Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The problems with the precautionary clause are twofold. First, it is worth saying that this House voted for the reforms by a substantial majority last week. Secondly, the precautionary provision would prevent any change whatever to the entire probation service from being made. The clause is completely flawed. It would prevent any kind of restructuring or reorganisation within an individual trust, let alone any other part of what is proposed. I am afraid that we will therefore seek to overturn that amendment in Committee because, as I say, it would make it impossible to run the probation service, even in its current form.

We are talking about people who have offended before, some of whom are often highly persistent offenders, and far too many of them go on to reoffend. In 2011, about 50,000 adult offenders were released from short prison sentences. Nearly 60% of that group went on to reoffend, committing a total of 85,000 crimes. That is 85,000 crimes too many—a depressing merry-go-round of offending, blighting the lives of men, women and children in all our constituencies.

Labour Members have talked about us taking risks with public safety, so let me tell them what really is taking risks with public safety. It is leaving the situation unchanged. Those 85,000 crimes include some of the most serious crimes that our society knows—thousands of them each year, including hundreds of serious sexual and violent offences. Yet we are leaving the people who commit those crimes to go on and on unsupervised.

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

The probation service, of course, has never been asked or required to supervise that group of offenders before, so is there any reason why the Justice Secretary could not give the public probation service the opportunity to carry out this supervision when the legislation passes?

[Chris Grayling]

I refer to what Labour said in 2010—that it could not do that. The hon. Lady and her colleagues said very clearly that they could not afford to proceed with custody plus—the scheme that they brought forward that would enable the probation service to provide supervision for these offenders. We have come up with a way of doing that. Labour said that in 2010—just before the last election. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. We are talking about people who go on and on and on committing crimes, unsupervised. I see that as the real public safety scandal; it is a flaw in our system that I want to solve and Labour Members seem not to want to solve.

Sadly, it is no surprise that reoffending rates for this group are so high. The average time served in custody for that group is only nine weeks—not nearly long enough to tackle these issues while in prison. After that, they are released at the halfway point with £46 in their pocket and little or no support. Some engage with voluntary rehabilitation programmes after their release, but at the moment there is no mandatory period of supervision in the community. That is what this Bill changes. The core of the change in this Bill is the delivery of 12 months of supervision for those people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

If the Justice Secretary has his way, within the course of 12 months those who receive a sentence of less than 12 months will be supervised and we will have to wait and keep our fingers crossed that there will be no risk to public safety. If there is no such risk and the Justice Secretary finally oversees a rehabilitation revolution, of course we will not stop that supervision—that would be ridiculous. The Justice Secretary’s problem is that he cannot tell us how much it will cost, how much reoffending will go down by, or how many fewer crimes will be committed. That is the big flaw in his plan. It is not evidence-based. It has been worked out on the back of an envelope. The last time he tried to do that was the Work programme, which was not a huge success.

[Kate Green]

Of course, one of the problems is that whoever undertakes the supervision activity will have to meet the requirements imposed by a sentencing court, which will be predetermined and come with an element of unbreakable cost. Is it not, therefore, something of a distortion to suggest that these are payment-by-results contracts when a substantial proportion of the cost will, in effect, be determined by the sentence passed by the court? Surely the Justice Secretary could tell us now what costing he has made of that.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend has more optimism in the Justice Secretary’s competence than I have. The Social Market Foundation showed recently that it is possible for private companies to still make a profit based on the fee for service, without relying on the PBR element. The Justice Secretary has not even worked out what percentage will be PBR. Will it be 5%, 7%, 10% or 15%? He has no idea. He is the most incompetent Justice Secretary in history.

While I am on the subject of extending supervision, I should say that I, unlike the Justice Secretary, have met probation trusts and they have said that they would be up for taking on those on sentences of less than 12 months if only the Government would let them. They were never asked to do so by this Justice Secretary. Instead, he would rather trust G4S, Serco and the like. In fact, some probation trusts already work with the most prolific offenders in this group, even though they do not get the money to do so. They just see it as the right thing to do.

Instead of abolishing probation trusts, why will the Government not give them the chance to prove their mettle with those on short sentences? Why has the Justice Secretary decided that the existing local structures, which have a proven track record in reducing reoffending, are to be ignored in favour of organisations with no track record in this area? Why have probation trusts been barred from bidding for the contracts to supervise low and medium-risk offenders?

Before I conclude, I need to address the issue of payment by results. The Justice Secretary is pretty good at briefing journalists that his reform of probation will mean that private companies will be paid only if they rehabilitate offenders. Who would not be in favour of a system that pays private companies only by result? However, the Justice Secretary does not brief journalists with the small print. We have absolutely no idea what percentage of the contract payment will be dependent on results—and neither does the Justice Secretary.

I want the House to be clear about what we do and do not support. We support attempts to reduce reoffending. We support extending supervision to those in custody for less than 12 months. We support attempts at through-the-gate support for those leaving prison. We will only support policies that are grounded in evidence of what works and that will not put the public at risk. We cannot afford to undermine public confidence in our criminal justice system with ideological leaps in the dark that could risk public safety.

It is mendacious of the Justice Secretary to attack those who do not subscribe to his particular approach as being in favour of the status quo. The “you’re either with me or against me” approach does not wash. We do not subscribe to the Justice Secretary being judge and jury about what works without waiting for any evidence. We do not support him ignoring experts whose knowledge in this area is at a level he will never be able to match. Placing tabloid headlines ahead of what really works is a dangerous game.

If our reasoned amendment fails, we will table amendments in Committee and on Report to try to address the very serious concerns of experts in the field. We believe it is possible to work with the public, private and voluntary sectors, and that it is possible to reduce offending without taking a risk with public safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

That is absolute nonsense. Public bodies, like local authorities, have reserves to deal with uncertainties. Why does the Minister not take a look at the legislation passed by his Government on local authority funding, which is based increasingly on business rates and contains an element of risk? Good, prudent public authorities can manage those risks, and there is no reason why probation trusts should not be able to bid for this work and do it as well as they do the work with the offenders they are already responsible for supervising.

[Kate Green]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the Minister has just said is Kafkaesque? The Minister is saying that he would rather contract out, with risk, to unproven private companies than retain in-house quality services without risk.

[John Healey]

To which I might add that the probation trusts have a proven track record—certainly in south Yorkshire—of dealing with the group the Minister is rightly most concerned about: offenders who have served less than 12 months in custody. That work is already done in south Yorkshire by the probation trust, with multi-agency teams including the police, drug workers and housing officers. The Justice Secretary’s plans will split up those cases and break the relationships on which such excellent work is dependent and currently undertaken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

Central Government are trying to help probation officers to create mutuals. They are working with the Cabinet Office to ensure that they can bid for the contracts, so that they can continue to provide the assistance that they now give. What is missing from the Opposition’s argument is the fact that the changes will enable us to help 50,000 more people. Surely, we should all be proud of that.

[Kate Green]

The Greater Manchester probation trust has been highly innovative in developing programmes with the private and voluntary sectors, and it has developed a successful programme called Achieve, which involves getting offenders back into employment. It has scored much higher outcomes than the Work programme. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the trust, having prepared to take that programme forward and to bid for one of the new contracts in a mutual, co-operative structure, was told that it would not be allowed to do so?

[Gareth Johnson]

It is above my pay grade to give information on why a probation trust has been refused a contract. I find it heartening, however, that so many of the examples given by Opposition Members involve charities and other organisations outside the probation service working successfully with offenders. I welcome the fact that the Bill will roll out that programme to ensure that more people get that kind of assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Goggins]

Indeed. It is regrettable, in a way, that the Government took custody plus off the statute book rather than trying to build it up, and even work on a cross-party basis.

We are told repeatedly that the cost of supervising the 50,000 offenders who leave prison having served short sentences will be met from the savings generated by the competition that will take place for the rest of the work that has been allocated. I said two weeks ago that I did not believe that, and I say the same today. The maths itself tells the story. The Government propose that the private and voluntary sectors should be given 70% of the current probation work load: that is to be the deal. Some 220,000 offenders are currently being supervised by the probation service; 70% of 220,000 is roughly 150,000—and the private and voluntary sectors must find the resources to supervise another 50,000 on top of that.

When I go to the supermarket, I am used to seeing “Buy three, get one free”, but I am not used to seeing that when it comes to planning and paying for the supervision of some problematic offenders. It just will not wash. Ministers keep saying that they will not give us the figures because the information is commercially confidential and is all to do with competition, but they know that the figures will not add up, and they really ought to come clean about that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) made an important point about the potential for an unintended consequence in the sentencing of offenders. There is a danger that, as a result of the Bill, more people will be subject to short-term prison sentences and the value of community sentences will be undermined. I am not saying that that is what Ministers intend, but there is a danger of it, and it is spelled out in the impact assessment: Ministers accept that there is a risk of so-called uptariffing—that people will get a more severe sentence than might otherwise have been the case.

We know that there will be 600 extra prison places as a result of the numbers of offenders who will be recalled to prison, but there is a risk of a change in the behaviour of sentencers, too. It is common sense that if a sentencer is being offered a choice between a package of community activity and supervision and, as an alternative, that package plus some prison beforehand, they will be tempted to go for the belt-and-braces approach. I would appreciate it if the Minister would tell us in his winding-up speech what discussions he has been having with the magistrates and the Sentencing Council to make sure that we do not see an overuse of short-term custody as a result of his changes, and an undermining of community sentences.

There is also a real risk that certain vulnerable groups will not be helped if the Bill’s provisions are interpreted in, as it were, an automatic way, because that will lead to more supervision and stronger sanctions. A higher proportion of female than male offenders receive a short custodial sentence, and many of them come out of prison to chaotic lives and with abusive relationships to deal with. If things break down, it may not be appropriate for them to go back to prison automatically. That worries me, and I would like the Minister to say more about the flexibility in the system he is introducing, so people do not too automatically go back to prison when their needs are rather different.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning women offenders. Does he agree that there is a problem with payment-by-results contracts in that, because there are fewer women offenders and unit costs are therefore higher, and because their needs are often more complex, they are often more expensive to supervise and therefore may be particularly unattractive to private providers?

[Paul Goggins]

That is a very real concern and I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the chance to put that point on the record and introduce it into the debate. Groups with specific and additional needs—vulnerable female offenders or mentally ill offenders, for instance—will not be an attractive proposition to people who are looking to do things at the lowest possible cost.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. It is also a great pleasure to participate in such a well-informed debate.

I listened with great interest to a number of the contributions, particularly that of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), with whom I found myself in considerable agreement at many points. The difficulty is that he believes that we should take on trust the need to proceed with the terms of the Bill, and give the Bill a Second Reading, when so many questions have been raised and left unanswered in this debate and the debate that took place in the Chamber a week or so ago. That might not matter if we felt that there was time, during the passage and implementation of the legislation, to undertake careful scrutiny of those concerns, and time to research and implement the measures necessary to address them, but the proposals are being rushed through by the Government.

