, however much time has gone by. That, to us, seems to be nonsense. The view of many witnesses to our inquiry is that the system is complex and arbitrary. It is a blunt instrument, it is restrictive and it is disproportionate. It has exactly the problems that the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I completely agree on the need for flexibility in the system. If we are interested in rehabilitation and support for offenders, there is an argument that, for example, schools should be told something of the past activity of an individual, particularly if mental health issues were involved, so that they could provide the necessary support to make sure that the individual was looked after.

[Robert Neill]

It is ironic. At the moment we have a box-ticking exercise in which a conviction can be disclosed. As the right hon. Member for Warley rightly said, an employer may well have 200 applicants for a post so will simply play safe and delete anybody who has ticked the conviction box, regardless of how relevant that is for the job that they seek to employ a person to do. That is a burden for a small employer.

However, frequently when people apply for jobs through large employment agencies, it is almost as if an algorithm exists and that anyone who ticks the box is automatically filtered out by the computer system before their application gets any farther. None of those show the level of discretion that was perhaps anticipated when the scheme was drawn up. But it is not fair to push the burden on to employers. There is an obligation on the state and Government to set up a fair and appropriate regime that gives them comfort that they can make appropriate checks and that equally helps people to rehabilitate themselves.

The other point is the disproportionate impact on young people. That may seem obvious, but I do not think it is really recognised by those who run the system. The qualifying period of five and a half years is a great proportion of a child’s life, and is perhaps one of the most critical portions of a young person’s life as they grow up, mature and move into the employment, work and qualification phase. To have this hanging over them then, rather than further down the track, could not come at a worse time. There is not enough recognition of that.

The Law Commission gave compelling evidence to us, observing that the filtering regime might be well regarded as disproportionately harsh on young offenders. Our report concluded that too many childhood offences are unfiltered, undermining rehabilitation and denying children—which is what they were at the time they committed the offences—a second chance. We urge the Government to revise that as a matter of urgency. We also heard powerful evidence on the adverse effect that childhood criminal records have on employment, education and housing, as well as on insurance and visas for travel—everyday things, not the obvious things that we think about. We heard clear evidence of the discriminatory and adverse impact of that.

[John Howell]

My hon. Friend mentioned insurance, which includes car insurance. We rely on cars for our jobs, for pleasure and for all sorts of things. The way that insurance companies look out for these people is not very helpful at all and can leave people in difficult situations.

[Robert Neill]

Absolutely. Because it is blunt, employers and insurers will inevitably take the risk-averse approach. I do not entirely blame them for doing that; the system does not help them to be proportionate and more careful in their judgment than would otherwise have been the case. We also concluded that there is clear evidence of particular impacts on black and minority ethnic children and those who came through the care system, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham hinted.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I will make a few comments about the impact of what we looked at in the report on education, housing and the insurance market. Those issues are adequately set out in the report, so I will just bring out a few points.

My starting point is the need to provide proper rehabilitation and support for people who have obtained a conviction, however they obtained it. If we do not come from that position when we discuss the subject, we are lost. Therefore, as I mentioned in my intervention, there is a great need to ensure that education institutions are aware of an individual’s particular needs. It may be that an individual has an admittedly spent conviction that came about because of mental health capacity needs. It is absolutely appropriate for the education establishment to know about that to provide the necessary support to make sure that he or she can be looked after in the best way.

It should not be possible, however, for an institution to act as in the case of the nurse who, at the age of 15, received a conviction for actual bodily harm for tackling a school bully. As a result, her place to study nursing at university was revoked and she had to appeal, which meant that she had to go through the process of explaining what had occurred. The decision was reversed, but after that woman had looked for jobs, she said she had found that her career progression was inhibited because of that spent conviction. That is where the unfairness in the system emerges, and it is why we need some of the flexibility that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) mentioned.

The second area that I will touch on is housing. I need to tread carefully here, being a member of the Ministry concerned. However, there is a great case for making sure that the allocation of housing and the schemes to organise that allocation do not create avoidable barriers when it comes to providing people with accommodation.

