Rehabilitation of Offenders

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Self-evidently, the existing structure of public probation trusts cannot take risk on behalf of the taxpayer, but staff are welcome—they are being helped actively—to establish co-operative movements and social enterprises that bid for the business. That is to be welcomed. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is a Labour and Co-operative Member, but he sits with many who are. Surely he welcomes that approach.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the Justice Secretary on his statement. Rehabilitation is a long-held Liberal Democrat value. We need to focus on reoffending rather than engage in a competition as to who can be the most draconian and pose about it. He is right to highlight short-term prison sentences and to provide probation support. He knows that such sentences are expensive but not effective. Does he agree that spending more money on rehabilitation and on better community sentencing might be a better way of using it?

[Chris Grayling]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the issue unites the coalition—there has been a lot of talk of the coalition parties having differences on policy, but let us champion a policy on which we are united on the need for change. As hon. Members will see when they read the document, one thing that is different in the package I have announced is that we are building rehabilitation support into community sentences. Clearly, the aim is to ensure that people do not get to prison in the first place. My goal is to see prison numbers fall steadily not because we want to close prisons for its own sake, but because fewer people reoffend, and we therefore do not need to put them in jail in future.

Defamation Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I am very aware of time scales and if the hon. Gentleman could bear with me for 30 seconds longer, we might be able to move from this section to the next section.

Moreover, the amendments were tabled at a time when cross-party talks were well under way to identify an agreed response to Leveson’s recommendations, including careful efforts to develop a set of workable criteria for the self-regulatory body. The amendments before us pre-empted the outcome of those talks. As the House will be aware, on 18 March cross-party talks were resolved successfully and a draft royal charter was agreed as a vehicle by which the recognition body should be set up. Detailed criteria by which self-regulators would be assessed were also agreed, and provisions to enact Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations on incentives in costs and exemplary damages have subsequently been included in the Crime and Courts Bill. Further, a “no change” clause has been included in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill as a safeguard against political intervention with the royal charter.

I note that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has tabled a motion to agree with amendment 16, which introduces a requirement for an independent regulatory body to provide an arbitration service. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend and this House that the recognition criteria contained within the agreed draft royal charter include just that. To retain amendment 16 in the Bill, alongside the provisions within the royal charter, risks creating duplication and uncertainty around these requirements. The package of measures identified to enact Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations have cross-party support. As Lord Puttnam, who tabled these amendments, said:

“Nothing in the world will delight me more than to see the Defamation Bill pass in its original form.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 880.]

On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to the removal of Lords amendments 1, 15 and 16.

I also ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment 2. A motion to that effect has been tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). The amendment concerns two distinct but related issues, which have already featured extensively in debates in both Houses during the passage of the Bill.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way so early in her speech. She is presumably aware that the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill, on which I served, said that it favoured the approach that limits libel claims to situations where the corporation can prove the likelihood of substantial financial loss. Does she understand the reasons behind that, and can she give us any reassurances on that?

[Mrs Grant]

I fully understand those reasons, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me and allow me to progress on to an explanation of those amendments, I hope that all will be revealed to him.

The separate but related issues are whether there should be any restrictions on the rights of bodies corporate and other non-natural persons to bring an action in defamation and whether any non-natural person, which is performing a public function, should be prevented altogether from bringing a claim in relation to a statement concerning that function. In relation to the first issue, the amendment would mean that in order to bring a claim, a non-natural person would first have to obtain permission of the court. The court would be required to strike out any such application, unless the claimant could show that the publication of the statement complained of had caused, or was likely to cause, substantial financial loss. We believe that a permission stage for this purpose would create unnecessary duplication and additional costs for both parties.

If the claimant was required to show substantial financial loss in order to satisfy the permission requirement, it would in effect mean that the claimant would satisfy the serious harm test introduced by clause 1. We have asked the civil procedure rules committee to consider rule changes to support a new early resolution procedure under which either party could apply at the outset of proceedings for the court to decide certain key issues, including whether the serious harm test is satisfied. The addition of a permission stage would therefore add little or nothing, because any case where the existence of serious harm was disputed could have that issue resolved at a very early stage in any event.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I am terribly sorry, but the Minister did not say that. She alluded to the civil procedure rules and to the Civil Justice Council, but she did not say that she would go away and table an amendment in lieu of the previously amended clause 2. If she had agreed to table, next week, a new amendment containing subsections (1), (2), (3), but not (4)—for the reasons that she articulated—that would be an argument in the right hon. Gentleman’s favour.