Already, shadow structures are being set up, the bidding process is under way, and local probation staff are being asked to begin to think about their future under the changed structures. There will be an incredibly rapid approach to trying to implement what a number of my colleagues have rightly described as rather half-baked legislation. If I believed that, if we gave the Bill a Second Reading tonight, the time would be taken to address all the concerns properly, I might be prepared to vote for it, but the problem is that we know that Second Reading will be followed rapidly by the final stages of the Bill and implementation, and a series of major concerns will be left unanswered. That is a real worry.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Has my hon. Friend observed that under the programme motion, we will complete the Committee stage by the beginning of December? It is highly unlikely that any further reports can be prepared by then, and that we can have an informed discussion on the issues, before the whole Bill is disposed of.

[Kate Green]

The timing is of serious concern, and is driven more by electoral imperatives than a desire to make sure that we devise a system that is effective and right.

There is much to welcome in the intentions behind the Bill. Like many others who have spoken, I warmly welcome the wish to introduce post-release supervision for those serving short-term custodial sentences. As many have said, there has been a gap in our system up till now, and it is good to begin to explore ways in which it could be filled. I am also pleased to see a provision in the Bill on considering the needs and circumstances of women offenders. We have been pressing for that since Baroness Corston’s excellent report; it is approaching five years since it was published. It is welcome to see that making an appearance in the Bill.

However, those welcome objectives in no way justify a pell-mell destruction—a wholesale dismantling—of the public probation service that is not founded on logic, and does not appear to be founded on good or consistent evidence. That is why clause 1, with all its flaws—I accept some of the flaws that have been suggested—is important. We should not pursue these far-reaching changes without proper parliamentary scrutiny of the detail of what will be put in place. If the Minister would like to come forward with ways to improve the clause, and suggest to what degree that parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate, I would be happy to hear what he has to say, but it seems quite wrong to continue down the track of implementing the proposals when such serious concerns are being expressed.

[Jeremy Wright]

This is probably an unfair intervention, as I see that the hon. Lady does not have a copy of the Offender Management Act 2007 with her, but does she know where in that Act anything comparable to clause 1 appears?

[Kate Green]

No, that is not my point. My point is that we are going into a wholesale rearrangement of the public probation service—a service that has existed to manage the totality of risk, and take overall responsibility for it. That is what is being broken up. It is extremely important that we do not go down that track without proper parliamentary scrutiny of the implications and consequences, and that scrutiny is what clause 1 seeks to achieve.

[Jenny Chapman]

The Minister was being rather cheeky, because we had a whole Act to reorganise the probation service and establish trusts. The Government are attempting to dismantle the probation service without any parliamentary scrutiny whatever.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

There are concerns about the contracting structure that will be introduced as a result of the Bill. I want to repeat some of the concerns that have been expressed about the way in which the contracts will be priced. It has been presented by the Lord Chancellor this afternoon and more generally as predominantly a payment-by-results model which will seek to introduce new private funding into a marketplace where, within the public sector, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) pointed out, it would be difficult to find those levels of additional funding, particularly in these times of public spending constraint.

The point is that a very small proportion of these contracts, it seems, will genuinely be payment-by-results contracts. Substantial elements of these contracts will be subject to meeting court requirements, which means that there will have to be enough money in those contracts to ensure that those court requirements can be adequately met by the contractors. That, for a start, will leave relatively little room for manoeuvre in pricing a more discretionary element and an element that is about payment by results.

It is also the case, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, that within the existing spending envelope not only are these providers to manage about 150,000 existing offenders subject to supervision, but to take on board a further perhaps 50,000 within the context of the same funding envelope. That is not credible. It means either that we will have a very poor quality of intervention and/or cherry-picking, with a substantial number of those offenders receiving no support of any value at all.

I am also concerned about the way in which the pricing structures will respond to what a number of hon. Members have talked about—the changing risk profiles that we see when offenders are subject to supervision. As others have said, offender risk profiles are not static. Risk profiles can vary. Offenders can be beset by a range of external pressures and circumstances—bereavement, loss of a job, ending of a relationship, becoming homeless and so on—all of which can take a relatively stable low to medium-risk offender and suddenly catapult them into being high risk. At that point, we understand that the low or medium-risk offender would switch from being supervised by a non-statutory provider into the public probation supervision system. They would be supervised within the statutory sector.

But I do not think we have been told—perhaps the Minister will intervene on me if he has information to share about this—how that would be reflected in the pricing and the reward for the private contractor, and what additional resources would be made available to the public probation service if the risk profiles that had been assumed in the initial pricing of the contract turn out not to be what is experienced in practice.

[Jeremy Wright]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I sense that the Minister is going to offer me some information.

[Jeremy Wright]

I accept the invitation. On the first of the two points that the hon. Lady raised, in relation to what happens to the income for the provider if someone moves out of the medium and low-risk category and into the high-risk category, the answer is that that individual will stay within the cohort for payment-by-results purposes, so there is no financial incentive—that is the purpose of this—for the provider to move someone on to the public sector. On the second issue that she raised—how the public sector attracts the money to do the extra work with the extra people—the money should follow the individual.

[Kate Green]

I am not sure that I have totally understood this. It seemed that the private provider would retain any income attached to the result—the outcome—although we do not know what proportion of that overall payment to the private provider will be for the result and what will be a fixed payment for having to carry out the basics of supervision. It is welcome that the Minister says that resources will follow the offender, and therefore that if there is extra activity to be carried out in the public sector, the public sector will receive the necessary resources to carry out that work, but I am not quite clear where that funding will come from if the private provider is also to be remunerated in full for the work that it has carried out and for any ultimate outcome that may be achieved. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide more detail as the Bill proceeds on its parliamentary passage. It would be useful to understand the cash flow and funding models in more detail.

Concerns have been expressed about the way in which prisoner risk categorisation will be undertaken. We have quite a long established system—OASys, or the offender assesment system—for determining levels of risk. It is being suggested that one of the things that the Ministry of Justice may wish to do is to revisit that risk assessment system to try to change the profile of the offender base so that more offenders can be deemed to be low or medium risk and supervised in the private or non-profit sector rather than, as would be suggested on current risk assessment tools, within the public probation service.

[Jenny Chapman]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this issue. As I understand it, a new risk assessment tool will be introduced at the same time as these reforms take place. Is she concerned, as I am, that this would be the worst possible time to introduce that change?

[Kate Green]

We have clearly heard the same rumours. It is important that we understand what the new risk assessment tool will look like, what the implications will be for the overall risk profile of this cohort of offenders, and whether we can expect to see some significant shifts in the way that the level of risk is identified and assessed.

[John McDonnell]

This is getting barmier by the minute. The transaction costs need to be assessed. The transaction costs of the reassessment of offenders with the new risk assessment tool will be massive. In addition, there will be the transaction costs of monitoring the flow of money as offenders move between the risk categories.

[Kate Green]

Perhaps I am overcomplicating what is being proposed by the Government, but it seems to me that the whole financial structure and the way in which that relates to risk assessment is very unclear to Members—certainly to Opposition Members. It would be helpful, during the passage of the Bill, for the Government to make that clear to us so that we can understand the true financial as well as the risk consequences of what is proposed.

[Jenny Chapman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Green]

I will give way one more time, then I want to move on to another issue.

[Jenny Chapman]

My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way and I am grateful. The problem is that we will not have the opportunity to go into these issues in more detail as the Bill progresses because none of the concerns being raised is in the Bill. That is the point of our amendment.

[Kate Green]

It is clear that we need much more time to scrutinise these proposals properly and, sadly, that is not what we are being offered by the Government tonight.

I turn to an issue that has been raised by a number of hon. Members, mostly Government Members, about the opportunities that exist for probation trusts in some form to bid for the new contracts. It is pretty clearly understood in my area that they will not have that opportunity to bid. It is baffling to me that, when they are doing such good work already, we would not want to give them the opportunity at least to compete for those contracts. They might not be successful, but surely where we have good models of provision in the public sector, we would want to enable them to put themselves forward in competition with other potential providers.

It has been said, rightly, by a number of hon. Members that there will be the opportunity for probation trusts to set up different kinds of legal structures—co-operatives, mutuals, shadow structures and so on. I am not sure why we think there is any particular advantage to the public in forcing them to go down that route. Again, I cannot help but believe that it will create extra cost and extra complexity. Nor is it clear to me that we know what these mutuals and co-operatives will and will not be allowed to bid for.

It would be helpful if the Minister commented on that in his response and told the House how he envisages these entities coming into a system when the contracting is beginning to take place already, before many of them have had any chance to get off the ground.

[Paul Maynard]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this issue so I am pleased to take his intervention.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being most generous. Does she agree that Greater Manchester is one of the more innovative probation trusts and has had a number of very successful schemes and should perhaps be seen as a litmus test of whether the condition for mutuals is going to occur in practice.

[Kate Green]

I agree that Greater Manchester has been innovative. As I say, in my discussions with Greater Manchester, the trust was preparing for exactly this approach, at least a year ago, and had the brakes put on. It was told that it would not be able to bid in the process in the way that it had planned, so I would be interested to understand, as I think the hon. Gentleman would, what Greater Manchester and other such trusts will and will not be able to bid for, what sort of entities they will have to establish to enable them to bid and potentially to take a leading role in that bidding process, and whether there will be time for them to create those entities and put in bids, given that, as I understand it, the preliminaries of the process are already under way this month. He and I look forward to some reassurances from the Minister.

A number of my colleagues have pointed out that the Lord Chancellor’s proposals mirror the structure and approach of the Work programme, which he introduced as Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions. Leaving aside the pretty poor performance of the Work programme to date—I am prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt; it may achieve improved outcomes over time, although it is getting off to a depressingly slow start—in the light of everything that has been said in the Chamber this evening about what we have seen from the Work programme and what seems to be being replicated in these contracts, I am concerned that we will have a national top-down driven system, when what we have heard from both sides of the House, about innovative experiments in different parts of the country, is that a localised, bottom-up, partnership approach across a range of local agencies has been what has worked best.

I am concerned that the track record of some of the large multinational providers, who are likely to bid for these contracts—indeed may be the only people qualified and able to take the risk inherent in bidding for these contracts—is that they are not good at developing supply chains down the local agencies. As hon. Members may know, many voluntary and charitable organisations have complained bitterly about their experiences with the Work programme. They complain that they have been used as so-called bid candy, but have not been given any opportunity to deliver activity. They complain that they have had very few referrals, having been included on bids by the large prime contractors. There are real concerns that we are seeing a model that looks very like the Work programme in terms of top-down, Department-led contracting. There are also concerns about whether we can be confident that those problems and pitfalls will not occur in these contracts in the way that they did in the Work programme.

[Mr Burrowes]

Are not the hon. Lady’s fears somewhat allayed when she looks beyond some of the headlines and at some of the private companies? The ones that are delivering results and are effective in reducing offending, which would be paid in the system, are only those that are properly engaged at a local level with small organisations and the voluntary and public sectors. It is only when all that comes together at a local level that they will deliver results and be paid, so their every incentive is to do what the hon. Lady fears will not happen.

[Kate Green]

The same claims were made for the Work programme, but the experience has been entirely different. At the very least we must expect the Minister to give us some reassurances as to why this will be different when the model looks so very similar.

Hon. Members have talked about some of the innovative programmes in their own probation trusts. As has been said, Greater Manchester has had a number of particularly innovative programmes. One in particular speaks directly to the Government’s proposals for post-release supervision for those serving short custodial sentences. I am sure the Minister will be familiar with the Choose Change programme that was developed in Greater Manchester. It has been running for a number of years and we await its final evaluation. I hope that the Government are drawing some interesting and important lessons from that experience, on which I would like to hear the Minister’s comments tonight.

