Registration of Births

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy]

As I was saying before we were interrupted by high-speed rail, this debate is about equality and freedom, because the law on equality is ultimately about the freedom for people to live their life as they wish. The freedoms we are talking about today are freedoms held in one of the most tragic circumstances possible: a mother losing a loved one just as she is bringing a new life into this world. Today I will talk about the way in which, perhaps inadvertently, our legislation discriminates against people in those circumstances.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The freedom that my hon. Friend is referring to exists in Germany and Switzerland, both of which have the sensible rule that parental information is taken when the baby is first introduced to the midwife and maternity system and the father acknowledges paternity. The legal situation is clarified at that point, rather than at the point of the baby’s birth.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend, like me, has such cases in her constituency, hence her concern to get the law right. The legislation does not make sense in the 21st century, and our concern is that it inadvertently discriminates against women. It makes a value judgment about the mothers in question and therefore enshrines an outdated attitude towards women in the process.

I have some examples, and I am grateful that one of the people tragically affected is here with us today. My constituent, Joana, is a young mum from Walthamstow, and she already had one child with her partner, David, when he tragically had a stroke shortly before the birth of their second child, Eira. Having his role in Eira’s life recorded was therefore an important part of the grieving process for the family, and doubly important for Eira because it gives her the same rights to David as her sister. Joana has described to me the dehumanising process of trying to get David’s role in Eira’s life recorded on the birth certificate. She described turning up at the register office only to find that the registrar had no idea what to do, and she then found out that she had to go to court to prove that David was the father. She had been in a long-term relationship with this man. She shared a mortgage with him, and he had been at the National Childbirth Trust classes. He had been an integral part of the preparations for the birth of their second child. They were clearly in a committed relationship, but alas, the law includes no ability to recognise that and does not give the registrar the ability to record David’s part in Eira’s life, because of the simple fact that Joana and David were not married.

Joana is not alone. Penny’s partner Nathan sadly died two weeks after their son was born. Their son was conceived using IVF, so Nathan was clearly the father. Again, purely because Nathan and Penny had chosen not to marry, they were not able to record Nathan’s role in their son’s life on the birth certificate. Penny told us:

“Babies don’t come from wedding rings.”

There is also Rebecca, who already had a child with Mark before he tragically died in a paragliding accident when Rebecca was just 17 weeks pregnant.

All three women faced the same scenario in which their word, and even the basic evidence they could provide for the long-standing, committed relationships they were in with the fathers of their children, was not enough, so they had to go to court. They faced a court fee of £365 and possible further fees for DNA tests to prove that their partner was indeed the father. In fact, in Joana’s case, David’s father had to come to court. They had to take DNA not just from Eira but from her sister and from a family member to prove that most basic relationship, which was obvious to the outside world.

The situation was very different for Kate, who also lost her partner in tragic circumstances shortly before the birth of their son. Three weeks before he passed away they married in a hospital intensive care unit. The £27 licence meant that not only was she able to register her child’s father with no further questions asked—even though, just as in the cases of Joana, Penny and Rebecca, he was not present at the registration process—but she was entitled to a bereavement allowance of £2,000 and an ongoing widowed parent’s allowance of £510 a month.

There is a simple question at the heart of this matter. I wanted the debate because as a society we have not yet considered these issues, even though they affect how people live today. In securing the debate, the first thing I wanted to do was put this matter on the Minister’s list of things to resolve. The situation still exists only because nobody has really looked at it in the 21st century. Why do we treat Kate differently from Penny, Rebecca and Joana?

I pay tribute to the organisation Widowed & Young, which has been helping equally all four of the women I mentioned. It recognised the iniquities in the existing system. When those women’s partners were alive, all four couples were treated equally with regard to taxation. It is only in death that we see the inequality in people’s treatment. By having that marriage licence, Kate did not have to go through the indignity of having to try to prove her child’s paternity in the way the other three did.

The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 is truly from another time. I say for the avoidance of doubt that I think everyone understands that because legal rights come with parenthood, there must be a process for registering children. That process must withstand scrutiny and nobody, either male or female, should be registered if they are not a parent. But the Act is designed to protect fathers from having an illegitimate child registered. I would caution that the term “illegitimate” in itself speaks volumes of the 1950s, not the 21st century in which we live.

The existing law requires the courts to verify parentage when the parents are not married, as if marriage in and of itself verifies the truthfulness of what a woman says. There is, though, already a process in place for a birth certificate to be amended to add a name. We already recognise that it is right for a registrar to have the discretion to amend a certificate in certain circumstances—they can use their professional judgment and respond to the person in front of them—without requiring people to go to court, which can cost families thousands of pounds at the most tragic of times.

We do not, though, have the ability to correct an absence. There is no way to allow a registrar to look at the evidence that Joana could have so easily presented, at the time, of the sincere and committed relationship she was in with David, and to act accordingly. At the most difficult and sensitive time for a family, the law stands firm. It does not see the lives that people had, but simply makes the judgment that they were not married. We must change that. Turning up with a father is in itself no guarantee that he is the father, just as turning up without him does not mean that he can be verified by DNA testing alone.

Will the Minister consider ending the inequality and making sure that this part of the law does not judge those who choose not to marry, just as we seek to support those who do choose to marry? In not giving registrars the same power to correct an absence as to make an addition, we persist with the inequality of saying that some women will lie and that marriage is what makes them truthful. Why treat women who choose not to marry as somehow untrustworthy? Why not enable registrars to seek evidence, act and use their professional judgment? We are seeking a small change in the law, but it would be a big injustice for the families if we did not drag the legislation into the 21st century.

I appreciate that this might be the first time the Minister has considered the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) pointed out, there are different processes in place in other countries. We want the Government to commit to looking at how they can make a change happen, and to recognise that this is an injustice that needs resolution. It is now too late for Joana—she has managed to record David’s role in Eira’s life through other means—but we know that many more families out there are suffering the same experience and hope the Government will act accordingly.