This is the tactic. The right hon. Gentleman can vote with us. Members of his party, plus ours, defeat the Government, and we succeed in ensuring that the amended clause 2 is in the Bill.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I will in a moment, but I want to make some progress first. We have only an hour in which to debate the amendments because of the way in which the Government programmed the debate.

Sadly, publishers are routinely threatened with libel proceedings by corporations who do not want negative coverage. The Lords amendment would make that more difficult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

On 26 October, and I share a birthday with President Mitterrand and Hillary Clinton. Let us move on, however.

I have already declared my interest, so I hope I do not have to do so again. I want to say that this is not a question of being right or wrong. I am not saying that I am right, that my hon. Friend the Minister is right or that the right hon. Member for Tooting is wrong, but that this is a matter of judgment and opinion. We are perfectly entitled to have different views about how best to order the law on defamation.

It so happens that the right hon. Gentleman and I take a different view on Lords amendment 2 on non-natural persons. I happen to think that Lord Bingham was right in the Jameel case in 2007 to make it quite clear that he thought it was perfectly proper and right for corporations to be able to bring actions for libel without proof of special damage—without having to show money loss. I will not recite all that he said, as there is not enough time, but it is worth bearing it in mind when some of the more hyperbolic accusations are traded about companies that bring actions for libel to terrorise or use their financial muscle to inhibit the defence of those actions or to inhibit free speech.

[Dr Huppert]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a fundamental difference between non-natural persons and natural persons in terms of aspects to do with feelings, for example? Corporations of any size cannot have feelings that can hurt by defamatory action; there is a fundamental difference that the law should reflect.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

That is not only fundamental; it is highly uncontroversial. Human beings can get damages for hurt to their feelings; companies cannot. One cannot libel a company by accusing it, for example, of adultery, whereas one can so libel an individual. There are plenty of obvious and not very surprising differences between the law relating to individuals and the law relating to companies, but there are examples of things which affect companies’ trading reputations, which should be susceptible to protection.

We should also bear it in mind that there are different types of company. There are not-for-profit companies which are not in the business of making money and which, if they were libelled, would not lose money. It may well be said in response to me that the amendment deals with that. They would get permission from the court to bring that action, but that just creates another hurdle, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), made clear.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I shall not unwind the case of Singh or the Wilmshurst case; they have been before the courts and have been dealt with. As it happens, the case of Simon Singh became controversial because it was an argument about whether the words complained of constituted allegations of fact or whether they were capable of constituting comment. That is the point on which it went to the Court of Appeal.

There was an action in South Africa brought by a tobacco company which sued and recovered damages on the allegation that its products promoted cancer. Things change. That is the advantage of having an organic system of law which enables the courts to deal with evidence and reach conclusions about whether a company or anyone else has been attacked inappropriately.

As I was saying to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), it is not all that hard to think of statements which seriously injure the general commercial reputation of trading and charitable organisations. An arms company—

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, this debate stops at 7.13 pm.

Arms companies can be accused of bribing foreign officials. Oil companies can be accused of damaging the environment. International humanitarian agencies can be accused of wrongfully succumbing to Government pressure. Retailers can be accused of exploiting child labour, and so on. As the right hon. Member for Tooting said, the directors or the leading members of those companies may also have a parallel course of action, but the company itself should not be shut out from pursuing a course of action if that is available to it.

The good name of a company, as that of an individual, is a thing of value. A damaging libel may lower its standing in the eyes of the public and even of its own staff and make people less ready to deal with it and less willing or less proud to work for it. If that were not so, corporations would not go to the lengths they do to protect and burnish their corporate images. There is nothing repugnant in the notion that this is a value which the law should protect, and it is not an adequate answer that the corporation can itself seek to answer the defamatory statement through press releases or public statements, as protestations of innocence by the impugned party necessarily carry less weight with the public than the prompt issue of proceedings which culminate in a favourable verdict by a judge or a jury.

Furthermore, why should one have to accept that a publication, if truly damaging to a corporation’s commercial reputation, will result in provable financial loss, since the more prompt and public a company’s issuing of proceedings, and the more diligent its pursuit of a claim, the less the chance that financial loss will actually accrue? It may be argued against me that all these matters will be dealt with in the permission hearing, but when is the permission hearing to take place? Will the corporation have to wait right until the end of the limitation period? Will it have to wait for weeks and weeks while the next set of accounts comes out, so that it can work out whether financial loss has occurred as a consequence of the libel? There might be any number of causes of a company suffering an economic downturn, particularly in a recession.