We all know that accommodation is one of the best routes to stability and to providing an individual with a job and a good background. We need to encourage individuals to find accommodation. So I will just finish on housing by asking the Minister whether he can explain what conversations have been had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to take this process forward and to make sure that the issue is being addressed.

Lastly, I will look at the issue of insurance, which we have already discussed briefly. In that area, we found a number of examples of avoidable barriers. One of them, which I mentioned in my intervention, related to a complaint involving motor insurance, where the insurer had cancelled an existing customer’s policy on discovering that she had a spent conviction. The woman involved complained about that because it was she who had revealed that she had a spent conviction. The ombudsman found that it was unfair and unreasonable for her to be punished for her honesty in making sure that she disclosed that information. I think that the insurer in that case was fined.

Nevertheless, that example is a very good one of how the insurance industry has not been properly managed to tackle this issue. I know that in their report the Government said that they were talking to the Association of British Insurers, for example, about trying to deal with this issue. I would like to know how those discussions are going and what we can look forward to.

Those are just three areas where there is an impact on the lives of individuals, and I think all of us have recognised that this issue is not one for a nice legal discussion but something that affects the lives of individuals in a big way. I am glad that this report has done its job in tackling the issue.

Knife Crime

John Howell Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. All of us here, but particularly those from Greater London, are affected in some way by what seems to be an epidemic of knife crime. I share the horror that others will express in this debate and which the hon. Gentleman articulated so well.

Everyone in the House will be united in grief by the tragic events we have recently seen, particularly the devastating murder of 17-year-old Jodie Chesney, which took place in Harold Hill, in the London Borough of Havering and in the constituency of Hornchurch and Upminster, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). Although it is in my neighbouring constituency, Harold Hill is considered by most people to be part of Romford. Therefore, my hon. Friend and I are working together, united in fighting against this horrendous attack on an innocent young girl and in bringing the community together. The whole community has unified to work together to eradicate such awful attacks. An innocent young girl, who was sitting in a park with friends and had done nothing wrong, was brutally murdered, which has had a huge effect on our community.

My heart, and those of everyone in the Chamber, goes out to Jodie’s family and friends today and in the future. I am wearing a purple ribbon in her memory. Purple was her favourite colour, and any hon. Members passing through the London Borough of Havering will notice such ribbons tied to trees, lampposts and fences, which is a mark of how hugely this has affected our community. I say to the hon. Member for Hartlepool that today’s debate means a great deal to the people of Havering, who have gone through a terrible trauma in the last few weeks.

While the debate was secured by worried citizens all over the country, it is telling that the biggest proportion of those signing the petition came from the three constituencies in the London Borough of Havering: Romford, Hornchurch and Upminster, and Dagenham and Rainham. When I raised the issue with the Prime Minister recently in a private meeting in her office here in the House of Commons, she rightly highlighted that the law already provides for mandatory prison sentencing for a second offence of carrying a knife, and that conviction for a knife or offensive weapon offence is now more likely to result in some form of custodial sentence than in recent years. The hon. Member for Hartlepool also made that point.

However, the figures reveal why the public still have little or no faith in our justice system. As it stands, two thirds of those carrying a knife escape a custodial sentence, and one in five repeat offenders avoid prison. People are frankly fed up with soft sentencing, and it is quite clear why. In Havering, knife offences have doubled since 2014, with 339 recorded cases last year alone. Although we are a Greater London borough, we are really in Essex, on the outer edges of London. We hear about this kind of crime in city centres, but in areas like ours we are not used to it. It has come as a terrible shock that these crimes are coming out as far as areas like ours, and indeed further afield.

Such is the desperation felt that people from across Havering have established a community group called Take a Knife, Save a Life. They are a completely independent group of local people who are now patrolling the streets and local parks, talking to young people, spending time with them, trying to understand what is in their minds and giving them the opportunity to anonymously hand over any knives or offensive weapons. That shows how people are desperate to do something. There is not the police cover that we want or expect, so people are taking things into their own hands in a law abiding way.

Some people may think this is dangerous, but it is no longer sufficient to merely request that the public be more vigilant. More work must be done to tackle these criminals, who simply have no respect for the law, authority or the communities in which they live. It is an issue not just of funding and numbers, but of police policy. Most people in my constituency favour a much more robust approach to dealing with violent criminals. We now have gang culture and youths coming from outside Havering, causing fear on the streets. It has got to the point where the Metropolitan police violence reduction unit will have to come to Havering, as confirmed by my recent meeting with Sophie Linden, the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime.