It is clear when we look at Choose Change—a through-the-gate programme, working with offenders in prison, as they left prison and on release—that it depended heavily on being a multi-agency programme in which private, public and voluntary providers were all comprehensively engaged. That included the prison and probation services, corporate partners, the voluntary and community sector, and, crucially, local authorities. I am very unclear how local authorities will fit into the model of provision in this Bill.

It was instructive from Choose Change that the range of interventions needed was extensive. They included interventions in relation to employment, education and training. Many offenders, as the Minister will be well aware, have exceptionally poor levels of literacy and numeracy, so investing in routing them to the right educational opportunities and continuing their education commenced inside prison consistently on release is an important element that will need to be designed into any provision. Income and access to financial services have been a key element of what the Choose Change programme has identified as being important for offenders on release. Housing needs are an exceptionally urgent priority for many on release, as are health needs, particularly mental health needs. It often transpires that offenders have no registered GP to whom they can turn for health care, and their engagement with the health service has been sporadic.

The need for a package of interventions, bringing together a number of agencies and players, and beginning that work inside the prison and continuing it as part of a continuing process—not a broken process whereby the prison services does this inside prison and someone else does it post-release—will be an incredibly important feature of what the Government seek to achieve. I am pleased to see the Minister nodding as I say that. I hope that he will be able to reassure us this evening that there will be a continuum of support, not a form of support that begins only as someone leaves the prison gate. There has been a lot of encouraging discussion this evening about through-the-gate models, but we need to understand how those will work within the prison as well as after release.

We also need to understand that the interventions will be made in the right sequence. Some things can only happen easily post-release. It is quite difficult to do much, for example, about housing until someone is near the point of release. But other things, such as education and preparing for employment, can be started much earlier. The sequencing of interventions inside prison and post-release will be very important, and I would be grateful if the Minister said something about how he sees that working in these new contracts.

It will also be important to know how the programme that will be put in place through the contracted provision will work with other programmes already running in the community in relation to criminal justice. That includes how it will work with prolific offender programmes, integrated offender management programmes and programmes such as Spotlight in Greater Manchester, which enables the police and other criminal justice agencies and social services to keep close tabs on those in the community, perhaps not serving sentences but known to the system. How does the Minister envisage those different community-based initiatives will be linked into what is being proposed?

The Minister will also want to look carefully at the learning from Choose Change, which shows that intervening with offenders who have long histories of offending behaviour is particularly challenging. Some offenders who are serving their eighth, 10th, 15th or even their 20th short custodial sentence will be particularly difficult to work with on release. Therefore, it would be useful to understand how the Minister envisages these contracts being able to cope with, on the one hand, those who may have had one experience of custody, where it is to be hoped that with good post-release supervision they could be quickly taken off the track of offending behaviour and we could see some effective rehabilitation, and on the other hand, those who may have 10, 15 or 20 years of offending history. The lessons from Choose Change are that that is a very challenging group of offenders to work with, and simply wrapping some fairly basic post-release supervision around them is unlikely to be sufficient to change the course of their offending behaviour.

How does the Minister envisage the contracts being structured to incentivise inter-agency working and in particular how working with women offenders will be made financially attractive to providers, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members?

I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee—I will return his compliment by saying that I rarely disagree with him—that there are many good examples of women’s organisations and centres producing extremely strong support programmes for women offenders. In Greater Manchester we have the extremely successful Women MATTA—Manchester and Trafford Taking Action—initiative, which has worked with the Pankhurst Centre, the local authority, the probation service and so on. However, many of those women’s projects are now under severe funding pressure. They are not cheap to run. I hope that the Chair of the Select Committee agrees that women’s special needs and circumstances mean that cut pricing will not necessarily be very effective for women offenders. I am therefore keen to hear whether the Minister is confident that the structure of the contracts will reward providers for working with the especially challenging circumstances faced by women offenders and how they will be incentivised to make use of the very good practice and experience of the women’s centres across the country that have been delivering such programmes in recent years.

In conclusion, I must say on behalf of the Greater Manchester probation trust and a number of Opposition colleagues that our opposition to giving the Bill a Second Reading is not the result of wholesale opposition to introducing a mix of private and voluntary providers, which has been a feature of the effective working we have seen in Greater Manchester and across the country in recent years. We are concerned that there is little evidence that that particular approach to wholesale contracting out with an arbitrary cut-off point at the level of medium to high-risk offenders is the right way to structure the participation of private and non-statutory providers. There seems to be little opportunity for the very good programmes that have been run by the public probation service to compete effectively in a rapid time scale and continue to be major players in the provision of the services that the Government are now seeking to introduce. There are real concerns that strong local relationships and structures will be disrupted by the bidding process. Finally, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary said, there are real concerns about the risk consequences for the public. I hope that the Minister can offer more reassurances in that regard than we have had so far this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

We are moving to the disposal of assets gradually, but it does take time.

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

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

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

I would like briefly to update the House on proposals for tougher sentencing. I am sure the House will agree that it is simply not acceptable that offenders who commit some truly horrific crimes in this country are automatically released from prison without serving the full sentence regardless of their behaviour, attitude and engagement in their own rehabilitation. The last Government enshrined this automatic early release in legislation. I intend to change that. Given the financial mess left behind by the Labour party it is not possible to end automatic early release for all offenders straight away, but it is my intention to take the first step in that direction. I will shortly be introducing legislation to ensure that criminals convicted of rape or attempted rape of a child or of terrorism offences will no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their prison sentence. Instead they will have to earn their release by the Parole Board. This means that many serious criminals will end up spending significantly longer in prison.

[Kate Green]

According the Prison Advice and Care Trust, 66% of women in prison have dependent children, but although a minority are looked after by their fathers while their mothers are prison, it is very uncertain who is caring for many of those children during their mother’s sentence. What are the Government doing to ensure sentencers properly take account of the best interests of dependent children in making sentencing decisions?

[Chris Grayling]

We are looking very carefully at the whole issue of the women’s estate, and I very much recognise the issue to which the hon. Lady refers. It is obviously difficult not to imprison somebody guilty of a serious crime, but at the same time I believe we need to do everything we can to move women in detention closer to home and closer to family. When we announce our plans for the women’s estate in due course, I hope she will see we have taken that factor heavily into account.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important issue. The Government are doing a lot to enable people to understand what a disability hate crime is and to make it easier to report. We are doing a lot in this area.

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

In July, Ministers said that the London Paralympic games had improved attitudes to disabled people. However, a recent report from Scope says that their legacy hangs in the balance. Some 22% of disabled people say that public attitudes have got worse, and 17% say that they have experienced hostile behaviour, or even been attacked. That is not surprising when Ministers abuse statistics about disabled people and benefits. The Hardest Hit campaign shows that disabled people have been hit nine times as hard as non-disabled people by austerity cuts. Is it not time that the Minister got her Government colleagues into line? Disabled people are equal and valued participants in society. When will the Government start to deliver positive messages about the contribution they make and give them the support they need to participate in society?

[Esther McVey]

What I would like to do is paint the correct picture, which the hon. Lady is not doing. I can give her either the latest international statistics, which show that out of 55 countries the UK is leading in all 23 indicators, or the latest national statistics, from 2 July, which show that the gap closed in nine out of 14 headline indicators. In 2005-06 and 2009-10, that was true of only seven categories. I can therefore tell the hon. Lady that, on the very latest statistics from 2 July this year, inequalities have reduced and equalities have increased in education, employment and social inclusion, and we also have lower rates of relative poverty. Please get the facts right.

Criminal Legal Aid Reforms

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me. He is right: Members of Parliament are not competent to give legal advice. One option that had been open to us was to signpost people to citizens advice bureaux and other pro bono clinics, but due to budget cuts—local authorities and charities being slashed—they have closed or are buckling under the pressure of reduced resources and vastly increased referrals. Local authorities are desperately struggling to provide advice services as they try to absorb cuts of more than 30%, while charities and authorities up and down the country are being forced by the Government to withdraw vital funding for local projects simply to ensure that they can sustain basic, statutory obligations.

During the first attack on civil legal aid, my party’s Front Benchers and I were accused of scaremongering. Since implementation, however, 600,000 people have been denied access to advice on many aspects of civil law. There has been a 30% fall in the number of providers of civil legal aid and a 12% fall in providers of criminal legal aid, yet the most recent consultation paper, “Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system”, which was published on 9 April, goes beyond anything that anyone could have imagined. The proposals can only damage the legal aid system yet further.

The proposals aim to save £220 million from legal aid spending by 2018-19, but the Government have not said from which year’s spend that money is meant to be found. Many of my colleagues in the profession believe that the proposals will cost the taxpayer more money in the long run—a valid point to make. A common misconception promoted by the Government is that legal aid is the principal cost, but as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) rightly pointed out in his contribution to the Backbench Business Committee debate, the cost of our legal aid system is just three quarters that of similar systems in many other European countries. The President of the Supreme Court—no less—supports that notion. He said that the bill for legal aid increased substantially between 1965 and 2000, which I accept, but it has since been cut and projections show that it will continue to decrease over the coming years.

I am persuaded that in some areas there may be further savings to be made, but I do not believe that the proposals are the way to achieve such savings. At the Justice Committee session at which the chairman of the Bar Council, Maura McGowan, QC, Michael Turner, QC, and others gave evidence, Michael Turner suggested savings of a surprising £2 billion. The Government should be prepared to sit down with the professionals, the practitioners and the people who are expert in the area to discuss where those savings might be made.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Is it not the case that some of the motivation for the proposals has nothing to do with savings? The Lord Chancellor himself has acknowledged that, for example, restricting access to legal aid for prisoners is a simple matter of ideology.

[Karl Turner]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I will develop it in a moment. She is right to raise the issue, and many people argue that the changes are a false economy because costs will increase. Matrix Chambers and Bindmans LLP have pointed out that the Government’s proposed savings are nonsense. They believe that costs—I suspect that they have done proper research—will increase by £24 million if the proposals go through. I agree with Bill Waddington, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association—

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

Of course. My hon. Friend highlights the point that victims of crime suffer again because funding for charities that represent the interests of victims of crime has been severely slashed under the coalition Government.

[Kate Green]

On victims of crime, does my hon. Friend not also agree that with access to a good, trusted legal adviser, many defendants will plead guilty early, saving pain to the victim as well as cost to the system?

[Karl Turner]

In my experience, for what it is worth, my advice to a client was based on the evidence. If that was overwhelming or strong, and if, in my opinion, the defendant needed to plead guilty, they were advised accordingly. I think solicitors and barristers will always act in the best interests of the client.

May I address the caricature that the Government have peddled, which is that all lawyers earn salaries like that of the Prime Minister’s very wealthy brother? It is not true. The vast majority of legal aid lawyers, up and down the country, earn a modest wage; often, they will take home less than a nurse or a teacher. I wonder what information the Government have on that issue, because I think that the Bar Council could provide them with information about average salaries at the Bar, and that the Law Society could assist as well.