I return to the point I made about not-for-profit companies and charities.

[Dr Huppert]

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman seen that the amendment that I hope the Government will bring forward specifically refers to trading-for-profit organisations, as the Joint Committee recommended? It specifically excludes charities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I want to make two points that were not those I intended to make originally. My third point is that I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) almost completely about this, so I will not put those arguments.

Tesco Lotus in Thailand sued a journalist for £1.9 million—perhaps it was dollars or something, but it was quite a lot—because it wanted an apology, and it eventually got an agreement to have a clarification of the words on an inside page. It later sued a former MP, a business journalist, in the same way.

Corporations such as Tesco, whether in joint venture overseas or in this country, should not be able to choose to sue an individual journalist; it simply should not happen. They have plenty of power, plenty of weight, plenty of thick skin and an umbrella, and they should not be able to do it.

I would have stopped corporations suing for libel at all.

I believe strongly that public functions should fall under the Derbyshire principle, irrespective of whether we want private businesses doing public jobs. Earlier I gave the example of a security guard at a pop festival. I regard security as a public function even if it is privately hired, and such people should not be able to sue for libel. The court should not issue the writ; it should not be allowed.

Let me make a point on behalf of Colin Channon, the editor of my local newspaper, the Worthing Herald, who says that were he to report that a group of unauthorised campers was in the constituency and he were then sued, he would have to pay £3,000 for initial advice before he got to a panel. We are in danger of our local newspapers being threatened.

As for people conspiring to say that the police would not confirm whether someone had been arrested, the idea that someone could sue for a libel that claimed they had been arrested but which had not been confirmed, even though true, makes the issue even worse. I am unhappy with most of this but I am particularly unhappy that the Government have not yet found a way of having new clause 2, in effect, there for all of us.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), with whom I have had many promising discussions on the issue. I am delighted that the Bill is back in the Commons. There was a period when, due to the actions of the Labour peer Lord Puttnam, there was a risk. I am glad that that risk did not eventualise and that it turned out not to be a problem.

This Bill will make a significant change to the costs of libel and to free speech and it will reduce libel tourism. I am particularly pleased about clause 6, which provides specific protection for peer-reviewed academic and scientific publications. That is something that I value greatly and I am delighted that we will be able to make those protections, because we have heard of too many cases of learned journals being silenced.

The issue remains, however, of corporations and non-natural persons. As I argued earlier, they are different. They do not have feelings. They are categorically separate and there should be different rules for what happens when they wish to bring libel actions. Significantly, we have heard that they can abuse power, as in the cases of Peter Wilmshurst and Simon Singh. I was going to talk more about them, but a number of speeches have covered them.

There is, largely, cross-party agreement, with the notable exception of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier).

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that “a body corporate” in subsection (1)(a) of the new clause proposed by Lords amendment 2 does not restrict it to money-making corporations?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. I understand that that is the intention and that is what was recommended. I eagerly anticipate a Government amendment and hope that it will address that issue. None of us wants to put constraints on charities. This relates to profitable or profit-making organisations, or at least those that are trying to make a profit.

I heard the Minister make a commitment to actively consider such amendments. My understanding is—I am still new to parliamentary procedure—that that is as far as a Minister is able to go at this stage. I would be grateful if it was not her intention to set high expectations for such an amendment being tabled in the Lords. She is welcome to clarify the issue now; otherwise, I am very happy with what she said and look forward to the amendment.

We will get cross-party agreement on corporations having to prove that they have suffered serious financial harm. Simon Singh has correctly said that that would have saved him. Such a provision is still missing from the Bill, but I believe that the Government have now said that they will address it. I trust the Government on that and I look forward to the amendment and to the Bill finally changing.

As John Kampfner, the former chief executive of Index on Censorship, said:

“When we launched the Libel Reform Campaign in 2009, only the Liberal Democrats backed change. Now the cause has cross party support.”

I look forward to seeing this Bill become an Act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I visited the excellent Dawn projects in Cambridge and Peterborough, where they do a huge amount of work with female ex-offenders and save the state far more than they cost to run. They are both concerned about the future of their funding. The Minister has given some reassurance, but can she give further reassurance that the Dawn project will continue to get the support it needs?