International Women’s Day 2016

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

Exactly that issue was highlighted in our panel debate this afternoon. I absolutely agree that we need to encourage more women into this area. There are 40,000 jobs available in the construction industry, and 45,000 in the agricultural industry. We are perhaps barring women from future opportunities. It absolutely worries me that we have not changed since the 1980s.

We in this House must be reminded that women’s power is at the ballot box. Women should be registered to vote, and we should make sure that all women feel it is important for them to make their own decisions.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Everyone knows that women were given the vote at the end of the 1914-18 war, but that cloaked the fact that working-class men were also given the vote. Does the hon. Lady, like me, celebrate the fact that women, through their campaigning, also led to those men accessing the vote? That should never be forgotten.

[Mims Davies]

I always think that women campaigning do make things generally better for men.

We must be reminded of the power that women have at the ballot box. It was women voting in higher numbers for the Conservatives in May last year who returned a Conservative majority Government. It will also be women who decide whether we are in or out of the EU and who is the Mayor of London. We need women to come together to vote and to be active in politics, because their effect is always extraordinary, as we have just heard.

Hon. Members around the House will be thinking of the brilliant work of women campaigners. That includes the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaigners, who have come together and had a real impact. I watch with interest to see what results they will achieve. Those women will not stay quiet, and I salute them in their cause. It is a genuine challenge to this Parliament that we get the best outcome for those and all our women.

I am pleased the Government are taking the necessary action to bring about further equality. There are now more than 1 million more women in work than in 2010. The Government have also introduced legislation that deals with stalking, and I welcome that. We are not afraid to tackle issues that Parliament has left unaddressed for many years.

State Pension Age (Women)

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House, while welcoming the equalisation of the state pension age, is concerned that the acceleration of that equalisation directly discriminates against women born on or after 6 April 1951, leaving women with only a few years to make alternative arrangements, adversely affecting their retirement plans and causing undue hardship; regrets that the Government has failed to address a lifetime of low pay and inequality faced by many women; and calls on the Government to immediately introduce transitional arrangements for those women negatively affected by that equalisation.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the time to debate this important issue. I especially want to take a moment to thank the WASPI team— Women Against State Pension Inequality. Pensions are incredibly complicated, as most people would imagine, but these ordinary women have taken the time to sift through all the information and have drafted one of the most comprehensive and articulate briefings that I have seen since being elected. I thank them for articulating their arguments so well.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a very important statement, given that the former Pensions Minister has admitted that he made a bad decision, based on inadequate briefing. Is it not therefore only right that the House considers this decision today, takes it seriously and reaches the right decision, with the right information before it?

[Mhairi Black]

That is why the debate is so important, and we should call on the Government to act. However, because pensions are so complicated, it is important, not just for the benefit of some Members, or people in the Gallery, or those watching at home, to try to explain why those women have found themselves in the position that they are in.

To do that, we must go back to 1995, when the Pensions Act increased the female state pension age from 60 to 65. The purpose of that was to equalise the pension age so that women retired at the same age as men. That is fair enough; it makes sense and I do not think anybody would disagree with that principle. The Turner commission recommended that 15 years’ notice be given to individuals if their pension arrangements were to change to give them adequate time to respond appropriately. The 1995 Act technically did that. The equalisation—the changes—was not to be brought in until 2010, which technically gave women 15 years’ notice. The problem is that nobody knew about that. As late as 2008, fewer than half of women knew that they would be affected. The National Centre for Social Research stated in 2011 that only 43% of women were aware of the planned change.

Access to Justice: Wales

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. I have before me only two names of Members who have asked to speak. At 5.20 pm, I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen for the Labour party and the Scottish National party, who will have five minutes each, and then the Minister, who will have 10 minutes. I will first call Albert Owen, and if other Members wish to speak, they will have to rely on the generosity of the hon. Gentleman and the next Member to be called if they are to get in before 5.20 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. I have received a number of notes from Members advising me that they notified the Speaker’s Office of their wish to speak. I have not been advised that those requests were received by the Speaker’s Office, but in an attempt to get in everyone who has approached me, I shall set a three-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

One of my first contributions after being elected to the House of Commons in 2010 was to fight in this Chamber on behalf of the two magistrates courts that remained in my constituency: Ammanford and Llandovery. The Government proposed closing those courts on the basis that services would be provided in Carmarthen magistrates court, yet here we are debating the future of that court and the state-of-the-art family, tribunal and probate hearing centre that was opened in Carmarthen by the Lord Chief Justice in 2012. That goes to show, to use a famous Welsh political phrase, that centralisation is a process, not an event. I wonder how long it will be, with services being centralised in Llanelli, before we are arguing about the centralisation of services to Swansea, which is only a dozen miles to the east. It is easy for Ministers and their civil servants to sit here in London and draw lines on a map and crosses through budget lines without understanding the full effect of the changes on the communities we represent.

I oppose the proposals for the west of my country for five primary reasons. First, Carmarthen is the legal capital of the west of my country. It was afforded that status by James I in 1604, when he made it a county corporate by charter. I am struggling to understand why the Minister thinks he knows better than James I. Carmarthen is one of only two towns in Wales that still has a town sheriff, and that gives a clear indication of the importance of the role that Carmarthen has played in the legal system in the west of Wales.

Secondly, the Ministry of Justice has spent £1.7 million on the two courts in Carmarthen in the past seven years, so it would be a colossal waste of money to close those courts following such investment. When the family court was opened in 2012 by the Lord Chief Justice, it was seen as a pathfinder for the future of legal services in Wales and England because of all its video-conferencing technology. The Minister says that such technology is the way forward, but I am informed by magistrates that none of that equipment has actually been installed. I therefore find it difficult to understand how the Minister can make the case for closing that court in Carmarthen—it has just been opened—on the basis of a lack of operational capacity. He will argue that the way forward is remote justice but, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, we are talking about areas that are known to have broadband “not spots” and to lack fast mobile provision. It will be difficult to deliver such a legal system in the areas we represent.