I am glad that the Government’s push for knife crime prevention orders is taking place and I believe that the serious violence strategy is a step in the right direction, but we need a collective effort across London. It is no good just blaming the Mayor of London—I can criticise him, but I am not going to do so today, because this is too serious—or just criticising the Government. I criticise them because I disagree with comments the Prime Minister made about cutting police having had no effect on crime. Nobody out there believes that. It is no good making the subject a political football. It effects all our constituencies and our communities, and we have to work together with local communities to find solutions.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I like the points that my hon. Friend is making. He may have heard my urgent question about knife crime. Does he feel that MPs have a positive role to play in this situation rather than being just observers? Does he agree that my request to the Minister to give us information to help us to take action on the streets, such as setting up community groups as he described, is useful?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, because we all have a duty to our communities—we are community leaders. I am working with local groups to fight crime. We do not have a magic wand or a direct solution, but we can play a part. I commend the youth organisations, church groups and faith organisations that are taking a lead, including the Street Pastors and Scouts. Jodie herself was an Explorer Scout—something that has been highlighted about what was a tragic, terrible crime. Community and MPs have a leadership role and it is not just down to the police and social and youth workers. We all have a part to play.

The crime prevention orders were requested directly by the police. They favour a dual approach of tough measures and positive early interventions. I often stress the importance of community policing, with police based in communities, which they know and understand like the back of their hand, as I am sure we know from our constituencies. More importantly, with that kind of policing, the community get to know the police and become familiar with them. With familiar faces of policemen in the community every day of the week, trust and recognition are built, which grow in the locality. That brings people together, with trust in their local police, and it helps to halt or at least curtail crime.

I want to make a serious point that is particularly relevant to Greater London: neighbourhood police are the ones best placed to make interventions to protect residents, when the issue is community-based. I have attempted over and over to make that point in my 18 years as Member of Parliament for Romford, yet models of policing and resources are still outdated. Instead of being based around real communities as they should be, they are based around bureaucratic electoral ward boundaries on a map that bear no relation to actual communities. They are based on electoral numbers, which is crazy and does not make sense. Communities are divided up between police teams. Instead of policing based on true, natural communities, there are lines in a road, and one police team goes to one side but not the other because it is in a different ward. Wards are not the way to fight crime. Criminals do not base their crimes on ward boundaries. They can act anywhere, and the police should police communities on that basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for introducing the debate. I begin where I was going to end, by reinforcing to the Minister that, in this cross-party debate, we are taking the issue seriously, there is a huge amount of commitment to it, and there is an enormous strength of feeling in favour of dealing with it. If he has listened to all the contributions, he will understand that that is the feeling of the Chamber.

Depending on how one looks at the situation in my constituency, it is either not very good or too good. I recently looked at the neighbourhood policing reports for the Henley area and for a number of areas around Thame. In the Henley area, the neighbourhood report gave no examples of knife crime, and in the areas around Thame, there were two examples, so hon. Members may think that I am unable to talk about the issue. My constituency is in the middle of the wide Thames Valley police area, however, which includes Oxford, Abingdon, Reading and Slough. The Minister will be aware of a recent knife attack in Oxford, which brought the issue home to people there and in the surrounding area.

The figures show that the number of knife attacks in the Thames valley was marginally short of 1,300 in 2017-18, which is the highest figure since 2010. That is about a 50% increase on the number of knife crimes committed in 2012-13, which is a number that keeps on coming up in the areas that we are looking at. The Thames Valley police area is the largest area of knife crime in the south-east and far outstrips counties such as Kent, Sussex and Surrey. That stands in marked contrast to the calm and peaceful nature of the area as a whole.

Knife crime has played a part in seven murders, 40 rapes, 10 sexual attacks and 86 threats to kill, so it is not gang warfare, but a much greater set of crimes that involves us all. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that it is not a simple task to overcome that, because in the Thames valley, recruitment is up and a tremendous amount of work is being done to look at intakes. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that numbers will always make a difference to this situation, but we are asking, “Do they make the difference?” I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling that they do not, because we need to take into account a number of other things.