A very important point, and perhaps an unintended consequence, is that the proposals will prevent many young people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, less advantaged backgrounds, and poorer backgrounds from coming into the professions. This is not a plea for the so-called fat cat lawyers, but, as John Cooper, QC, put it:

“This is recognition, before it’s too late, that if the proposals go through we will be complicit in excluding many young people from less advantaged backgrounds from becoming part of what can only be described as the National Health Service of the Law”.

I also want to deal with the misconception that all people seeking legal aid are old lags. I have dealt with that briefly, but the Government seem to suggest that such people do not deserve representation. Of course, there are repeat offenders who are found guilty, or who plead guilty to a further offence, but just because someone has previously been convicted of burglary does not mean—cannot mean, surely—that they are automatically guilty of the further alleged offence. They might not be.

Fundamental to our legal system must be the presumption of innocence. Denying people’s liberty is one of the strongest powers of the state. It is vital, therefore, that that can be done only when a court of law is presented with evidence, for and against, by highly skilled and trained lawyers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point, which I, again, want to address briefly in my remarks. I disagree with many aspects of the proposals—the right hon. Gentleman is correct—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, denying prisoners access to legal representation simply goes against everything that a civil society should represent.

Defending prisoners is not a vote winner, but we live in a civilised society, and I believe that prisoners must have the right to legal representation. The reforms will essentially mean that justice stops at the prison gates and that prisoners are denied legal representation, if the Government plans go ahead. As colleagues have said, denying prisoners access to justice in the way that the consultation proposes seeks to save £4 million. In times of austerity, it would be flippant to say that that is peanuts, but actually, when I think about it, those efficiency savings come at what cost? For goodness’ sake—it seems incredible to me.

[Kate Green]

It is likely that the proposals will save nothing in the round, because they will lead to more inefficiencies inside prisons, as people will be kept in higher-security conditions, when they need not be, for longer, and as there will be greater difficulty in managing discipline and behaviour in prison as a result.

[Karl Turner]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

I think that this next point was the one made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr David Davis). I am also concerned that the proposals to introduce a residency test will see victims of human trafficking denied access to legal representation and will prevent many cases from being brought against the Government when they are accused of wrongdoing abroad. The new proposals will mean that families such as that of Jean Charles de Menezes would not have been able to fight the case for their dead son, who was wrongly shot by armed police.

I also disagree with the proposals to reform judicial review. They will mean that an individual will no longer be able to hold public bodies to account. Shelter, for example, provides specialist social welfare law advice—on housing issues, in particular—to about 15,000 people each year, under various legal aid contracts. However, it is clear that the proposals will prevent it from doing that.

The Government proposals limit funding for judicial review to only those cases where permission to proceed is granted by a judge. That must severely limit Shelter’s ability to help people. None of us in this place can imagine the prospect of losing our homes. It seems incredible that the Government, in their plans, seek to attack the most vulnerable people at the time when they need assistance the most.

Clearly, the Lord Chancellor has thought about the proposals since the Backbench business debate. Following absolutely overwhelming criticism from many Opposition Members and Government Members, I was very pleased to see the Secretary of State U-turn on the accused having the right to choose their lawyer. However, we do not know what the impact of that will be, because as far as I understand it, the Lord Chancellor is still keen to press ahead with what he thinks is a workable system of PCT. I suspect that it is not workable; I do not think it ever has been.

The client choice issue was designed to assist with PCT, in the sense that it would be attractive for large corporations to bid for contracts on the basis that they are getting a vast client base, but I am not sure what the impact of that will be and how the proposals will change things as a result. I hope, however, that the Lord Chancellor continues to listen, and that he will concede that PCT, in any form, is not suitable for allocating legal aid contracts. Legal aid contracts should not simply go to bidders who are willing to do the work for the lowest price.

As I have said, I am concerned about many aspects of the proposals, but I want to focus, in the time remaining to me, on chapter 4 of the consultation document, which is about PCT in relation to criminal legal aid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I rather thought that was the point I was making. If we cut one Department or one aspect of expenditure, it has a knock-on effect on another, which is why I referred to the closure of magistrates courts. It saved one Department, through the Courts Service, a certain amount of money, but impacted on the police forces that had to transport defendants from, for example, Market Harborough to Leicester, some 15 or more miles away. Such discussions are perennial. That is not to say that we should not have them, but nobody should be surprised when the Government and the Opposition stand against each other in this way.

The consultation is to be responded to at some stage in the future, whether it is tomorrow, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East suspects, or some other date, we do not know—the Minister may be able to give us a sneak preview of what is going through the mind of his Secretary of State—but I hope that it has not yet been printed, because there are plenty of things about which the Lord Chancellor needs to think before he responds. I, unlike the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, have had the joy of meeting the Lord Chancellor: once in his office in Parliament and once in his office in the Ministry of Justice. I have always found him an entirely reasonable person to talk to. It will be interesting to see quite how much of what I invited him to consider ends up in the response to the consultation document; no doubt, in due course, we shall see.

A number of points need to be borne in mind. The first is the important constitutional point the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East addressed and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) mentioned, by implication this morning and on an earlier occasion in the Backbench business debate. Access to justice and representation, particularly in cases against the Government or the authorities, are hugely important. If we deny them, we undermine an aspect of the civilised nature of this country. I am not sure that that is what the Lord Chancellor has in mind, but we are necessarily fearful that it could happen.

Reducing expenditure on prisoners’ cases as a blanket policy is of course worrying, but if we are preventing public money from being spent on people complaining about whether they have one blanket or two or whether they get this or that pornographic magazine, I do not think I will lose much sleep. There will clearly be cases involving prisoners, the downtrodden, asylum seekers and so forth for which legal aid will be essential to see that justice is done and the Government are not oppressive.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. and learned Gentlemen agree that the cases prisoners bring are not necessarily trivial? They may be to do with a prisoner’s mental health, mothers wanting to be with their babies in mother and baby units or children and young people in custody who desperately need legal representation if, for example, they do not have access to proper programmes in their sentencing plan.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Her point is not controversial. The argument against it, and perhaps against my points, is often made the basis that there are far too many people taking judicial review proceedings about trivial and silly cases on pornography or whatever it might be. Those cases need to be got rid of, but the cases she mentions need to be dealt with properly.

Constituents drew to my attention a problem that the changes, if they go through as advertised, will cause for not only the future representation of defendants, but the administration of our justice system. At the moment, thousands of criminal barristers, and this may be true of criminal solicitors as well, are doing the most complicated cases, particularly child abuse and sex crime cases, which can in my view be prosecuted and defended only by professionals who have experience of such cases. They are not paid huge sums of money. They are the senior juniors: 35 to 40-year-old juniors at the Bar, who are the potential QCs—silks—and Crown Court judges. If we push those people away from the profession, we will not be able to develop the judges and senior members of the profession of the future. Perhaps that consequence has not occurred to the Lord Chancellor, but I know that it will have occurred to my hon. Friend the Minister, because he is a former criminal barrister of huge thoughtfulness and experience.

If we push those people away, we are in danger of utterly changing how we deliver the criminal justice system. I have had any number of constituency members of the legal profession coming to me, and they do not live in vast houses or drive Bentleys. They live in small houses on little executive estates, drive second, third and fourth-hand cars, and send their children to state schools. They are not rich; they do a difficult job for little money. They do it because they have a vocation and because they think it is right that innocent and guilty criminal defendants alike are represented.

I will stop there because I have overrun my time by far too long. I urge the Minister to take the points that I have gently put to him with the seriousness that the constitution requires.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing the debate. Many Members will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) led a well-attended debate on legal aid reform in June, which focused on civil legal aid and was helpful in moving the debate forward. Those of us with an even better memory might remember that two years ago I held a debate in this place on legal aid reform, before the previous legislation was passed.

We will not have time to touch on some things, such as the residency test, which I still consider pernicious, but I wish to talk through a whole range of issues. We accept, as I think everyone must, the principle of making savings. It has been accepted, I think, across the board. The Labour party’s manifesto at the last election stated:

“To help protect frontline services, we will find greater savings in legal aid”.

The question is how to do that.

As co-chair of the Liberal Democrat committee on home affairs, justice and equalities I wrote formally, with my colleagues, to the Lord Chancellor, and we received a detailed response to our suggestions. Sadly, I will not have time to go through all the suggestions or every aspect of the response, but I was pleased that he said:

“It is important to note that I have yet to make any final policy decisions.”

He is absolutely right not to have done so, and I am sure that he will listen carefully to the concerns we are all expressing. He also referred to a short period of further consultation, which I think we would all welcome.

The Lord Chancellor also talked about working closely with the Law Society. I was at the Law Society yesterday and had the opportunity to talk to it about some of the new proposals. I hope we will be able to come up with something that it will find not necessarily ideal but an acceptable way forward. As has already been said, the society’s suggestions for savings are definitely worth looking at; it has an improved model.

Our biggest concern as a committee was the lack of choice. When a scheme including that was tried in Scotland in 1998, under a different Government, there was substantial dissatisfaction with the representatives. It was clear that getting rid of choice did not work then, and I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has taken the right decision to abandon that approach.

We must also look at quality. We saw the problems with the bulk contract awarded to Applied Language Solutions—now Capita—for interpreting services. It did not provide the quality that was needed, and we must avoid anything like the same problems again. The Lord Chancellor said that quality was

“critical to any future model of procurement”,

and that must be absolutely explicit. We do not want cut-price justice; we must ensure good quality, and that includes the smaller firms that many colleagues have spoken about. An idea that I have suggested is to encourage firms to work together in consortia rather than to have large bidders. There will be a firm operating in one town that can work happily as part of the same contract with one in a town somewhere else, in Cornwall, Cambridgeshire or wherever it might be. It does not make any sense that such firms should have to bid against each other. I hope that the Lord Chancellor has considered that and will respond in detail, with some helpful ways forward.

Judicial review is an important remedy. It is essential to have ways in which the state can be held to account at local government and national level. The proposals will not save a huge amount of money. I look forward to detailed suggestions about how to deal with cases of suggested misuse of the system without affecting the vast majority of cases that are important and which form a clear safeguard.

A particular concern has been put to me by several lawyers doing judicial review cases: because of the requirements for payment only when permission has been given, in a really strong case—for example, when a local authority that is failing to provide the care it should, gives up and settles at the point that there is a claim for judicial review, because it knows that it will lose—there may be no opportunity for the lawyer ever to be paid. I did not know until recently that a local authority will quite often settle, subject to not having to pay the fees. If the Government and the local authority will not pay the fees, the people with the strongest cases will never get paid. That is clearly not right and must be addressed in some way, because I am sure that it is not what the Government want to happen.

It is important to have a system of legal aid for prisoners. There may well be some trivial cases, but there are some incredibly serious ones. By all means, let them go through a complaints system that has to be used first, but if that is unsatisfactory, there must be a proper legal route and support for prisoners. The change will not save much money, so it should not be done purely for ideological reasons.

We can do much in relation to savings, as has been touched on. The use of restrained funds, with appropriate judicial control and capping, would be a fantastic way forward. It seems odd to pay for legal aid for people who have money, but not allow them to spend it. That would be one way to save a substantial amount of money. That can be used in some cases—the Home Office has access—so let us make sure that it is available here.

I support the idea of dealing with high cost fraud cases by having a form of compulsory directors insurance or some other scheme—I do not mind about the exact details—so that we are not paying in cases where there is another substantial source of money. That would enable great savings.