Thirdly, Carmarthen is the natural travel hub for the west, north and east of Carmarthenshire. It could take five hours by public transport for someone from Newcastle Emlyn or Llandovery to make it to Llanelli to attend court. The natural transport hub for Carmarthenshire is the county town, so it does not make any sense to close the courts in Carmarthen. Fourthly, as has been mentioned—

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. To get all hon. Members in, we will need to move on. I call Liz Saville Roberts.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate. It is an important topic, and it is particularly important to my rural constituency of Dwyfor Meirionnydd. Fifteen courts were closed across Wales during the last Parliament, and since the 2015 election, a further 14 have either closed or are being earmarked for closure by the UK Government. The proposed closure of Dolgellau magistrates court in my constituency, for example, means cases will need to be transferred to either Caernarfon or Aberystwyth, which, incidentally, is outside the North Wales police region. The issue of inadequate public transport in Wales is well documented, but Members will understand that a journey from Dolgellau to Aberystwyth or Carmarthen is not simply a matter of getting on a tube with an Oyster card. For my constituents in Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and indeed for many people across Wales, it is simply impossible for public transport to get them to a magistrates court for a 9.30 am start.

The Ministry of Justice claims its programme of cuts is necessary to save money, but what will effectively happen is that the cost of providing justice will be passed from the state to the citizen. The cost will still be borne, but by the individual regardless of ability to pay, while the state washes its hands.

I have left out a number of things due to time pressures, which is unfortunate, but I return to the issue of courts. I have a background in teaching through video conferencing, so I welcome the Minister’s commitment last month to undertake a Welsh language impact assessment before coming to conclusions about the future of courts in Wales. On the other hand, I am also interested in efforts to increase access to justice through the use of technology, particularly video technology.

Given the swathes of court closures and the particular problems they will cause in rural parts of Wales, allowing hearings to take place remotely may be welcome. I note however the eight conditions set out by Lord Leveson’s review of efficiency in criminal proceedings in January 2015. He considered those conditions to be prerequisites for remote hearings. The first of them seems obvious, but is in fact crucial: the equipment used and the audio and visual quality should be of a high standard. Given what fellow Members have said, I wonder what consideration has been given to the quality and reliability of digital infrastructure in those areas where courts are to be closed. I particularly urge that consideration is given to Lord Leveson’s recommendation that a committee of criminal justice professionals be charged with identifying best practice for hearings conducted via video link, not only to maintain the gravitas of the court environment, but, more importantly, to ensure that justice outcomes via communications technology are consistent with justice outcomes in a conventional environment.

I also urge the Minister to consider alternative public buildings if a court building—this is understandable—is no longer deemed suitable for 21st-century justice. In the case of Dolgellau, the Meirionnydd council chamber would require little adaptation, and offers such facilities as parking and translation equipment. As an aside, it is also nearer the cells and the police station than the present court—

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. We need to move on. I call Richard Arkless.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I am conscious of something that George Bernard Shaw once said. He apologised for writing a long note because he had not had time to write a short note. I fear I have written rather a long note, but I know you will keep me to delivering a short speech.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing today’s debate and on such a wide-ranging, passionate and practical speech that highlighted some of the real problems with access to justice in Wales. I really hope the Minister will take these matters on board and make some changes. The debate has been phenomenal. We have had contributions from 10 Back Benchers and a visitor from Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless). We have had contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who made a very important point about the Justice Committee and we look forward to a response from the Minister on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) talked about the issue of litigants in person. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). The latter referred to many issues relating to his constituency, but he also referred to an issue that really needs highlighting: the prospect of the accused and the defendant travelling on the same bus. Imagine a victim of domestic violence and the perpetrator on the same rural bus. That is a really important point that shows many of the flaws in the current proposals.

We heard a speech from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on rural communities, especially in mid and west Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) showed his extensive practical experience of legal representation and some of the flaws in the current proposals. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) rightly complained about centralisation, and the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised, among other issues, remote hearings. Labour Members often talk about the importance of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but for this Government and their proposals it is tough if you happen to be a victim of crime, which is very different indeed. It is extraordinary that no Conservative Members are here. They had an increase in numbers at the general election and they are still not here representing the interests of the people of Wales.

There are many problems, but I want to focus on two issues. The first relates to the impact on the Welsh language, which several Members mentioned. Few of us ever have to testify in court, and even fewer will testify against an attacker or an abuser, but, for the people who do, being able to communicate effectively and to hear and understand everything that is said is essential. For many first-language Welsh speakers, that means being able to engage with the court in Welsh. That right goes back nearly 70 years to the Welsh Courts Act 1942, which overturned the ban on Welsh in courts that had been in place since the 16th century.

Everyone can surely speak English, but I refer Members to the words of the Labour peer, Viscount Sankey, during the passage of the Welsh Courts Act:

“No doubt many members of this House read French easily and speak it well; many speak it perfectly; yet how should we like to be examined and cross-examined in French? Should we not be rather nervous and embarrassed witnesses and fail to do ourselves justice?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1942; Vol. 124, c. 662-8.]

I am not sure Members are quite as proficient in French as they probably were in the 1940s, but the point remains that being able to communicate in one’s own language before a court is essential. It is not a nicety. The Ministry of Justice’s own Welsh language scheme admits that the Department has failed to evaluate the linguistic consequences of its policies. Securing the rights of Welsh speakers and promoting the equality of Welsh and English are not optional niceties; they are statutory requirements, and the disregard is positively shameful.

The Welsh Language Commissioner has criticised the way in which the closures have been proposed. As she points out, a

“decision to change the court estate, should aim to promote and facilitate the use of Welsh in Wales.”

We want an answer.

Let us look at the case of Anglesey, or Ynys Môn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn calls it. Some 70% of people on the island have knowledge of Welsh, with 56% describing themselves as Welsh speakers. If I am allowed, I will refer to the Human Rights Act—

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

No.

[Susan Elan Jones]

But I am sure the Minister will speak of the grave omissions in his Government’s policy.