What the police want above all to tackle this problem is the certainty that the increase in numbers that they are seeing at the moment, which allows them to address recruitment, will continue. At the moment, they do not know that and they need certainty.

An equally big role that the police play—I think it has been mentioned—is in partnership with a number of other organisations. The agencies and organisations that the police are in partnership with include the NHS and others, but the one that I have the most sympathy for is the relationship that the police have set up with schools. There, they have a chance of breaking the link of knife crime to drugs, and as our deputy police and crime commissioner has said, “Once a young person has a knife, it’s almost too late.” However, working with schools is a way of breaking that link.

We have also heard a lot about stop and search, which has increased dramatically in my area by just over 50%. I have a mixed feeling about stop and search. I have participated in a group that included police and crime commissioners, the police and other politicians. There was a tremendous backlash among the group, including the police, against just carrying on with stop and search as it was. They did not see that that would create a favourable climate in which to tackle this issue because of all the things that are associated with the history of stop and search. We agreed that any stop and search operation needed to be intelligence led, proportionate and appropriate, and I am very pleased that the Thames Valley police initiatives have all been intelligence led and are having great effect.

Yes, we can and should increase sentences, and we have a unique position in this House to be able to comment on new sentencing guidelines—the Justice Committee always comments on them. After what I have heard today, I will certainly take back to that Committee a determination to make a more concentrated effort to ensure that we are as blunt as we can be in giving that information to judges.

As I said in my intervention, we all have a role to play. That is why in my urgent question I asked what role we as MPs can play, because I have noticed that currently many MPs are very much in the role of observers and have not yet found a way to become participants in this. The Minister thought that I had uncovered a pot of gold in saying that. I wish I had and I wish there was a pot of gold. However, if he knows what has happened to that initiative, on which I think there has been some progress, it would be very nice if he told us.

Privatised Probation System

John Howell Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

These questions of accountability are quite difficult for me to answer. Normally, I answer by offering to resign; I am not about to do that again, but I would say that these things are related. On the question the right hon. Gentleman raised about the caseload shift, as the NAO pointed out, a 2% case load shift was predicted, but a 48% case load shift happened, directly impacting the second issue of the income coming to the companies. That prediction is a question we are really trying to look into and understand. This is to do with the fact that more violent and sexual offences were committed than previously, and the Crown courts managed to make different decisions in terms of sentence length and not giving accredited programmes. The question is, how do we predict that type of social change? Could we have predicted it; was it predicted; and how do we act on it?

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the task of rehabilitation can be helped enormously by looking at the experience in Denmark and Germany, where prisoners are encouraged at an early stage to cook for themselves and undertake work that provides valuable training?

[Rory Stewart]

Yes, we can learn a great deal from Germany and Denmark, and indeed in some of our most successful prisons, as prisoners develop in their sentence—as they develop more skills—they are given opportunities to cook for themselves and look after themselves, and of course through the use of release on temporary licence, we can get prisoners into work while they are still in prison. This means, when they leave, they are more likely to have a job. One of the key things about reducing reoffending is making sure there is not a cliff edge at the prison door, but that for at least 10 weeks before people leave a lot of preparation goes into setting up the life they will have outside prison.

Foreign National Offenders: Prison Transfers

John Howell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered prison transfers of foreign national offenders.

It is a joy to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate, and I welcome the Minister and his team to the Chamber.

Believe it or not, we have something like 160 nations of the world represented in our prisons. About one third of those individuals have been convicted of violent and/or sexual offences, about one fifth have been convicted on drug charges, and others have been responsible for burglary, fraud, robbery and other serious crimes.

[Ian Austin in the Chair]

Some years ago, the National Audit Office did an estimate of the cost to the British taxpayer of incarcerating those people in our jails, and came out with a cost per year per prisoner of something like £33,000. When we add to that the cost of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, legal aid and other things, the total bill could be something between £750 million and £1 billion a year. The National Audit Office came down somewhere in the middle of that range, and estimated the annual cost to the taxpayer to be about £850 million a year. That assumes that there are about 10,000 foreign national offenders in our jails.