Lastly, there could be more efficiency savings in how courts operate. The system too often does not work: the late arrival of prisoners due to transport failures has caused delays for a third of defence solicitors; half of solicitors have been delayed because the prosecution did not follow disclosure rules; and there are unnecessary adjournments and listing failures. The court system does not operate as efficiently as possible, which costs us money in legal aid. We could provide better justice for less money.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and the Lord Chancellor’s final decisions. Yes, we can save money, but it must not be at the cost of justice.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

I want to speak briefly about the impact of the proposals on prisoners. I raised that in the debate we were able to have before the summer, when the Minister did not have time to respond to all the questions asked. I will quickly highlight two or three points.

The representation of prisoners inside prisons on such matters as resettlement, categorisation and access to health care treatments and programmes is classed as a form of criminal legal aid, but in practice the skill set required and the nature of the lawyers carrying out that work makes it much more akin to civil public law. That deeply concerns me, because where there will still be an entitlement to access legal aid in prisons—that will be severely curtailed, in any event—it is likely that the national or international firms receiving many of the contracts will simply lack those skills. I ask the Minister to comment on how that expertise will be protected under the contracts.

I am particularly concerned about children and young offenders. Thankfully, the number of young people in custody is falling. I pay great tribute to the Youth Justice Board and the criminal justice system for that achievement. Young people, in particular, need good quality representation with a specialist advocate who is used to working with children and can recognise that they often arrive in prison in particularly difficult and chaotic personal circumstances. The advocate needs to have the time to build a relationship with the child or young person, and I am very concerned that we could lose that for young offenders. I wanted to ask the Minister about that in the debate earlier in the summer. I am keen to hear from him that special arrangements will be put in place to protect the interests of children and young offenders, and I really hope that he can say something reassuring.

As time is so limited, I will make my final point, which is a similar one about older prisoners and those who are disabled or very unwell. They form an increasing part of the prison population, as the Minister will know. I have a constituency case of a prisoner who is very unwell, has disabilities and, as a result, is unable to participate in the programmes that are part of his sentence plan. That means that he cannot be moved, on successful completion of his programme, to a lower-security prison. That is mad for the Prison Service, and it is bad and unfair for him. I again invite the Minister to say what special arrangements could be put in place for such particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged disabled and older prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

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

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

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

Legal Aid Reform

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I want to speak about these proposals specifically in relation to prisoners, not when they are on trial but after sentencing or when they are in prison on remand. The proposed savings of £4 million mean that they will no longer be able to access legal advice and will instead be expected to use the internal complaints system when they have problems.

It is unpopular to speak up for prisoners’ rights in this House, but it is so important that we do so, because it is a mark of our being a civilised society that we set parameters on what we do to people when we remove their liberty. Removing their liberty does not equate with removing all their human and legal rights.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about prisoners. I am sure that she will apply it equally to those in immigration detention. The removal of legal aid from those people breaches the specific pledge given by the Lord Chancellor to this House on 18 December last year, when he said that legal aid will continue to be available to anybody whose life or liberty is at stake. Is it not essential that that promise be kept?

[Kate Green]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not have time to cover immigration in detail, save to say that we are talking about people who may be returned to face homophobia, torture and appalling treatment when they have lost asylum cases or are failed immigration seekers, yet they are being denied access to legal advice contrary to the assurances that we were given in this House.

We know that people in prison are more likely to have learning difficulties or mental health problems, or to be poorly educated. They are often the product of disruptive and difficult childhoods. Many of them have arrived in prison having spent most of their childhood, to our great shame, in public care. Those people are particularly poorly equipped to advocate for themselves and to use the internal prison complaints system. It is therefore particularly important, not only in their own interests but in the interests of the smooth running of the prison, that we take the steps that we should to ensure that they are given effective opportunities to make their case.

[Steve McCabe]

I agree that people are often not very well equipped to use the complaints system. Is it not also the case that if they are driven to the prisons and probation ombudsman, the average cost of a complaint is about £1,000 more than it would be if we referred them to a legal aid lawyer?

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The £4 million cost savings are very likely to be eaten up not only by the cost of using the complaints and ombudsman systems but because of the impact inside prisons if prisoners are unable effectively to have their case made.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on the needs of prisoners. Does she agree that another cause for great concern is that prisoners will often go through this process when they have exhausted other routes and had unsatisfactory outcomes? Without adequate investment in the prison complaints system, there will be even greater miscarriages of justice.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

What kinds of situations are we talking about when we say that prisoners need representation? It is about issues such as segregation and categorisation. It is about mothers separated from their babies who need to make the case to be with them in mother and baby units. It is about prisoners who need to access programmes that will be a prerequisite of their being considered for parole. It is about cases of bullying or discrimination, or cases where people are denied access to health treatments that they ought to get. These are really important entitlements that we must ensure that we protect for all people. We should not deny them to people simply because they are in prison serving a sentence for a criminal offence.

If we fail to deal with these cases adequately, we will, as my hon. Friends have said, drive up costs both outside and within the prison system. We will have more people in higher category prisons for longer. We will have more problems caused by failing to address their underlying health and well-being needs, and that will play out in continuing disruptive and difficult behaviour inside prison and on release. I invite the Minister, who is a very thoughtful Minister, to take account of the much broader context in which these apparently cost-effective measures will impact inside our prisons.

I particularly ask the Minister to comment on youth offenders, who are the most vulnerable group in our prisons and in our penal system. Are they too to be hit by this lack of access to legal representation? They, of all prisoners, will be especially poorly equipped to represent themselves. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to give us some assurances on young offenders.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New schedule 1—‘Consequential amendments—Marriage according to usages of approved organisations—

The following amendments are made to the Marriage Act 1949—

(1) In section 26 (marriages which may be solemnized on authority of superintendent registrar’s certificate) in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) there is inserted—

(ca) a marriage conducted under the auspices of an approved organisation;”.

(2) In section 35 (marriages in registration district in which neither party resides) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.

(3) In section 43 (appointment of authorised persons) in subsection (3) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation authorised by the Registrar General under section 47A”.

(4) In section 50 (person to whom certificate to be delivered), in subsection (1) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—

(da) if the marriage is to be solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registering officer of that organisation”.

(5) After section 52, the following section is inserted—

“52A Interpretation

In this Part of this Act “approved organisation” has the meaning given to it in section 67.”.

(6) In section 53 (persons by whom marriages are to be registered), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

(ba) in the case of a marriage solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registered officer of that organisation;”.

(7) In section 54 (provision of marriage register books by Registrar General), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends,” there is inserted “registering officer of an approved organisation”.

(8) In section 55 (manner of registration of marriages)—

(a) in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and

(b) in subsection (1)(b) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation” and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.

(9) In section 57 (quarterly returns to be made to superintendent registrar), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.

(10) In section 59 (custody of register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.

(11) In section 60 (filled register books) in subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the words “registering officer of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; after the words “members of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of the said organisation”, and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.

(12) In section 63 (searches in register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.

(13) In section 67 (interpretation of Part IV), there are inserted in the list of definitions the following—

““approved organisation” means an organisation approved by the Registrar General under section 47A of this Act;” and

““registering officer of an approved organisation” means a person whom the principal officer of the said organisation certifies in writing under his or her hand to the Registrar General to be a registering officer in England or Wales of that organisation;”;

and in the definition of “superintendent registrar” after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

(ba) in the case of a marriage registered by a registering officer of an approved organisation, the superintendent registrar of the registration district which is assigned by the Registrar General to that registering officer;”.

(14) In section 75 (offences relating to solemnization of marriages) in subsection (1), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and in subsection (2), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation.”.’.

Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

(iA) section 47A (marriage according to the usages of approved organisations).’.

Amendment 20, in clause 5, page 6, line 29, after ‘solemnized’, insert

‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.

Amendment 21, schedule 7, page 49, line 16, after ‘celebrated’, insert

‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.

New clause 14—Civil union—

‘(1) Two people, whether they are of different or the same sex, may enter into a civil union if—

(a) they are both aged 18 or over;

(b) they are not within prohibited degrees of relationship;

(c) they are not currently in a civil union with someone else.

(2) A civil union must be solemnized by a Registrar.

(3) No religious service is to be used while the civil union registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil union document.

(4) A civil union ends only on death, dissolution or annulment.

(5) The Marriage Act 1949 is repealed.’.

New clause 18—Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage—

‘(1) Any marriage solemnized (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949 (Marriage under Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate), the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970 or an Order in Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6 (other than a marriage according to religious rites and usages) shall be termed a Civil Marriage.

(2) The Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor may, by order, make such provision (including provision amending UK legislation) as the Secretary of Sate or Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of this section.’.

Amendment 58, in clause 9, page 9, line 5, at end insert

‘and such a marriage shall be a civil marriage’.

Amendment 59, in clause 15, page 12, line 15, at end insert—

‘(ba) an order under section (Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage).

[Kate Green]

I am moving new clause 15 to introduce humanist marriage, along with new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21 that are consequential to new clause 15. May I start by paying tribute—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will not say that I was heckled by the Clerk of the House from a sedentary position, as he was rather helpfully advising me from his usual position on a point on which we need to be clear. I am sorry if the hon. Lady thinks this is a pedantic point, but it is quite important procedurally. The hon. Lady can speak to the other amendments in the group, but the only item she is moving at this stage is new clause 15. We anoraks like to get these things right.

[Kate Green]

Thank you for that exceptionally helpful advice, Mr Speaker. I am, of course, moving new clause 15 and speaking to new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21.

I should like to pay tribute to the British Humanist Association for its support with drafting and its general and wider advice. This proposal seeks to put right a long-standing injustice in a simple and uncontroversial way.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

I would like to make a little more progress and then take some interventions. Let us start by establishing the ground on which I shall make my case and I will accept interventions later.

Whereas Christians and most other believers have a choice when they marry of a civil ceremony in front of a registrar, or a religious ceremony that reflects their beliefs, non-religious people have no choice: it is the local registrar at a register office or in a so-called approved place or nothing.

The Government have objections to my proposals. It is important to say this afternoon that we are absolutely crystal clear about what those objections are. If there are problems with the way in which the new clause seeks to achieve its objective, we stand ready to work with the Government to address those concerns. There is a very strong wish for humanist weddings to be recognised and for any perceived problems to be overcome.

It has been suggested that the proposals before us are in some way a wholesale departure from what has been described as fundamental English marriage law. I question whether any such fundamental law in fact exists. Our marriage laws are an accretion of changes and legislative and social developments over many centuries, but I accept that the broad framework in which our English marriage system operates goes back in many regards to the 18th century when Lord Hardwicke introduced his Marriage Act 1753, which required all marriages to be conducted in parish churches and after due notice had been given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

Of course I will.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

What about me?

[Dr Coffey]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the principle in England and Wales is that the premises are registered, and that if she pursues her agenda, she will be in danger of unpicking the quadruple lock that has been successfully negotiated?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the general importance of the premises in English law in relation to most faiths, but I think she should bear in mind that in the Church of England the clergy are registered, that registrars are registered in our civil system and that, as I have said, Jews and Quakers already operate in a different legislative framework from that governing religions as a whole.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I promised that I would.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I know my place.