Arrests of Chinese Protesters

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is better than the last one, but I do not think the soundbite quite worked. I do not know because I was not aware of that, so let me find out. If anyone was arrested, I will obviously let the hon. Gentleman and the House know.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

During the visit of President Xi I met a Chinese dissident, Chen Guangcheng—a human rights lawyer who was granted asylum by the Americans. He talked about the pressures that human rights activists are facing in China with the persecution of journalists and of Christians. I appreciate that the Minister is not able to talk about police operations, but it is important that we recognise the sensitivity in countries like China at seeing how democracy operates in Britain and that freedom of speech is respected, as is the freedom to demonstrate. I hope he will make sure that the Metropolitan police are made aware of that.

[Mike Penning]

I am sure that the Metropolitan police are listening to this discussion, but I will also make sure that I mention that in the discussions I have with them. The fact that peaceful demonstrations by thousands of people took place in this country is an example to the world that we can have demonstrations like that. I am not going to go into the issue of what happened with the arrests, but we are a democracy where peace-loving people can demonstrate, and thank goodness they can.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Motor Neurone Disease Association holds no stance on the Bill. I speak as the chair of the all-party group on motor neurone disease.

I am also the chair of the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention. I must say that grave offence will have been caused today to the many people who have lost loved ones to suicide. To talk of this as a suicide-prevention Bill when people have lost loved ones who had much to live for is harmful and hurtful. To use the term “commit” is to wound people who have lost loved ones to suicide. I ask Members never to use the word “commit” in relation to suicide. Suicide is not a crime. You commit murder or you commit an act against the law, but suicide is not against the law.

There has been much talk about how individuals affected by the Bill may be a burden on their families, but nothing about how life may be a burden on those who are dying. I cared for my husband for the last five years, while he was dying, and I saw when life changed to being a burden. He had no capacity to speak, to lift a hand to his mouth or to get on a train or a plane to go to Switzerland, so the Bill would not have affected him in the way that a letter that came to me affected me when somebody said that I should vote for the Bill because of my husband.

I believe that it is Parliament’s job to look at the will of the people and to consider the difficult choices in front of society. Therefore, consideration of the Bill should not be ended in the Chamber today; it must go into Committee and be debated. We must be honest with the people and have a full and frank debate.

I am aware of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my one concern about the Bill is in relation to the DS1500. For those who are looking confused, the DS1500 is the form that your GP gives you that says you are terminally ill. It is a passport to benefits that are absolutely critical for the dying. Do not allow GPs who are opposed to the legislation to use it as a way of withholding those benefits from people who desperately need them. We must find something else.

We must have this debate, and we must carry it on.

Police Widows Pensions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which was precisely the trigger that made me find the campaign so compelling. The changes made last November for the armed forces should apply in the same way, retrospectively. Despite the fact that Governments do not like retrospective legislation, the precedent has been set—he is absolutely right.

I will run through the technical issue to which my hon. Friend just referred. The campaign that Cathryn Hall is leading is to some extent about fairness. Before 2006, police widows, widowers or surviving civil partners automatically lost their pension if they remarried or lived with a new partner. That effectively compelled them and their dependents to choose between future financial security but loneliness at home, and the opportunity for happiness, but with the financial loss of the pension.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not just the widows, but the children who are impacted by these decisions? As a Parliament, we talk a great deal about the importance of children being brought up within a loving family. If we are condemning widows and widowers to live alone and to have their children outside of a loving family, that is also wrong and something we should address and right.

[Richard Graham]

As so often, the hon. Lady makes a good point. Children are often the people we do not mention when we discuss these issues, but they can suffer the most. I am grateful to her.

What changed in 2006 was society’s perception of fairness, and the new scheme in 2006 recognised that. All new recruits since 2006 and anyone who transferred to the new scheme—there were some who did not—now knows that should the worst happen, their loved ones will receive their pension for life, irrespective of whether the survivor remarries or forms a new partnership. That applies to unmarried but cohabiting partners, too. The new regulations did not apply retrospectively to those who had left the service before 2006 or had died before that date. For those who are penalised in that way, such as Cathryn Hall, the many who are here today and the other 800 to 900 widows and widowers—most of them are widows—it must be frustrating to have remarried and seen financial disadvantage relative to those who were widowed later. It is an issue of fairness.

Things have changed. The regulations on police pensions in Northern Ireland changed last year and, more significantly, a very similar rule was amended for the armed forces so that from April this year, all widows and widowers of our armed forces can remarry or live with a new partner without losing their pension. That change is retrospective, and it sets a precedent for further change. What is true for soldiers, sailors and airmen and women is also true for our police. Having to deal with the consequences of a husband or wife having died in the course of duty is no less ghastly if that happened on the streets of one of our cities, rather than a dusty path in Helmand province. I hope that the Minister, who has seen active service in uniform, will be sympathetic to the case being made. In an e-mail that he sent to Cathryn Hall fairly recently, he rightly highlighted that it is appropriate for Ministers to be able to make changes when a compelling case is made. I know that the Minister is a man who understands the duties of those who serve in uniform, and the responsibilities of Government to those who are left behind when they are either killed or die in accidents while on duty. I also know that his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), is supportive of the case being made by the group of widows and widowers who care so passionately about the opportunity for happiness and to retain their pension.

[Richard Graham]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government do have a good record of trying to right problems and issues inherited from the past—one could call them historical leftovers. It is to the benefit of many people when a Government are able to tackle such issues with the fairness and justice they deserve. That is why today’s debate is timely. It comes some three months after the Government rightly addressed what could be described as an injustice for the widows and widowers of members of the armed forces. Today’s debate gives the Minister for Policing an opportunity to spell out the challenges, in his view, in getting a similar injustice addressed for the widows and widowers of the constabularies of this country.

There are many such cases. This morning I have met widows from Scotland, Lancashire, Yorkshire and all parts of southern England, as well as two from my own county. I am wearing a badge on their behalf, and all the widows and widowers present are wearing it as well, as a symbol of their unity in trying to resolve the problems with the 1987 police pension scheme.

[Mrs Moon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way very briefly?

[Richard Graham]

Very briefly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Moon]

I just want to ensure that the House knows that Diane Burns is here from Wales as well. We have representation from throughout the UK.

[Richard Graham]

Yes; the hon. Lady has spoken for Wales.