I first ask the Minister, given that he is attended by a galaxy of civil service talent, who no doubt have the numbers at their fingertips, what is the present prison population today? Of the total number of prisoners, how many foreign national offenders do we have in our prisons today? I reckon the present prison population is something like 85,000, and that there are about 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons. Of those 10,000, what proportion come from the European Union—I think the figure is about 4,000—and how many come from non-EU countries?

Can the Minister confirm these estimates of what I call the list of shame—the top 10 countries that are represented in our prisons? I reckon that No. 1 is Poland with about 950. No. 2 is Ireland with 750. No. 3 is Romania with 630. No. 4 is Jamaica with 550. In joint fifth, sixth and seventh place are Albania, Lithuania and Pakistan with about 475 each. No. 8 is India with 450. No. 9 is Somalia with 425. No. 10 is Nigeria with 400. In total, I reckon that the top 10 nations in our prisons total something like 5,580 foreign national offenders. My contention is that those people should not be incarcerated at Her Majesty’s pleasure; they should be in prison in their own countries at the expense of their own taxpayers. Her Majesty’s Government are not doing nearly enough to send those people back to prisons in their own countries.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way very graciously. I hope he will be pleased to know that in my constituency we have a prison at Huntercombe that exists to house foreign national prisoners in the process of transferring them back to their own countries. That has gone down terribly well with the locals, who wanted to see those prisoners transferred back. They can go to say goodbye to them, waving as the coach takes them back to the airport. It is close to Heathrow airport, so the transfer can be made easily.

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will give way to him again if he knows—I do not expect him to, but if he does—the number of prisoners at HMP Huntercombe. The nation needs to know. Perhaps the Minister will advise us in his response how many prisoners are held there pending deportation. I am pleased for my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that he has such a facility in his constituency, and that it is popular with his constituents, but my contention is that the prison is not large enough. We need to send a lot more of these people back, and quickly.

[John Howell]

The operational capacity of the prison is about 1,300.

[Mr Hollobone]

That is about 13% of our foreign national offender population at any one time, so we need at least nine more Huntercombes if we are to deport these people back to the countries from which they came.

No doubt the Minister will tell the House today that since 2010 some 45,000 foreign national offenders have been removed from the UK, including 6,000 in the past year. My first reaction to those numbers is, “My gosh! Given the extent to which foreign nationals commit crimes in this country, thank goodness they are being caught; the number who commit offences but are not caught must be even larger.” We have a real problem on our hands, with such a large number of foreign nationals committing crimes in this country.

No doubt the Minister will tell the House that prisoners are transferred in four main ways. The Government maintain that the main method to remove foreign national offenders from prison is what is called the early removal scheme. Will the Minister give us more detail on what that scheme entails? I hope that it does not mean that prisoners’ sentences are cut short and they are just deported to be at liberty back in their countries of origin, because that is not the point that I am making. These people should be sent back to their own countries and kept in prison there, until their sentences have been completed. Last year, I understand that some 2,000 were removed under that scheme.

No doubt the Minister will then tell us that prisoner transfer agreements are in place, falling into three main categories, the first of which is the EU prisoner transfer framework decision, which EU member states signed up to between December 2011 and December 2015. There are 27 EU member states to which we can send prisoners and which can send UK prisoners back to us. Amazingly, since the scheme first went live in December 2011, two EU nations have still not ratified their membership of that framework decision: Bulgaria and Ireland. I suggest that Ireland spends less time trying to cause problems for this country with the Irish backstop and more time on ratifying the prisoner transfer directive, which is now eight years old.

Under the EU prisoner transfer framework decision, since it has been inaugurated, we have only sent back 357 EU national offenders, out of an EU prison population that is in the order of some 4,000, as I am sure the Minister will tell us. The top three are the Netherlands, to which we sent back 141, or 39% of the total; Romania, 56, or 16%; and Poland, 35. I point out to the Minister that we have sent 56 Romanian nationals back to prison in Romania, but at any one time we have about 630 Romanians in our prisons; and we have only sent back 35 Polish nationals, but at any one time we have about 950 in our prisons. Furthermore, of the 27 signatories, to 10 we have sent no prisoners back at all.