When I first received communications from humanists supporting this approach, I looked up “humanist weddings”, and discovered from the humanism.org.uk website that there are wedding celebrants who can take services now. It is recommended that people obtain a civil marriage certificate at the register office and then hold the ceremony wherever they want, perhaps in the open air: they are not limited by buildings in any way. I understand that that applies to a number of religions, as well as to humanists. I am therefore wondering whether we need to have this debate.

[Kate Green]

What the hon. Gentleman says about other religions may be correct, but it is not the case that all religions are required to go through a dual process. Jews and Quakers are not. My contention is that we should recognise the strong popular support for humanism, just as we recognise popular support for other forms of marriage. Many organisations can perform legal marriages in their own right, and do so for smaller numbers than the humanists would and, indeed, than the humanists do now. While I would not for one minute suggest that our marriage laws should be based on some sort of numbers game—although I believe that some Members sought to suggest as much in Committee, an approach that I found somewhat offensive and regrettable—my contention is supported, in this context, by the fact that not only is practice in relation to humanist marriages already fairly widespread, but the numbers are increasing. The popularity is growing.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I will of course give way to the Attorney-General.

[The Attorney-General]

I hope the hon. Lady will accept that I make my comments in a completely neutral way and that I appreciate what she is trying to achieve, but I have absolutely no doubt that the new clause, if passed, would render the Bill incompatible with the provisions of the European convention on human rights, because it identifies a group that is not a religious group and gives it a special status. The first thing that would happen is that all sorts of other secular groups would claim non-discrimination rights under article 14. I realise that that may be capable of being cured, but I can only say to the hon. Lady that the new clause would make it impossible for the Minister to sign a certificate under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, enabling the Bill to proceed to the other place.

[Kate Green]

First, although of course I respect the Attorney-General’s expert advice, I must point out that the narrow drafting of the new clause follows advice from the Government’s own officials. We had been given to understand that it would be possible to prescribe, very tightly, a mode of marriage for humanists, legally recognised, and we are surprised that human rights objections are being raised now.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I will give way in a moment, but I have not quite finished dealing with the points raised by the Attorney-General.

Secondly, although I am encouraged to learn that the Attorney-General believes that there is potential for some of the objections to be “cured”—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I must say, with respect to Government Members, that I need to respond to the first point before I can respond to points two, three and four.

I understand that the possibility of challenge on the grounds suggested by the Attorney-General exists, broadly, in England and in Scotland, where humanist marriages are already being conducted. While I accept that there is one significant difference between humanist marriage and the religious forms of marriage that are recognised in English law—namely, that they are not religious forms of marriage—they are none the less a belief form of marriage.

I venture to suggest that if we could have the benefit of a fully worked and argued opinion from the Attorney-General, I might be able to take on board his complaint, but, having engaged in a series of discussions with Government officials to reach this point, I am very disappointed to find that we are now being presented with what appears to be one potentially significant legal objection that has not been properly raised with us until now.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, first proposed this measure as an amendment in Committee.

[Stephen Williams]

Mine will be a triangular intervention, inviting the Attorney-General to intervene on the hon. Lady again. Given that humanist weddings have taken place in Scotland since 2005, and given that the United Kingdom, rather than England and Wales, is the signatory to the European convention on human rights, why has the Registrar General for Scotland not been subject to a legal challenge under the convention? Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain. [Interruption.]

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend—if I may call him that in this context—has raised an excellent point. I hear mutterings from Government Members, who are suggesting that the answer to his question is that in Scotland it is the person who is registered. Let me say, with the greatest respect, that I do not see how that can possibly deal with the human rights point.

[The Attorney-General]

I do my best to provide advice on the law of England and Wales—Scottish law is unquestionably different historically—but, according to my limited understanding of the position, in Scotland it is not just humanists who may be registered for this purpose; pagans and all sorts of other groups may also qualify. I simply make the point that in the context of the Bill as drafted and as proposed today—I realise that the hon. Lady may be upset about this, but I have no role in it—the new clause undoubtedly introduces a serious human rights problem, which I think is obvious because of its discriminatory nature. That is really all that I can say on the matter.

[Kate Green]

I make no great claims for my understanding of Scots law, despite having a rather elderly and unused degree in it, but—

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I really cannot take an intervention before I have dealt with the preceding one. I will give way to the Minister in just a moment.

Although I understand the premise of the Attorney-General’s concern, I think that there are arguments to be advanced on the other side. The Equality Act 2010 provides for the recognition of “religion or belief”, and we strongly contend that our approach falls within the same legal territory. We are also mindful of the fact that in Scotland, where such challenges have also been possible—I recognise that Scotland has a different legal system, but in this context I do not think that that is an issue—registrars have been able to prevent organisations with no apparent legitimacy or justification from being registered to undertake weddings. I should be grateful if it could be explained to me why, given the tight drafting of the new clause, that could not be the case here.

[Maria Miller]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I should love to hear from the Secretary of State.

[Maria Miller]

I would not normally intervene on the hon. Lady, but she said that Government officials had advised her in a certain way, and I wanted to make clear that they did not advise the narrowing of the new clause. They drew attention to the problems with the earlier amendment, which—I say this for the benefit of Members who may not have had an opportunity to read the report of the Committee’s proceedings—covered both religious and non-religious organisations, and created real and unnecessary uncertainty about who would actually be covered. I think that the hon. Lady is aware of the genuine problems raised by amendments tabled in Committee. They confused the distinction in marriage law between religious and civil ceremonies, and it was therefore unclear how the religious protections in the Bill would work within such a system.

[Kate Green]

I do not accept that. I do not wish for one second to impugn the messages received from officials. It is quite possible that there was some gulf in understanding between those who delivered the message and those who heard it. I was not present at the conversations myself, and the Secretary of State is, of course, right to put forward her description of what took place, but my understanding is that the way that they concluded led the British Humanist Association, which is advising me, to understand that a more tightly worded proposal, such as the one that I have put before the House this afternoon, would meet the concerns. Although that may not have been the intention intended to be conveyed, it was certainly the intention that it came away with.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely strong and compelling case, and I look forward to expressing my support for it in more detail later. I have here a letter from the Culture Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, saying:

“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover the humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”

Does the hon. Lady agree that that strongly suggests the Government supported this change?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I was at a wedding on Sunday. I only attended the evening part, but during the day there was a humanist ceremony, and everyone said it was a wonderful occasion. It was held in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. Does my hon. Friend agree that humanists in Scotland cannot understand why their fellow humanists in England might not enjoy the same rights as they do and feel very disappointed about that?

[Kate Green]

I, too, have attended humanist weddings in Scotland, including that of my niece last October, which was an incredibly special occasion. I can fully understand what my hon. Friend says about the concern and hurt humanists across the UK will feel that these ceremonies that have worked so successfully in Scotland since 2005 have not been replicated here in England.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. There are now 2,500 humanist weddings a year in Scotland. It is now the third most popular form of marriage that we have in Scotland, yet the Attorney-General has suggested that these weddings are somehow illegal under European law. However, the UK is the signatory to European human rights treaties, so what he says is a lot of nonsense. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the UK is the signatory to the European human rights treaties and that, if these weddings are illegal in England, they must also be illegal in Scotland?

[Kate Green]

Obviously, I do not answer for the Government, and I will not respond to any specific interventions on that point. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a speech later.

[The Attorney-General]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I will take one more intervention, and then I am going to develop the compelling case for why we want humanist weddings in this country, not why there are apparently so many legal objections to be overcome.

[The Attorney-General]

The last thing that I want to do is interrupt the hon. Lady’s flow, but I want to reply very briefly to what was just said. I am not suggesting in any way that what is happening in Scotland is unlawful. Instead, I am highlighting that there is a serious defect in the amendment. Given the discriminatory nature of the favour it gives to humanists as opposed to other secular organisations, it would have the consequence of making the measure incompatible with the convention rights. I think that that is obvious when we examine the amendment.

[Kate Green]

It may be challengeable under the convention, but I do not think we know at all whether such a challenge would be successful.

Let me develop some aspects of the case for humanist weddings. So far this has been a rather unpleasant and legalistic debate, and in the same spirit as our debates on same-sex marriage, I want to make the case that the House should feel joyful about humanist weddings and celebrate them.

For those who are concerned about protections, the new clause provides that the Registrar General could issue a certificate to any organisation that

“(a) is a registered charity principally concerned with advancing or practising the non-religious belief known as humanism;

(b) has been in continuous existence for five years; and

(c) appears to the Registrar General to be of good repute.”

That provision addresses some of the wilder claims that unlikely organisations would or could either qualify or mount a human rights challenge.

The details are closely modelled on the existing law, and they were drafted following conversations with the Government—although perhaps not conversations in which both sides fully understood each other—and address the specific points rightly raised by Ministers in Committee, when the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) first proposed the amendment. We have taken as much account as possible of the concerns that we believe the Government have about this proposition, and we are therefore disappointed and startled to see a whole new front of opposition opened up this afternoon.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

For my own information really, can the hon. Lady say how much consultation she has had with the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches on this amendment and its possible implications?

[Kate Green]

I think that it is fair to say that the Churches are not displaying tremendous enthusiasm for this proposal. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not easy for the official Opposition to carry out extensive consultations, but the issue was raised in Committee, when we took evidence from some of the Churches, and I detected no great appetite or enthusiasm from them for further discussion of this kind of proposal.

Of course, we would like the Government to adopt this proposal and take it forward wholeheartedly and in a way that delivers a robust and settled legal right to humanist weddings. In the absence of that, we simply need to take the evidence of the number of people who are coming forward asking for a humanist ceremony, the number of humanist ceremonies that are taking place and the very high popularity they enjoy both among those who participate in them and those who attend them.

Let me read the remarks of one couple:

“A humanist wedding offered us the chance to make the wedding ‘ours’, it enabled us to construct our own vows and create a ceremony that felt immediately very personal to both us and our guests, it also portrayed exactly what marriage meant to us and how we see our marriage growing in the future.”

We should be celebrating that in the context of this Bill, and I greatly regret that a sense of celebration is being lost as a result of the way that this afternoon’s debate is proceeding.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I should declare an interest: I am a member of the BHA. Is the hon. Lady aware that civil registrars are increasingly offering full ceremonies, so we already have a secular alternative, and this proposal does not make a new one but just adds one that a lot of people want?

[Kate Green]

I am disappointed in that question. Secular and humanist are not the same. I am not a humanist. I would want a purely secular ceremony were I to be marrying, but others want a ceremony that reflects their beliefs. Humanism is recognised as a strand of belief. A ceremony to accommodate that deep-held feeling has to be organised and provided if we are to meet the legitimate desires of our humanist friends and neighbours.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady will be well aware of my opinions and views on this matter. In Committee evidence, there was among the Churches and other religious organisations an overwhelming majority opposed to humanist weddings. Is she saying we should ignore that vast strand of public opinion—the many millions of people who oppose this—in favour of a small minority?

[Kate Green]

With the greatest respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any evidence whatever that millions of people are opposed to this proposal.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

No, not until I have dealt with the question fully. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman has evidence of millions of Church members opposing this proposal. I fully accept that there is quite likely to be a lack of enthusiasm among those at the top of the Church hierarchy, but I would not necessarily take even that for granted in all cases. Many people, including people of faith, attend humanist weddings, and value and celebrate their participation in them, either as family or friends.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; he is next.