I hope the Minister will address the fundamental problem. I understand that his dilemma is one of trying to balance different issues, not least that of cost, which is always on the mind of any Government—perhaps this one in particular, bearing in mind the huge debts that were inherited—but I want the Minister to consider one particular point today. In his letter of 11 February, he wrote to me:

“You mentioned in your letter the changes made in respect of Armed Forces widows’ pensions. The special circumstances of military personnel and their families presented a compelling argument for that change, supported by the Armed Force covenant. Armed Forces personnel have often been moved with little notice around the world and have been encouraged to take their families with them.”

Although it was certainly the case historically that armed forces personnel were often posted around the world with their families, the situation has changed considerably.

Police officers have been posted all around the country and, indeed, as the Minister knows, in Northern Ireland, in situations of difficulty. There is at least one widow present today whose husband was on duty with the police force in Bosnia, and there will be others in Cyprus and other parts of the world. If the argument in favour of armed forces widows’ pensions is about their being moved and so not being able to create a normal working life and build up a pension of their own, the same argument can be made—to a considerable extent, at least—for the families of serving police officers. I hope that argument will not be used to prevent the widows and widowers who have signed Cathryn Hall’s petition from receiving justice.

Women Offenders and Older Prisoners

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Amess, but I have to leave before the end of the debate, because I have to meet a distinguished visitor who is coming to address the Defence Committee. I shall be as brief as possible.

I have listened to one of the speeches in today’s debate more than once this week, and I have to say that I have not found myself agreeing with one iota of it on either occasion. I find it most worrying when people say that equality means sameness. Equality is not about things being the same. If it was, we would expect someone with a disability to be able to do the same as somebody who does not have a disability, and, if we asked them to do the same things, we would say that was because we were treating them equally, but we would not be treating them equally; we would be treating one of them unfairly. Equality is not about sameness.

I want to discuss why we use prison and the impact of prison on women. I have always thought that prison was there for risks of harm, and in particular for those people who are a risk to public safety. If we look at the figures from various research establishments, we will see that the majority of women prisoners are themselves victims. Many have been the victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse. Many are serving short, rather than long, sentences for the offences they have committed. Many are sentenced to community-based alternatives, with lower levels of expectation in those sentences, because the crimes they have committed have been less violent. To give some figures to show how violent offences among young girls have fallen, in 2006-07, there were just over 17,000 convictions for violent offences committed by young girls; in 2009-10, that figure was down to 13,000. It is also interesting to drill down into the figures and see the reasons why women’s offences are committed: for example, 48% of women’s offences were committed in support of someone else’s drug use, often a male partner’s.

Members will be aware that I have been concerned for some time about how we are using the criminal justice system instead of the mental health system to deal with people with mental health problems. A woman in prison is nearly twice as likely as a man to have had depression—65% of women in prison had depression before they were there, as opposed to 37% of men. The incidence of depression among women who have been convicted of offences is three times greater than among women in the general population. If we look at what the public want for women offenders, we find that they want more drug treatment, alcohol treatment and mental health treatment, and more debt advice, because it is generally accepted that those are the drivers of a large percentage of crimes committed by women.

In 2011 there were 1.2 million convictions, of which 24% were of women. According to the figures for why men and women have been convicted, 52% of the convictions for theft and handling of stolen goods were of women, and 33% were of men. Women are often engaged in petty theft—they are more often the shoplifters, and are more often shoplifting as a way of supplementing their household income or supporting a member of their family. It is not done for self-gain; it is a way of dealing with domestic and personal circumstances.

In 2011, 24,000 women in prison were self-harming. That rate was 10 times higher than the rate for men. As for the figures for mental health diagnosis, 30% of women had had a psychiatric admission before going to prison; 63% of women had been diagnosed with a neurotic or personality disorder, as opposed to 40% of men; and 14% of women had a psychotic disorder, as opposed to 7% of men. We are using our prison system to house women with mental health problems.

In a recent debate in this Chamber, we looked at the criminal justice system and how the police are increasingly having to deal with people with mental health problems because the health service refuses to deal with them, because they are seen as too violent or have a learning disability or drug or alcohol problem. As a result, those people end up in the criminal justice system. During that debate, I talked about a young person in my constituency. I want to highlight that young person again as an example of someone who should not be in the criminal justice system. We have been asked to talk about somebody who should not be in prison; well, she is a young person who should not be.

My constituent is 23. She is about a size 8. I have known her since she was a baby, and she is an absolute little darling, but she has quite severe mental health problems. When—and only when—she cannot cope, because she is in mental crisis and her brain is so dysfunctional that she cannot cope with life, she uses alcohol. The alcohol causes her behaviour and personality to change. Some time ago, she was placed under an antisocial behaviour order. The police have been called to 130 incidents in relation to this young person; she has been in court 81 times and has served 19 terms of imprisonment. She came out from her 18th term just after the debate on mental health and the criminal justice system that I initiated in this Chamber.

I had spoken to the police and the probation services about this young woman. Everybody was desperate for her not to go back into prison again—they knew it was wrong for her—but she is becoming so institutionalised now that prison is the place where the boundaries are there to contain her mental disorder. Just before Christmas, things went very badly wrong again and she went back to court. Everyone went to court to beg that she not be sent back to prison again, and she was sectioned. On Christmas day, she rang her parents and said, “I want to say goodbye.” She was in a psychiatric ward. Her parents got through to the main switchboard there and said, “For God’s sake, get to our daughter—she is going to kill herself.” When the staff broke into her room, she was unconscious, with a rope around her neck. Only by a miracle did they bring her back. A few days later, the psychiatrist decided that she had a personality disorder and discharged her. In desperation, she drank again and was sent back to prison.