Of course, this is a two-way process, and we are entitled to receive UK nationals who committed offences abroad back into this country. We have taken back a total of 100. The largest number—40—came from Spain, nine have been returned from Germany, and nine from Italy. It seems to me that the scheme, despite having been in operation for eight years, is not working very well.

However, it is working better than the additional protocol to the prisoner transfer framework decision, to which 13 other countries are signed up: Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, Serbia, San Marino, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine. It was confirmed to me yesterday in a written parliamentary answer that we have transferred to the countries adhering to the additional protocol the grand total of zero foreign national prisoners. We have sent no foreign national offenders at all back under the additional protocol. It is absolutely and completely useless.

The third category we have is bilateral prisoner transfer agreements. The same parliamentary answer listed six countries, out of the 160 nations represented in our jails, with which we have compulsory prisoner transfer agreements. In other words, we can send foreign national offenders back to those countries without their permission—it is compulsory for them to go back. Those six countries are Albania, Ghana, Libya, Nigeria, Rwanda and Somaliland. The Ministry of Justice helpfully listed the dates on which those six prisoner transfer agreements came into force. The oldest goes back to 2009, and the latest came into force in 2017. For one country—Somaliland—the Department has no information about when the agreement came into force. The answer states, “Not Available”. Can the Minister confirm whether we have a compulsory prisoner transfer agreement with Somaliland?

We have sent back a grand total of 25 foreign national offenders to those six countries, one of which is Nigeria. We have something like 400 Nigerians in our prisons at any one time. We have sent back one Nigerian under the compulsory prisoner transfer agreement. That simply is not good enough. I suggest that the Minister takes the lead on negotiating effective compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with countries for which we hold a large number of foreign national offenders in our jails.

Let me give two examples. Pakistan is seventh on my original list—in fact, it is joint fifth, sixth and seventh with Albania and Lithuania. There are something like 475 Pakistanis in our jails at any one time. Nigeria is tenth, with 400. We should use our foreign aid budget to build prisons in those countries so we have a place to send those people back to. Pakistan and Nigeria are among the five biggest recipients of UK aid in the world. We give something like £400 million a year to Pakistan and £330 million a year to Nigeria in international aid. It seems to me that if we have, by law, to spend that money on international aid—I do not agree with that, but it is the law of the land—we should use it sensibly, by trying to reduce the £1 billion annual cost of incarcerating foreign national offenders in our prisons.

I understand that the Government are seeking to build an additional wing on a Nigerian prison, at the cost of some £700,000. Is that correct? Has that wing been completed and is it operational? Given that we have sent back only one Nigerian, presumably he is living in luxury in that 112-bed facility somewhere in Nigeria. Do we have plans for any more?

Do we have any plans to build prisons in Pakistan? There are almost 500 Pakistanis in our jails, and they should be held in prison in Pakistan at the cost of taxpayers there, rather than taxpayers here. Will the Minister negotiate more compulsory prisoner transfer agreements? Will he make sure that they are effective and that we send back more than the 25 prisoners who we have sent back under the agreements so far? Will he speak to the Department for International Development to use aid money to build modern prisons in those countries so we can return more foreign nationals?

I will allow the Minister some time to reply, so finally, once we have sent those people back, will the Minister liaise with the Home Office to make sure that they cannot return to this country? It is one thing to send them back to prison in their own country, but we should ban them from ever returning and darkening our shores again. Surely that would be fairly straightforward for the Government to do and my constituents would certainly welcome it.

[John Howell]

On a point of order, Mr Austin. May I correct the record? I said that the capacity of Huntercombe was 1,300; it is actually 480. I read the wrong figure.

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

Thank you.

Exiting the European Union (Mediation)

John Howell Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 21 January 2019, be approved.

This draft instrument forms part of our ongoing work to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal our legal system will continue to work effectively for our citizens. It is solely related to our no deal preparations. If Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement, which includes an implementation period, and passes the necessary legislation to implement that agreement, the Government would defer the coming into force of this instrument until the end of that implementation period. Once a deal and our future relationship with the EU had been reached, we would review whether this instrument needed to be amended or revoked.

