Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kate Green and Paul Goggins

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

Barton Biomass Plant

Debate between Kate Green and Paul Goggins

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful, Mr Robertson, that time has been allowed for this afternoon’s debate, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) are present. My right hon. Friend is here because his constituency neighbours mine and will be impacted by the proposed power station that is the subject of today’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East faces similar problems in her community.

I shall start by setting out a little of the background to the subject. Peel Holdings proposes building a biomass renewable energy plant at Barton in my constituency on the banks of the Manchester ship canal. The plant would primarily burn recycled wood—for example, wood that had been treated with paint or varnish—and some virgin timber. I understand that other plant-derived material will also be burned. According to the applicant, the plant will handle 200,000 tonnes of material per annum, have an operational life of 25 years and provide renewable energy for approximately 37,000 homes. A planning application to the local authority, Trafford metropolitan borough council, is expected to be made soon.

No one questions the wish to make more use of renewable energy sources, but since I was elected in May the proposed plant is without doubt the single biggest issue in my postbag. Hundreds of local people have contacted me about it, the majority being opposed. Local campaigners have established the Breathe Clean Air Group to oppose the building of the power station. A public meeting earlier this month in my constituency attracted hundreds of local residents, and the vast majority of them oppose what is planned.

The concerns being expressed by campaigners and local people fall into three groups. First, there is concern about emissions from the plant and whether the technology that is to be employed will be adequate to clean them satisfactorily, and there is concern about the impact of the emissions on public health. Secondly, there are concerns about the monitoring processes in relation to the emissions. Thirdly, people have a range of concerns about the effect of the plant on local amenities—on local housing, businesses and transport—and problems resulting from congestion. I appreciate that many of those are local planning matters.

I note that the area is already spectacularly unfavoured, as the site of a planned methane plant and a sewage works, and is located right next to an already busy motorway junction. I was interested to note that Peel Holdings has suggested that the materials bring brought to the plant for incineration and the waste being removed could be transported on the canal in due course. I hope that the company will provide more details when the proposal comes to the planning stage, which I expect to happen in the next few weeks.

I wish to refer today to the level and monitoring of the emissions, and I invite the Minister to respond to those concerns. I am pretty confident that Peel Holdings will seek to show that the plant will comply with minimum legal emissions standards. The consensus in the debate initiated in Westminster Hall yesterday by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) seemed to be that Ministers believe that the Health Protection Agency has convincingly failed to establish any link between emissions from incinerators and public health. However, significant concerns remain among my constituents. I ask the Minister to expand on that analysis.

My constituents point to the latest European Union directive on air quality, incorporated into the UK’s air quality strategy, and to EU directives on waste that require member states to use the best available technology to achieve maximum emissions of no more than 1 to 5 mg per cubic metre, but they also say that the United Kingdom has allowed a limit of 10 to 15 mg per cubic metre. Campaigners tell me that each additional milligram worsens health outcomes and mortality rates. The worry is that although the Barton plant may fall within the UK limits—indeed, I expect that it will—it does not represent the best in technology and that the risk of adverse cardiac, respiratory and other health conditions could result.

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

My hon. Friend explains the concerns of her constituents with her customary skill and brings to the Minister their real concerns on the impact on public health. Of course, these issues are a trouble not only to her constituents, but to many of mine, particularly those who live in the Sale area. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we have an accurate assessment of the risks involved, so that decisions are made in light of the full facts?

[Kate Green]

Steam vapours are of course no respecters of constituency boundaries. Indeed, the Breathe Clean Air Group has shared with me a footprint plan suggesting that the effect of the emissions would be felt across much of Greater Manchester, as far south as Manchester airport and well into the city centre.

There are significant anxieties about the health analysis that has been made. It is not sufficient for my constituents, who are very concerned about the proposal, or for others in the Manchester vicinity, simply to be told that the Health Protection Agency has reviewed the available evidence. I hope that the Minister will be able to help this afternoon by giving much fuller information on that aspect.

Will the Minister explain how the ongoing review processes on the latest evidence about the health impact of emissions will be maintained following the Health Protection Agency’s abolition, which was announced the other day? My understanding is that local public health directors will take a significant role, and I would be grateful for any information that the Minister provided about where they could obtain the most up-to-date evidence, research and advice necessary to inform future debates.

I turn to the arrangements for monitoring the emissions. I acknowledge that Peel Holdings has been very forthcoming in its responses to my questions. It has indicated that it will be putting in place sophisticated computer monitoring systems, and it says that the Environment Agency will have the power to make regular and unannounced checks. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the agency will continue to fulfil its inspection function, and that there will be no slackening of the inspection regime following the announcement the other day of a redefinition of its functions. That is important to my constituents, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say. I also wish to know how as much as possible of the data that are captured and monitored can be made transparent to the public, especially to my constituents, and how the Environment Agency will ensure that they cannot be suppressed if standards are not met.

Let me refer to the issue that was at the heart of yesterday’s debate on incinerators that was initiated by the hon. Member for Congleton. It was said that Government policy, both in relation to incineration and renewable energy sources, will be reconciled to empowering local communities to make decisions about their local areas.