That is a young person who should not be in the criminal justice system, and there must be many more like her. We are wasting vast amounts of money and we are wasting courts’ time serving sentences on such people in the criminal justice system, when in fact we ought to be using our health services to find appropriate treatment and care for such women and such people.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I wish to speak briefly to new clauses 1 and 4, both of which I have co-signed with Her Majesty’s official Opposition. The Government do not want new clause 1 in the Bill because they are concerned that, in due course, they will not win the vote in either House of Parliament because, frankly, what they are proposing does not add up to much. At the end of last year, the official Opposition held a debate on the Government’s plans to restructure probation work and, until that point, the Justice Secretary had refused to answer for his plans on the Floor of the House. During that debate, many of us outlined why we thought it baffling that the Government should want to target the probation service, a service that is so high performing and where the numbers speak for themselves.

The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that none of the 35 probation trusts is currently showing cause for “serious concern” and none “require development”; and that 31 of the trusts are “showing good performance” and four are “performing exceptionally”. In 2011-12, victim feedback was positive in 98% of cases; 80% of orders or licences were completed successfully; and 49% of offenders were in employment at the end of their orders and 89% were in accommodation. Reoffending rates were better than predicted in both England and Wales, and the probation service met all its targets in 2012. The service achieved a successful completion rate of 81% for participants of sex offender treatment programmes and exceeded its completion targets on domestic violence interventions. In October 2011, the probation service became the only public sector organisation to be awarded the British Quality Foundation award. The board said that the service was

“on the right path to achieving and sustaining excellence and essentially to being the best providers of these essential services.”

The reoffending rate among those sentenced to more than 12 months but less than four years is 36.2%, while among those serving between four and 10 years it is 30.7%. As we know, the reoffending rate for individuals sentenced to less than 12 months—the cohort that currently, by and large, receives no supervision, despite some probation trusts asking for the authority to take control of them—stands much higher, at 58.5%. That takes us to the crux of the argument. Everybody in this Chamber agrees that something has to be done, but we disagree about how it should be done, because what the Government have proposed is untried, untested and downright dangerous.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I endorse everything the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the excellent service that the current probation service provides. Is not part of the problem that the Government are failing to address a major problem, which is the reoffending by people with mental health conditions? If we tackled mental health and mental health services rather than imprisoned people, we could cut some of that reoffending more dramatically than we could by privatising the service.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Lady, who has taken an interest in this subject for many years, as have I, is absolutely correct. I would go a bit further and say that if we dealt with mental health problems and drug addiction, we could empty about 40% of prisoners from prisons tomorrow without any danger—had we got the safety net out in the community.

The Government are taking a drastic step without having any proven record of any possible success. Unlike with some services that are privatised, there is an inherent danger to the public in all this. I agree fully with the Opposition when they say that we want the thing tried and tested. That is not a political scam to try to stop it. I would like it stopped, but let us also be honest and say that we are where we are and we should at least see whether these plans will work. That surely is a common-sense thing to do, but time and time again, in the Public Bill Committee and in all the other debates, we have been unable to persuade the Government to pause and to think carefully about why they initiated their two pilots previously. Why did they do that if they were that unconcerned and the pilots were bound to succeed?

The Secretary of State, who drifted in and out here today, in typical fashion, has said in some debates, “You do things sometimes because they are right.” I am sure that is right, but it is a bit risky to have a messianic view of life and say, “Because they are new and are being tried now, they have got to be right. What’s right is right.” That is absolute balderdash and I am afraid he will eat those words in the next two or three years. I hope not, but there will be a danger in this system.

As we are all aware, what will be left of the public sector probation service will work with victims, hostels and offenders who pose a high risk of harm. The remaining 70% of cases—the low-risk and medium-risk offenders—will be managed by the private sector under the model that we are talking about. The point has already been made that such risks vary—they can vary from day to day or from week to week. I do not know how the system will be managed, but co-location has been mentioned. I am not sure whether that will work, but, again, it is a matter of crossing one’s fingers and hoping for the best.

There are serious concerns about the payment-by-results model, most of which I will briefly outline with regard to another amendment that would compel the Government to pilot the plans before implementing them across the board. To some relief, we find that G4S and Serco will not be coming in on this, although they do know a lot about criminality.

Under the proposals, private companies will be responsible for the majority of cases involving domestic violence, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, violence against the person and gang-related crimes. That is highly sensitive work, which clearly requires trained professionals with experience of how to deal with victims and perpetrators of such complex crimes. It is highly unlikely that the private sector will prioritise holistic initiatives such as work with victims of crime. I am afraid that it will be driven by profit rather than levels of care. Many individuals who come into contact with the probation service have one or more mental health problems. They may have suffered abuse, have substance misuse issues, literacy problems and poor educational attainment. Such people need to be signposted to the proper avenues for care and support. They are highly damaged individuals and require special attention.

The proposals will compromise public protection and provide a perverse incentive for private companies not to put resources into decreasing offending behaviour. There are also numerous possibilities for conflicts of interest, the tackling of which is the aim of another amendment that I have co-signed.

The Social Market Foundation has argued that payment by results incentivises an increase in offending. To understand that, it is important to note that the Government have decided that a private company will neither be penalised nor rewarded for an increase or decrease in offending of 3% either way. Ostensibly, that is to take account of the fact that external factors can have an impact on offending rates. In practice, however, it would mean that private companies would have to achieve a 4% decrease in offending before being rewarded. They will simply not invest that amount of money when there is no guarantee of a return on their investment. Unfortunately, it is far more likely that the companies will make a profit by delivering court orders in the cheapest way possible by opening call centres. Understandably, the National Association of Probation Officers—the experts on this—is worried, and legitimately I would say.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) referred to the GMB union. It is a question not of union versus anybody else but of what works and what does not work. NAPO has had experience over many years, and I have already referred to its successes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, particularly the first point, which is indeed good news. I was not a member of the Public Bill Committee and so might have missed some changes that have been made.

[Mrs Moon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Meg Hillier]

Yes, but I will just finish responding to the Minister’s intervention.

On the Minister’s second point, I hear what he says, but there is always a risk that someone might be miscategorised and dealt with by an employee who is of a lower grade. The Minister says that they will be qualified, but they will be of a lower grade than fully qualified probation officers, and that decision might need to be made in the other direction. Perhaps he can reassure us on that point when he responds.