[Mrs Grant]

I cannot comment on individual cases at this stage, but we are engaged with all 31 centres. New ones are coming on board too. We are still in the middle of commissioning so it would not be appropriate for me to go into that level of detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Access to justice is obviously important for everyone, but the matters to which the hon. Lady refers are for my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that they will note her comments in Hansard and be aware of what she has said.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Defamation Bill is a key piece of legislation, helping people to protect their reputations and supporting free speech. It was held up in the other place, but what progress is now being made and does it have a target date for Royal Assent?

[Chris Grayling]

I very much hope that now that cross-party issues on Leveson have been dealt with, there will be no obstacles to bringing forward the Defamation Bill in its original form, without the Lords amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, that is really a matter for the DWP. It is my job to provide an appeal route for those who wish to appeal, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that before I left my previous job I asked officials to change how we reassessed people who had been through an appeal so that there was a more sensible length of time between appeal and reassessment.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be far more efficient throughout the entirety of government if the decisions that were made were right the first time? The work capability assessments have not delivered that since they were introduced by the previous Government. Will he talk to colleagues in the DWP to try to ensure that decision making is right first time in the interests of Government efficiency and of the people who undergo a lot of anxiety and worry as they go through the appeals process?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend will know that that was a matter of great concern to me in my previous job. None of us benefits from getting decisions wrong and a huge amount of effort has been put into getting them right. Of course, our Department must provide a route for appeals when they are necessary, but I can assure him that a huge amount of effort goes into trying to ensure that we get decisions right first time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the arrangements made for offenders of that nature will be multi-agency public protection arrangements. We want to ensure that local authorities and all other agencies responsible for joining in under MAPPA have the support they need. We will look carefully at what he has said and ensure that that happens in each of those examples.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Magistrates courts play a key role in the administration of justice in the UK, but too often their operation can be deeply chaotic—it can be unclear when cases will be heard, cases start and stop, and it is hard to follow proceedings. Will the Department consider reorganising how magistrates courts work so we get efficient and clear administration of justice in them?

[Damian Green]

I am at one with my hon. Friend on that. I visit magistrates courts and was at Maidstone recently to see a very well run magistrates court—it is well run not least because the court officials and those feeding the court can use new technology, which, increasingly, will speed up the process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

Saving for pensions is very important. That is why the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has been promoting workplace pensions. We are introducing the system gradually, because suddenly having to pay money into their pensions that they have not previously had to pay could have a real impact on people’s current incomes, but our plan is, over time, to ensure that everyone saves for a pension.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of shared parental leave will lead to more equality in the workplace, including equality in incomes? Men will be encouraged to take a greater share of child care, which will allow women to return to work earlier if they wish to do so.

[Jo Swinson]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Shared parental leave is crucial in not just enabling families to share the care of their children in a way that works for them, but dealing with some of the inequalities which, sadly, persist in the workplace. We know, for example, that maternity discrimination still goes on. One of the positive side-effects of shared parental leave will be the reduction of incentives for employers who have been tempted to break the law, and who may now decide that that is not a sensible thing to do.

Transforming Rehabilitation

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I would simply invite the right hon. Gentleman to visit his own probation trust in Wales, which is one of the trusts trialling GPS tagging. I can see real benefits in that tagging. We are considering it and we are recontracting tagging contracts at the moment. I think that GPS tagging offers a new dimension for our community justice system that will help sometimes to protect offenders and sometimes to deal with offenders who are doing things that they should not be doing.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the Justice Secretary agree that it is simply astonishing that there has not been rehabilitation support for the roughly 50,000 a year whose sentences are less than 12 months? They have a reoffending rate of about 60% and I congratulate him on the fact that this Government will finally address the issue, helping them back into society and reducing reoffending.

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is baffling that over all the years of plenty for which Labour was in power, this is something Labour never did. We have an extraordinary situation with thousands and thousands of offenders who leave prison with £46 in their pocket and nothing else, and with no support, and a huge proportion of them reoffend. I am determined to change that.

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman asked two questions. First, he asked whether I was surprised that the power did not already exist. To some extent, yes I am. Obviously, the IPCC was set up under the Police Reform Act 2002 and given powers then. Perhaps this is the first time that so much focus has been on it—indeed, it has caused the House to agree to emergency legislation to give the IPCC that particular power.