Many people of faith—I think this is the position of Ministers—who believe marriage itself to be a ceremony of huge social value and importance would welcome a humanist marriage ceremony founded on belief and commitment in preference to a secular ceremony or to no ceremony at all.

[Mike Thornton]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) was supporting humanist marriage. As a churchgoer and a Christian, I was privileged to be able to have a ceremony that I believed reflected my faith and my beliefs. I think it is vital that people with humanist beliefs who are not Christian and not churchgoers have the opportunity to have a celebration that reflects their beliefs. It is extraordinary that anyone of faith should oppose someone else having such a ceremony, and I do not understand such objections.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful for that welcome and helpful intervention and for the intervention from the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales).

Concerns and doubts have been expressed about the quality of the service, if I may call it that, that humanists would offer, but the British Humanist Association runs a long-established ceremony service. We have already identified that many people, including many of us, have already attended humanist weddings and some of us might have attended humanist funerals or baby-naming ceremonies. There is a very long and extensive experience in this country of participation in such ceremonies and to my knowledge no adverse comment or criticism of them has been made at all—indeed, quite the reverse.

It is also important to note that the British Humanist Association is extremely concerned about maintaining the highest quality. It trains, accredits, insures and provides a form of continuing professional education for its hundreds of celebrants throughout the country. Perhaps we should therefore not be surprised that the ceremonies attract high satisfaction as a result; more than 95% of clients, if I may call them that, give them a five-out-of-five rating. That is not an experience that all people report from their registry office or other wedding.

Humanist weddings, in particular—this is based on the testimony of those couples who have had one—are greatly valued as reflecting those couples’ beliefs and allowing the ceremony to be devised, in collaboration with the celebrant, in a way that meets their own wishes. I have read some letters over the course of the past few weeks from couples who write eloquently about how much the ceremony has meant not only to them but to their relatives and friends. I am sure that over the past week or so, many right hon. and hon. Members will also have heard from the 3,000-plus humanists in this country, including many couples who have had a humanist wedding, about the importance of the ceremony to them. It is clear that we already have in this country a precious form of ceremony that is highly valued by many couples, and my new clause would simply seek to recognise and acknowledge that in law.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I have one fairly fundamental disagreement with the British Humanist Association, which is that I think they are wrong about God, but I fully believe that we need to acknowledge humanist weddings. Two generations ago, the established Church did not allow nonconformist Churches to hold burial rites in their churchyards. This is a dangerous precedent. As an Anglican, I do not feel in any way offended in my faith by knowing that humanists can celebrate weddings in such a way.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Secretary of State has been extremely eloquent throughout the passage of the Bill about the importance that she personally attaches to marriage, so I say to her that my proposal goes with the grain of her position by seeking to extend marriage to more couples precisely because they share that sense of its importance and want to value it.

The whole Bill is about equality, although I recognise that it is predominantly about equal marriage for lesbian, gay, transsexual and, indeed, bisexual people. My new clause is also about equality; it is about the equal recognition of humanist marriages. We should remember that they are already legal in many countries, where they contribute to an increase in the number of marriages, going with the grain of the Secretary of State’s ambitions to strengthen and extend marriage in our society. In Scotland, for example, the number of marriages has been rising in recent years, with an increase of more than 1,500 between 2009 and 2011, more than half of which are accounted for by humanist marriages.

There is plenty of evidence of public demand for reform. I believe that this proposal is a reform that disadvantages no one and costs the public purse close to zero. In an age of equality, it removes an unnecessary injustice based on religion or belief, and it will strengthen the institution of marriage, going with the grain of Ministers’ intentions for the Bill. I believe that today we need to move forward to introduce legal humanist marriages in our country, as they have been successfully introduced in other countries across a range of legal jurisdictions. If the Government have concerns, we need to see a written view from the Attorney-General about those objections, so that they can be scrutinised not just by amateur Scottish lawyers such as me, but by properly qualified expert human rights lawyers and others. That would allow us to see in detail the reasoning behind the view that he has expressed at the Dispatch Box.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

I will not, as I am just coming to a conclusion.

If during this afternoon’s debate the Government can provide undertakings that they will put before us that full, reasoned legal opinion and give us the time properly to test and explore it, so that the concerns can be taken forward appropriately when the Bill reaches the House of Lords, we will of course be happy to take that time to ensure that the legislation is wholly fit for purpose. Without those detailed explanations, it is difficult for us to accept that there is some endemic objection in principle to introducing humanist marriage into English law, and that I is why I have tabled new clause 15.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Let me start by saying that I have great admiration for humanists. My mother was a Quaker and I was brought up and educated at a Quaker school. I often think that Quakers are simply humanists who believe in God—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is going to heckle throughout my speech, he will just indicate the discourtesy he shows for the views of anyone who disagrees with him. If we heard a little less from him, we would all do a lot better.

As the House will know, when the Bill was introduced the Church of England and other faith groups did not greet it with unalloyed joy. However, we sought to engage constructively with Ministers and officials and they constructively engaged with us. Ministers and the Government made it clear at the outset that they wanted to ensure that faith groups that did not wish to perform same-sex marriages would not be obliged to do so. The legislation therefore has at its heart protections for faith groups such as the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims and others who do not wish to perform or celebrate same-sex marriages. That is enshrined in the quadruple lock for the Church of England, because of canon law, and in the other locks for other faith groups. Those locks are essential to ensuring the freedoms that the Government made clear at the outset would be there to protect faith groups.

[Kate Green]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady, but may I finish the point?

Those locks are based on the assumption enshrined in English marriage law: English marriage law is based on buildings and not on celebrants.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am going to give way to the hon. Lady, but let me finish the point because it is important.

In Scotland, there is celebrant-based marriage, whereas the protections in marriage in England are based on buildings. If new clause 15 is passed, it will in effect unpick all the protections in the Bill that relate to the locks and to the protections for other faith groups.

The Speaker acknowledged earlier that he was an anorak. There are degrees of anorakism in the House, and I too am a bit of an anorak, in the sense that I believe that if public Bills that will make substantial changes to public law are to be introduced, there should be proper consultation. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) honestly and properly acknowledged, there has been no consultation with faith groups on the proposed provisions, which would completely unpick the protections in the Bill that Parliament has sought to give to faith groups.

[Kate Green]

I do not see why faith groups should be singled out for consultation. If there is to be consultation, it should include those of no faith, and other organisations too. I do not understand at all how this proposition unpicks locks which are intended to protect religious institutions and individual celebrants within those institutions. I simply do not understand that, and I do not accept that marriage under English law is confined to religious institutions that have premises. As I say, English law also provides for Jews and Quakers to conduct marriages according to their own rites.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is wrong. I have made it quite clear throughout that English marriage law is buildings-related, except, for historic reasons, where it relates to Quakers and Jews; it has never been celebrant-related.

Let us consider the Scottish example. In Scotland we have seen pagan weddings celebrated, spiritualist weddings celebrated, and weddings celebrated by the White Eagle Lodge. That is a question on which our constituents should properly be consulted. I cannot speak for other Members of the House, but I have had enough problems in my constituency with same-sex marriage. If I go back to the shires of Oxfordshire and tell constituents that Parliament is about to endorse pagan marriage in England, they will think that we have lost the plot completely. If they think that the Opposition support pagan marriage and masonic marriage, they really will think we have lost the plot.

[Kate Green]

The new clause would not allow pagan marriage to take place. It would allow humanist marriage to take place, and the Bishop of Chester supports it.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady is a lawyer so, with the greatest respect, she has no excuse for not listening to the advice of the Attorney-General. He made it clear to the House—any hon. Member would follow the logic very straightforwardly—that it would not be possible in the Bill to give privileges to one non-faith organisation, the humanists, without its being challenged by other similar non-faith groups, such as the pagans or the secularists, who have had weddings celebrated in Scotland. Pagans would say, “We are allowed to have marriages north of Hadrian’s wall. Why cannot we have marriages south of Hadrian’s wall?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

May I make a tiny bit of progress before taking my hon. Friend’s intervention?

Furthermore, it is not legally possible to restrict the approved organisations approach only to humanism. There can be no basis to justify a difference of treatment between one belief organisation and another, and if we did so we would be vulnerable to legal challenge—the very point that the Attorney-General made. If the amendment were accepted, I would have to consider whether I could sign a section 19(1)(a) statement, indicating that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights, on the introduction of the Bill in another place. I would probably have to sign a section 19(1)(b) statement that I cannot state that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention, because of the different treatment of humanists and other belief organisations. That is clear, it is a statement of fact and it is entirely consistent with the situation outlined by the Attorney-General.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, the amendment would clearly make the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights. This is a complicated issue that could be looked at further in the other place, but I want to make it clear to the House today that if the issue is discussed in the Lords, further information can be provided if that is requested and required. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and to place a copy of my letter in the Library, setting out the legal objections offered to the House today. I hope that would help to inform proceedings in the other place. I would be happy to copy the letter to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.

[Kate Green]

May we ask that that letter sets out in detail the Government’s objections in the context of the convention on human rights, and that there will be no gaps? It seems to us that new objections have emerged even in the course of the debate this afternoon, so I would be grateful for the right hon. Lady’s assurance that that will be a comprehensive statement of the Government’s concerns in relation to the European convention on human rights.

[Maria Miller]

I am happy to say that the letter would be a comprehensive statement of the concerns that I have. I have covered many of those today, but I will consider whether there are any that I have not included for reasons of time. I am happy to be as helpful as I can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says and think that is what the Bill delivers. It delivers the ability of civil marriage to accommodate same-sex couples and enables religious organisations that wish to opt into that to do so, but allows others not to if that is what they choose. That is an important and fundamental principle of the Bill that I think reflects what he has just said.

I believe that the changes proposed in the amendments are an unnecessary and potentially unhelpful diversion from the important objective we are trying to achieve: removing the unfairness that excludes same-sex couples from being able to marry. We must remain focused on that objective and not be sidelined into discussions on other issues at this point. I ask hon. Members not to press these amendments, so that we can proceed to discuss the next group.

[Kate Green]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this interesting and, at times, passionate debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who tabled the amendment that led us to new clause 15, and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who first tabled it in Committee, for the work we have been able to do across parties to bring the proposal to the Floor of the House this afternoon.

Despite the fact that the proposal has been before the House in some form or other since 5 February, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out, it seems that the legal doubts expressed this afternoon by the Attorney-General have come to us rather late in the day. That does not mean that we do not take them extremely seriously; of course we do, but it would have been helpful to know that discussions were taking place with officials, whether or not they were proactively suggesting that such changes to the original proposal would help to strengthen it. The fact that discussions took place some weeks ago means that it is a matter of particular regret that the legal difficulties with the proposal were not highlighted earlier.

The Secretary of State said that my amendment and, I think, others in the group were unnecessary. For humanists, it is not unnecessary at all. Yes, they can choose to have a civil marriage and a humanist ceremony, but they do not have available to them a ceremony that they feel would properly recognise them as marrying one another and making that public commitment in front of family and friends. That is the discrimination that we seek to address. However, I take very seriously her wish, which she knows we share very strongly, to see this Bill proceed. We do not want it to be delayed or have its development and progress inhibited by arguments about these proposals.