[Mrs Moon]

I should have waited for my hon. Friend to finish responding to the Minister before seeking to intervene, because she has just covered the point I wanted to make. It is not about the level of skills, but the qualification, because the qualification provides a background of knowledge that enforces and informs the way in which a probation officer acts. Someone who is deemed to be skilled might actually be unqualified, so it is important to have the qualification and the experience and skills.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments.

I am also worried about some of the companies that might come into this. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and I challenged the big public sector providers that appeared before us recently on whether they would bid for contracts in areas where they had no experience. They all denied that they would, but we have seen, in the Public Accounts Committee, in other Committees and on the Floor of the House, example after example of companies that bid for contracts because they are good at bidding but that do not actually have a background in delivering the relevant service. They then have to backfill by recruiting people to take on those jobs. I have dealt with the Minister on constituency matters and know him to be assiduous, and I am sure that he will bear that point in mind, but I think that it is worth reiterating that it is a very serious matter. Companies should not be bidding for huge contracts in areas where they have no experience because that fragments the service.

Fragmentation can be good where there is specialism, where there are smaller contracts, perhaps run by specialist voluntary sector groups, or indeed by private companies if they have the necessary level of expertise, but they have to work together. We are in danger of seeing another approach whereby the MOJ and the Government put out big contracts and the smaller specialist providers simply do not get a look in. They might get the odd crumb from the big contractors’ table, but they will be squeezed out. That is particularly true in mental health, one of the local concerns in my constituency.

There is an important concern about local accountability. I am a great supporter of extending freedom of information in the first instance, even with limitations, to private sector companies that deliver public contracts paid for by the taxpayer. It should be the tax pound that determines whether there is freedom of information, not the nature of the delivery body. Most parties in the House support some degree of contracting out, but we need to ensure that transparency is built in. Companies have told the Public Accounts Committee that they are in favour of a much greater degree of transparency, so perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to challenge them to stand up for what they say and make that part of the bidding process.

New clause 4 is important—I will not repeat all the arguments Members have made—because we need proper scrutiny. If we look at reoffending as a whole, we see that there are other ways of looking at it, for example by looking at mental health support or the Work programme. We know that offenders who come out of prison with a job are less likely to reoffend, but does the Work programme, which is provided by another Government Department, go into prisons to ensure that offenders have jobs for when they leave? Perhaps we should be challenging them to step up to the mark and provide job opportunities as a major plank of what we all want to see: less reoffending, particularly by offenders given short-term sentences.

In summary, the Public Accounts Committee has seen far too many poorly managed large Government contracts. The Cabinet Office is pushing hard to see that procurement is done in a different way that allows smaller companies a bite of the Government contract cherry and to stop the big companies being able to snaffle public money without being held properly to account. This is an opportunity for the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, allowing something in the contract to ensure that the big companies are required to work effectively with the small companies and not, as many of them do, to dodge their responsibilities later by saying, “Actually, we can’t quite deliver what we promised, so we’ll do it differently, but we’ve taken it all on.” That is often how they get around that. That will need constant monitoring and an audit of what happens with the contract. If this is to go ahead, I urge the Minister to tell us how the Government plan to audit the impact and the delivery of the service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Moon]

I, too, have listened with great patience to the hon. Gentleman and have considered whether it is worth bothering to intervene. However, I must reiterate the point on community sentences and the selective passage he has read out. The fact is that eight out of 10 women who receive prison sentences have committed non-violent offences. That is why they have less onerous conditions in their community sentences. I draw his attention to the Corston report and the Prison Reform Trust report, “Lacking Conviction”. Instead of getting out more, he needs to stay in and read more.

[Philip Davies]

To be perfectly honest—I am trying to think of the polite way to describe that—what the hon. Lady says is utter garbage. It is utter rot. The idea that women are sent to prison for short sentences and non-violent offences is a myth—it is a big myth, but it is a myth. At any one time, there are about 3,700 women in prison. Perhaps she will tell the House which ones she believes should not be there. Perhaps it is the 211 who are in prison for murder; the 135 in for manslaughter or attempted homicide; the 352 in for wounding; the 142 in for serious assaults or other violence against the person; or the 58 in for cruelty to children. Perhaps she means the 58 who are in there for cruelty to children; or the 83 who are in for rape, gross indecency with children or other sexual offences. Perhaps she means the 272 women in prison for violent robbery. Perhaps she means the 151 who are in there for burglary. Perhaps she thinks the 398 drug dealers should not be in prison. Perhaps she means the 91 arsonists; the 24 convicted of violent disorder; the 45 in there for kidnapping and blackmail; or the 192 in there for serious fraud and forgeries. Perhaps she means the 320 in prison for importing drugs into the country, which end up being sold on our streets. She might mean the 111 others serving time for other serious drug offences. The hon. Lady might believe those people should not be in prison, but they are not non-violent, minor offences. It is a disgrace for her to suggest to the victims of those crimes that they are the victims of minor, non-violent offences. She should be absolutely, utterly ashamed of herself for suggesting that. That is the type of nonsense we have had to deal with in the debate for many years. I am delighted that I can shine a light on the utter rot that people like her have spouted year after year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

I want to speak in support of new clauses 2 and 3 and in support of veterans.

About five years ago I was approached by an ex-colleague who asked me to meet a group he was working with. Tony Wright was that colleague and he is an ex-Marine. He had to leave the Marines as a young man because of an injury and he went into the social services, ending up in the probation service. Everywhere he went he bumped into people who had gone through experiences similar to his. They had left the forces, sometimes under a shadow and sometimes not, and they had lost their way. He had become increasingly concerned about their well-being and eventually decided to do something about it, and five years ago he set up a group called About Turn, which has now become the charity Forward Assist. Tony asked me to become a patron of the charity. After sitting down with some of the people he works with, I said I would be very pleased to help them.

Three years ago, Tony won a Winston Churchill scholarship to travel to America. One of the first places he went to was Buffalo. He went to some courts that had been spoken about, and he was blown away by his experience there. The whole thing was based on comradeship. People who had gone the wrong way in life were being pulled back by the people in those courts. Everybody from the judge downwards was ex-service personnel and their determination that nobody would fail was what made things succeed. As we have heard already today, so far, in five years, not one person has gone back to crime—not one person. We should compare that with any other form of justice system.