Secondly, I know that sanctions are of particular concern. As has been said, we will debate the matter in detail on an amendment to the relevant clause in Committee later. However, I preview my thoughts on that by pointing out that clear sanctions will be available to chief constables and forces to apply to those who refuse to obey what will be an IPCC instruction, and later a requirement. They will be very powerful.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister may recall that I wrote to him about retired officers, and I thank him for his response. Will he be clear about whether such former officers would be required to attend any sort of interview? My understanding of the Home Affairs Committee report is that the Bill does not provide for that, and that could hinder the investigation. Will he make it clear whether there is a way of ensuring that people are available to be interviewed?

[Damian Green]

The case is different for retired officers because they are essentially members of the public. The police cannot compel a member of the public to attend an interview as a witness. If the police feel that it is necessary to interview someone, they have to arrest them if they are unwilling to help voluntarily. It would be strange to give the IPCC powers that the police do not have. Having said that, my expectation is that—inevitably, in this case—there will be many retired officers, simply because of the length of time since Hillsborough, and that they may have useful evidence to give as witnesses. I hope and expect that many will wish to help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

That is a question for the IPCC investigation; it is not for Ministers to act as judges or investigators. I know it is an important point, but it is better addressed to the IPCC.

[Dr Huppert]

The Minister says he is open to plugging gaps. He knows I have pressed him before about people occupying quasi-police roles. He wrote to me to say he is actively considering the issue. Will he indicate where that consideration has reached?

[Damian Green]

Short of reading again what I have just said, that is what we are doing. The Select Committee, of which he is a distinguished member, is conducting an investigation. It has not published its final report, but when it does so the Government will look at it and all the matters it raises seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It will not be news to anybody in this House how serious the Hillsborough disaster was. It is still the worst tragedy in British sporting history. The shocking revelations of deception, blame and injustice have resonated with football fans and many others around the world. The 96 people paid an awful price and we are still learning from it today. I hope that Parliament will at last ensure that we learn the harsh lessons of the last 23 years through this vital legislation.

I will not go through the details of what happened because they have been eloquently expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members who have much closer links to these events, and the unacceptable acts of manipulation and self-interest by the police forces involved in the disaster have been covered extensively in the media. It is clear from the Hillsborough independent panel report that the extent of the loss of life can be attributed to multiple failures in the emergency services and other public bodies that were charged with the safety of the public on that occasion.

We have to accept the reality that South Yorkshire and West Midlands police, as well as other emergency services, made “strenuous attempts” to deflect the blame for the crush on to the victims. The report stated clearly that 116 of 164 police statements were

“amended to remove or alter comments unfavourable to”

South Yorkshire police. I know that the whole House would agree that that is clearly unacceptable.

For the victims of the catastrophe who have seen decades pass without justice, it is essential that we act to ensure that the systems put in place to protect the public can no longer place themselves above that duty. It is therefore critical that we reform the IPCC. There are two issues. First, the changes proposed in this Bill, which I support, will, we hope, help the Hillsborough investigation, although I have a couple of concerns that I will raise in a moment.

Secondly, there is a need for broader reform of the IPCC. There is much concern among the public that it does not always act sufficiently independently, that it does not take up enough cases and that it is not able to investigate cases as well as it needs to. I am pleased that the Minister has made it clear that he will consider carefully the work that the Home Affairs Committee is doing to look more broadly at the IPCC. There are a number of points that I hope he will look at. I have already raised the issue of those who operate in quasi-policing roles. The former chair of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, has said that

“if it looks like a police officer, talks like a police officer, walks like a police officer, the IPCC should investigate it.”

The Minister has said that he will have an open mind in looking at those issues. I hope that he will take action on quasi-policing roles.

The Liberal Democrats support the Bill entirely. We are delighted that it also has the support of organisations such as Liberty, which rightly states that there should be due process for police officers. However, there are a number of issues that are not quite clear and I would be grateful if the Minister could reiterate his position on them. The first is what will happen to police officers who are required to attend an interview but who refuse to answer questions at it. Everybody has the right not to answer questions and not to self-incriminate, but there is a question about whether there is a duty on somebody who is still an employee to answer questions. The Home Affairs Committee report, which we concluded yesterday in time for this debate, states at recommendation 10:

“We note that refusal to attend an interview may result in misconduct or gross misconduct proceedings, but that there is no sanction for refusal to answer questions. We expect that chief constables will indicate to their forces that such uncooperative behaviour would be considered to be at odds with the spirit of professional duty.”