This statutory instrument relates to mediation. That is a process whereby parties to a dispute attempt voluntarily to reach an agreement to settle their dispute with the assistance of a mediator but without a court needing to rule on it. In the civil and commercial field such a dispute might for instance relate to a contract, a debt or contact with children.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

As my hon. and learned Friend knows, I am hoping to become an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitration. I have spent much of my political life championing mediation as a means of settling disputes. To what extent are the Government committed to mediation for the future as a result of these measures?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is a member of the Justice Committee and has taken part in many debates on this subject. I know he has extensive experience of arbitration as well as mediation. I am very pleased that he is planning to go further on that. He must rest assured that the Government remain committed to mediation. It is a very important tool in the armoury to help people to resolve their disputes. Outwith this statutory instrument and the EU rules that we already have, as I will go on to explain, we have very strong domestic provision for mediation, and that will continue. The reason to bring forward this statutory instrument and the approach we have adopted is that the current arrangement with the EU is reciprocal and that following our leaving the EU we cannot rely on any reciprocity. This statutory instrument will therefore revoke the EU legislation.

In 2018, the European Council agreed a cross-border mediation directive which sought to harmonise certain aspects of mediation in relation to EU member state cross-border disputes. The aim of the mediation directive is to promote the use of mediation in such cross-border disputes. An EU cross-border dispute can be one between parties who are domiciled or habitually resident in two or more different member states, or it can be a dispute where judicial proceedings or arbitration are started in a member state other than the one where the parties are living. The UK, as a member state, enacted domestic legislation which gave effect to certain aspects of the mediation directive. I say certain aspects, because in many areas, such as ensuring the quality of mediation or information about mediation to the public, our existing arrangements already met the requirements or standards set out in the directive. However, to implement the directive the UK had to introduce some new rules for EU cross-border mediations involving UK parties.

The new rules first specify that if a time limit in a domestic law during which a claim could be brought in a court or tribunal expired during the mediation process, the parties could still seek a remedy through the courts or tribunals should the mediation not be successful. Secondly, the new rules define the rights of a mediator or someone involved in the administration of mediation to resist giving evidence in civil or judicial proceedings arising from information disclosed during a mediation. Various changes were also made to court rules to supplement the changes and to implement the requirements of the mediation directive relating to enforceability of agreements resulting from mediation.

Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the legislation implementing the mediation directive is retained EU law upon the UK’s exit from the EU. However, should the UK leave the EU without an agreement on civil judicial co-operation, the reciprocity on which the directive relies will be lost. Even if we were to continue to apply the enhanced EU rules to EU cross-border disputes, we would be unable to ensure that the remaining EU member states applied the rules of the directive to cross-border disputes involving parties based in the UK or judicial proceedings or arbitration taking place in the UK that were not otherwise in scope.

Accordingly, and in line with the Government’s general approach to civil judicial co-operation in the event of no deal, this instrument will repeal, subject to transitional provisions, the legislation that gives effect to the mediation directive’s rules on confidentiality and extension of limitation periods. It amends the relevant retained EU law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland—in so far as it relates to reserved matters. Separate instruments will amend the related court rules in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is other legislation implementing the directive that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Government, and I understand that they have decided to bring forward their own legislation in this area.

Turning to the impacts, this instrument is necessary to fix the statute book in the event of a no-deal exit. We have assessed its impact and have published an impact assessment. By repealing the domestic legislation that gave effect to the mediation directive, we will ensure clarity in the law applying to mediations between UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in EU member states. We will also avoid a situation where mediations of an EU cross-border dispute conducted in the UK are subject to different rules on confidentiality or limitation from other UK mediations.

As I indicated, the instrument will change only the rules applying to what are currently EU cross-border mediations, and only in two respects: time limits and confidentiality. On time limits, claimants involved in such mediations who no longer have the benefit of an extended limitation period would, if they wanted more time to allow for mediation to take place, be able to make an application to the court and ask it to stay proceedings. Overall, this instrument will ensure that, post EU exit, UK-EU mediations are treated consistently under the law with mediations between UK-domiciled or habitually resident parties, or UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in non-EU third countries.