I want to pick up on one or two of the objections that were raised not only by Ministers but by other hon. Members around the Chamber, suggesting that there are still genuine uncertainties about what is and is not provided for in current law and what we now seek to achieve. If the Secretary of State is willing to come forward with a statement of the Government’s legal concerns, that would be extremely helpful in properly facing off all the objections that have been raised in time for them to be understood and considered before the Bill is debated in the House of Lords. We do not want a re-run of objections arriving late or being raised without justification. It is clear from what has been said today that many hon. Members would like the Government’s position to be fully argued in good time for a fully informed debate in the House of Lords.

Some Members, particularly the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the Secretary of State, have said repeatedly that these proposals in some way undermine the quadruple lock that has been put in place. The Secretary of State suggested that that is because it is not clear whether the protections that it affords would apply to humanists, and if so, that might undermine the protections for religious organisations. If so, it would be extremely helpful to understand exactly how that is. We would be grateful if the Secretary of State fully clarified that in the letter that she says she will make available to the House.

A misunderstanding has come up repeatedly this afternoon. We recognise that the system in England is different from the system in Scotland, which registers celebrants. The system in England is not based only on the registration of premises for Jews and Quakers, for example. There is no requirement for them to hold their ceremonies in certain premises, but they are required to hold ceremonies in accordance with their usages. What is more, the amendment would not attach registration to celebrants. It is about registering organisations, and one form of organisation in particular—that which is a belief organisation, a charitable organisation or a humanist organisation that secures the approval and authorisation of the Registrar General. It is very clear which kind of institution we are trying to cover.

The most serious objection is the human rights objection, which, sadly, only emerged at the beginning of this afternoon. I would be grateful if any hon. Member who participated during the earlier stages of the Bill and who remembers differently could correct me, but I do not recall the human rights objection being raised at any point before this afternoon. Of course it is vital that we take account of the Attorney-General’s concerns and advice on this matter; it would be utterly irresponsible of us not to do so. However, even the Attorney-General’s advice changed over the course of this afternoon. At the beginning of the afternoon, he said that there was a problem with the proposal because it could apply so widely that any organisation, including a society for the promotion of tiddlywinks, might potentially be discriminated against if it were not authorised to carry out marriages as well. I think that he rowed back from that later on and acknowledged that only belief organisations would be authorised. He was right to say that the possibility of discrimination between different belief organisations is the central human rights issue that must be addressed.

[The Attorney-General]

Let me make it quite clear that it has to be a belief organisation because unless there are some grounds for belief, I assume that there is no reason for carrying out a ceremony. I am sorry if my point sounded flippant, because it was not intended to be. My point was that belief organisations can be very wide in their scope and are certainly not confined to humanism.

[Kate Green]

I appreciate the Attorney-General’s concern that there could be human rights challenges on those grounds. It would be useful to know how he assesses the chances of such a challenge being successful and to understand on what basis a challenge might be argued. It would also be useful to know what precedent there is of such challenges being successful elsewhere.

I am prepared to wait for the fully analysed opinion to be presented to the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to provide that in good time before the Bill proceeds through the House of Lords. I hope that she will take note of our interest in having a proactive opinion, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) said, that identifies how any defects in the proposal could be cured, as the Attorney-General has mentioned. Given the commitment from the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

Conversion of civil partnership into marriage

[Dr Huppert]

I beg to move amendment 15, page 10, line 24, at end add—

‘(9) Where a civil partnership formed under part 1, section 96 of the Civil Partnership Act (Civil Partnership with former spouse) is converted into a marriage under this section—

(a) the civil partnership ends on the conversion, and

(b) if both partners so elect, the resulting marriage is to be treated as having subsisted since the marriage dissolved under Schedule 2 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was formed.’.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have tried to dig around to find out the size of liabilities and which companies are doing this, but unfortunately I cannot find that information. It is fair to say that many corporates take great pleasure in trumpeting in their annual reports what they would regard as their social responsibility, but I think that they should be saying loud and proud—to coin a phrase—that they are treating civil partners in the same way as heterosexual widows and widowers.

I hope that my ministerial colleagues can give some ground and say that the Government are willing to reconsider the matter. The cost is not even a rounding error in the Government accounts or for the pension industry, but the benefit to the recipients is beyond value.

[Kate Green]

It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), whose contributions to our debates on this Bill at every stage have been exemplary, moving, powerful and reasoned.

I am very pleased to welcome warmly many of the amendments on transgender issues. I particularly welcome Government amendments 40 to 47, and I thank Ministers, who I know have taken on board issues raised in Committee about pension protections for transgender couples. I am pleased that the concerns raised in Committee have been addressed in the amendments. They will create no new liability for pension funds and will remove for some couples the hideous decision about whether a member of the couple should proceed with gender reassignment and, in the process, remove the pension rights of a much-loved spouse. I know that following the debate in Committee, transgender people and their partners are pleased by the Government’s response and I want to put on record my thanks to Ministers for that.

I also welcome the other amendments on transgender issues in the group. Although I have some concerns about the compensation provision, the calculation given to us by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) suggests that there is relatively—indeed, microscopically—little cause for any Chancellor to be concerned. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully the whole package of amendments on transgender issues proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others. As I think the hon. Gentleman said, many of the injustices that the amendments seek to address are probably inadvertent injustices, but they are none the less deeply wrong injustices suffered by transgender couples. I invite Ministers to look, even as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, at ways in which we might put rectifying action in place.

On amendment 49, on pensions, I too recognise the anomaly that exists between the treatment of pension rights for married couples and same-sex civil partners. I also recognise that resolving this anomaly is not without difficulty. We have always accepted the estimate of £18 million potential additional cost to private contracted-in occupational pension schemes, and I agree with hon. Members who have already said that in the scheme of overall funds under management for pension companies, that seems a very small amount indeed, although I also accept the concern that extending pension rights to civil partners could have a disproportionate impact in a very small number of cases, particularly in small and often charity employer schemes.

In relation to other schemes and the possible wider effect, for example on contracted-out occupational pensions, where Ministers have suggested a potential impact of £90 million, or in relation to public sector schemes, I must say that I am still puzzled as to why we think there is any further implication. In February I obtained a note from the House of Commons Library which pointed out that civil partners are already entitled to survivor benefits in contracted-out and public sector schemes in relation to benefits going back to 1988. That is a result of the Civil Partnership (Contracted-out and Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) (Surviving Civil Partners) Order 2005. The Library said that the same was true of public sector schemes, as I say. So I am not clear how the exemption would affect those contracted-out and public sector schemes.

Although I have great sympathy for the amendment, the Government should come forward with a full analysis in order for Parliament to take an informed decision on what the cost implications would be. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which was not selected for debate. I understand the reasons for that, but it would have asked for the full report of the pensions costs implications for all forms of occupational pension and the impact on pension funds and pensioner poverty to be presented to Parliament. Although the new clause has not been selected for debate, I join the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green in asking Ministers to present the fullest possible information to Parliament so that we can make a proper decision. I recognise that if we get it wrong, we could drive very small pension schemes out of business, which would exacerbate inequalities in other ways.

As things stand, we are without a proper review of the cost. Ministers have expressed concerns that it could be more—potentially considerably more—than £18 million, and on the basis of the information before us, I regret that I cannot support amendment 49 today. However, I want to place on record my strong support for the principle that underpins it, and I very much hope that information that will enable us to move forward will be available to the House as soon as possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is nice to be able to make a contribution at last to this important debate, after sitting on the Front Bench for quite a few hours.

I will first speak to Government amendments in the group. This is a large group of amendments that, in broad terms, concern pension entitlements, gender reassignment, devolution and a number of miscellaneous matters. Government amendment 25 ensures that the protection for the Church of England in the Bill is both full and clear. We have been continuing our discussions with the Church since we knew that it had doubts about whether the power provided in clause 11(5)(c) would be sufficient to enable us to provide full protection for Church of England ecclesiastical law from the effect of clauses 11(1) and 11(2). It is an important part of the protection that Church of England canon law should not be affected by the provisions in the Bill and that references to marriage shall continue to mean marriage between a man with a woman only. Having consulted the Church of England, we have decided to provide further protection by referring to ecclesiastical law in the Bill. The amendment affects only law applying to the Church of England in the limited cases where the effect of marriage is at issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) says “such as” from a sedentary position. Those measures include recruiting more judges, securing additional venues and more Saturday sittings in addition to striving continually to improve original decision making.

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

4. What the Government’s strategy is on the future of the probation service.

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

As part of our transforming rehabilitation strategy, we will create a new public sector national probation service, which will work to protect the public and build upon the expertise and professionalism already in place. The national probation service will work alongside new contracted rehabilitation providers and, in the future, the skills and expertise of probation professionals will be utilised across the public, private and voluntary sectors.

[Kate Green]

The Government say that private providers will support lower-risk offenders and will be paid by results, but private providers are already saying that they will accept only a small proportion of their fees from the results that they achieve. What is the real risk that providers will take and what proportion of their fee will genuinely be payment by results?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady will understand that in respect of these contracts there will be a requirement for providers to meet the expectations of the courts, so in relation to court orders there will be limited room for manoeuvre as to what is done, and offenders on licence will be expected to meet the requirements of those licences. These contracts could never be 100% payment by results. We will determine the percentage they will put at risk—they will put their own money at risk in this—by consulting all those involved in this business and all those involved in rehabilitation in the future. We will reach the right conclusions; we will work through this with all those involved.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We are working hard to increase links with employers. The amount of work done in prisons has increased dramatically, and much of that takes place with potential post-prison employers—I pay tribute to the rail industry, for example, and the work it is doing. As we roll out these reforms, I want Jobcentre Plus and Work programme providers to be more closely involved with prisons, and to do everything we can to ensure that people flow from prison into employment. If we talk to most prisoners about what they would like to do when they leave, the answer is get a job. We must help them do so.

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

The Secretary of State said that payment in full would be dependent on results. Can he say what proportion of payment will be dependent on success, and what proportion will take the form of an up-front fee?

[Chris Grayling]

The answer to that is: as of yet, not exactly, because there will be a bidding process. I emphasise again, however, that that will not be simply about cost, and that quality will be at least as important as cost and the proportion of the contract put at risk. It will not be 100% payment by results because we must pay for orders of the court. I intend the providers to have some of their money at risk so that they have every incentive to perform on our behalf.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

Absolutely not. Our work under universal credit to increase access to child care for women working fewer than 16 hours represents the first time that such support will be in place. We should be championing universal credit as a way of making sure that more women can stay connected to the labour market at a time when they also have caring responsibilities.

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

Many working women lose out when they have a baby. Last month, a survey by the lawyers Slater & Gordon showed that more than one in seven women returning from maternity leave do not have a job to go back to, yet the Government are not even bothering to collect proper data on pregnancy-related redundancy. The Slater & Gordon research showed that two in five new mums were refused flexible hours and nearly half said that the job they had gone back to was less good than the one they had left. What are the Government doing to get a grip on pregnancy discrimination?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I recently met many of those who are looking at the issue, which, like her, I take seriously. I want women not to have a false choice between having a family and staying in employment; they need to be able to do both. That is why by changing the culture in our workplaces so that businesses look at how they can accommodate women—not just in respect of their statutory duties, but more fully than that—we can make sure that women can not only have their family responsibilities, but continue in their jobs.