I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his interpretation, too, and that he will encourage chief constables to make that clear more broadly.

There is still the issue, which I raised with the Minister earlier, of former police officers. He pointed out, and others confirmed it, that they would have a moral obligation to co-operate. That is definitely right—we would like former police officers to take part—but I am not clear what would happen if the unfortunate occurred, and some police officers did not agree to co-operate and that caused a fundamental problem with the investigation. I hope that the Minister will consider what happens if that becomes a problem.

[Damian Green]

In the middle of that section of his speech, the hon. Gentleman moved from retired police officers to police officers. Did he mean retired police officers?

[Dr Huppert]

I am sorry; I meant former police officers who do not have to attend an interview and decide not to do so, and that becomes a problem. I hope that the Minister will consider, obviously with much reluctance, whether we need to do anything else to ensure justice. I thank him for correcting me if I misspoke.

I hope that the Bill will be passed quickly, and I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ comments today.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I will certainly give the hon. Lady that commitment. I should say that I spoke to the Scottish Justice Secretary this morning ahead of this statement, as I did to his counterparts in the other devolved Administrations. It is important that they play a part in the discussions that lie ahead. Of course, one factor that needs to be a part of the discussion is what the burdens will be on those who have to administer systems to provide prisoners with the vote, if indeed that is what Parliament chooses to do.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Prison governors have more regular contact with prisoners than any of us in this House. Does the Justice Secretary therefore agree with the past president of the Prison Governors Association, who has said:

“The blanket ban on sentenced prisoners’ voting is out of step in a modern prison service and runs counter to resettlement work which aims to ensure that prisoners lead a responsible, law-abiding life on release”?

[Chris Grayling]

What my hon. Friend has just brought before the House is one example of the kind of views I expect to be submitted to the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the views of prison governors will be listened to with interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

1. What plans he has to increase the uptake of restorative justice.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

The Government intend to publish a framework for restorative justice that will improve the victim’s awareness and access to restorative justice. We have also introduced legislation to put restorative justice on to a statutory footing for the first time.

[Dr Huppert]

I am delighted to see a statutory basis for restorative justice. The Minister is, I hope, aware of the experiments in police-organised restorative justice conferences for victims of serious crime—a study carried out by criminologists from the university of Cambridge from 2001 to 2005—which showed that more than £10 of the costs of crime could be saved for every pound spent on this process. Will he ensure that ring-fenced funding is available for restorative justice, as well as the statutory basis?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we are already investing more than £1.5 million to help build capacity in dealing with restorative justice throughout the criminal justice system and, in particular, for pre-sentence restorative justice, which is what his question refers to. I am also delighted to report that over 18,000 police officers have received training in restorative justice techniques. This is contributing to the greater success of our restorative justice measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

Of course I am not responsible for the Mayor of London’s projects. On the question of our whole approach to the rehabilitation of offenders and the introduction of payment by results, the nature of payment by results means that we provide incentives to providers to deliver what works best. There is constant pressure in a payment- by-results system to find best practice and apply it in a way that delivers best results for offenders and for the taxpayer.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T6. The social impact bond from Peterborough prison to reduce reoffending was launched just over a year ago. Full results will only be available after year four. What assessment has the Secretary of State made so far of the effects of the work done? Has it reduced reoffending?

[Chris Grayling]

We have not yet done the assessment—the detailed work—but I think there are good grounds for believing that good work has been done, and I will provide more information in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I have had several bids from the Manchester area, and I am sure that I shall be in the city in the not-too-distant future. I shall happily consider whether I can look at the best projects there. Clearly there is good experience showing how it is possible to increase the likelihood of offenders’ returning to a life of non-offending, and any lessons that we can learn will be welcome.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their posts. Does he agree that, with the annual cost per prisoner standing at about £40,000 and that figure rising to about £100,000 for young people, it is very sensible, partly in order to save money, to look for alternatives, in particular with regard to short-term schemes? Will he at least look at saving money in that way, which would also enable us to deal better with these people and help make sure rehabilitation happens?

[Chris Grayling]

My two initial thoughts are that the cost of prisons is too high but, alongside that, that the best way for us to save money is to break the cycle of reoffending that has people going back to prison, and back to prison, and back to prison. We release young people on to our streets with £46 in their pocket, to go back to the same places where they offended before and where the same people are, and we are surprised when they return to prison. That is what has got to change.