As a result of that visit, Tony asked me if I would go with him to Arkansas to try to develop a link between Tyneside and Arkansas. The intention was not only to develop a civic link, but to develop a veterans exchange project. I went with him last December. While we were there, we were invited to go and meet Judge Mary McGowan, who runs one of the courts in Little Rock in Arkansas. She originally ran the drugs court, but after a discussion about drugs courts she decided—along with a gentleman called Rob McDonald, who was a prosecutor at the time—to set up the veterans treatment court. We sat in and listened to the court in action and spoke to people who were going through the system and we realised that this was something that could really work.

One issue we have not got our heads around was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd): are we saying that these people are a special case? I think the answer to that has got to be yes. They are a special case because of what Members in this Chamber ask of them. We ask them to go around the world and to be prepared to die for us and to be prepared to kill for us, and if they refuse to kill for us, they will do time in jail. That is the complete opposite to the norm. We ask these people to do abnormal things. If somebody fires a gun at us, we run away. When somebody fires a gun at service personnel, they run towards them. When these people come out of the forces, what happens to them?

I will describe some experiences. A meeting was hosted by Mr Speaker in the House of Lords last year. There were about 10 to 12 men ranging from guys in their 20s to a gentleman who was 92 and who had been a tail-gunner in world war two. One of these guys told a story about when he came out of the services. He sat down with his wife and said, “Whatever you do, don’t ever leave me alone with the children, because I’m not sure I can cope with them.” Is that not really, really frightening? At least the man had the nous to accept his potential shortcomings. Another one told his story. Everything was normal in his life except that every time he went to bed, he got a panic attack. When he thought it through, he realised the cause was the simple act of turning the bedroom light off, because the switch reminded him of the time he was walking along with a friend who was killed by a booby-trap that was triggered by an electrical switch. That was put right by putting dimmer switches into his home. These are the sorts of situations that we, as ordinary people who send those guys out there, would never ever think about.

I talked with another guy who for 10 years had been given the wrong medication because nobody had realised that he had been in the forces. When that fact came out and people started trying to work out the causes of his problems, it was discovered that they stemmed from the fact that he was the only man who jumped out of a burning tank that still had his friends inside. After that discussion had taken place, the way in which he was looked after completely changed, and he is now on the right track and working towards a normal life.

When we came back from Arkansas, I was proud to invite people from the US to Newcastle to develop a link, and to discuss the Buffalo veterans treatment court. We held a seminar in Newcastle in May, which was addressed by Prosecutor Rob MacDonald who had come across from the United States. Lord Beecham was also there. He is a former leader of Newcastle city council, and a gentleman with whom I have had the privilege of working for more than a quarter of a century. He had never heard about the courts before, but he was instantly able to see how important they were. I asked him whether they could work in Britain and he said, “There’s no reason why they can’t work, Dave. We have the models; we already have family courts. We could adapt that model and we could make this work if we really wanted to.” He came back here, and he and Lord Ramsbotham tabled amendments in the House of Lords. Unfortunately, none has been accepted so far, but I am glad that progress is being made.

We are talking about giving people a purpose in life and a reason to get out of bed in the morning. We are not talking about people who have committed really serious crimes. This is about men and women who have committed crimes almost as a cry for help because they have no money or because they do not understand the chaotic world that we live in today. They have had a structured life and, all of a sudden, that life has been pulled away from them. This is about helping them to make a difference.

As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) mentioned, we went to Washington with the Northern Ireland Committee last year to meet prosecutors and others involved with the veterans treatment courts. Some members of the Committee were, to put it mildly, cynical about them. Some, unlike myself, have a legal background. No one pretended that the courts provided a magic wand, but when it was explained how they worked, those Committee members agreed that this was something we should pursue. The veterans treatment court in Buffalo was the first, and more than 100 are now up and running. I think that two have been given up on, but the rest are reporting really positive results. They also link into the work being done on drugs, because the link between drugs and the activities that the veterans get involved in is hugely relevant.

I am often loth to push the American experience, but the way in which the Veterans Administration was set up can teach us some lessons. For example, it can teach us about the horrible experiences that came out of Vietnam. Vietnam veterans were treated disgracefully in America, but somewhere along the line, the light went on and the Americans realised that that was wrong, and that they should not blame those men and women for the mistakes made by the politicians. The work that has been done since is a great example to us all. It covers a huge range of things, and it shows us how we can learn to treat people properly.

I am a great advocate of the national health service. People in this country tend to think that if someone has a problem, the NHS can put it right. Well, it can be put right if people happen to put all the pieces together. As I have said, one of the biggest pieces is the ability to realise that a man is where he is because of his experiences —not because he is inherently violent or because he has a mental or physical problem but because of what he has gone through, and what we have put him through.

There is a raft of information available from America on how big this problem can be. A recent seminar held there under the auspices of Justice for Vets estimated that, in 2010, about 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and that almost 50% of the people who had been in those theatres of war were seen to be suffering from traumatic brain injury. The numbers are huge compared with those we have seen in previous wars. This is about the changing nature of war, and about being exposed to the real world of modern-day warfare 24 hours a day. That is very different from what people experienced before.

That does not mean that veterans from earlier wars do not have the same problems. The group I work with in Newcastle has a guy from world war two and people who went through the situation in Aden. Those events are still as live to them today as they were 50 years ago or more. They lost friends there, for example. Those who served in Northern Ireland also played their part in trying to put things right over there. There are huge issues involved in how we deal with those people, and we need to be aware of how we can help them.

A psychiatrist we met in Little Rock said, “You need to understand that a tsunami of mental health problems is going to hit this nation in the same way as it hit ours.” We know that the number who went from these shores was small compared with those who left America, but the number who are coming back with problems is big. I am not saying, and I would not like to be portrayed as saying, that everybody who goes to war and everybody in the services will have these problems, because they will not, as we know. Lots of people make a good new life for themselves and move forward, but the ones who are not able to do that deserve special care from us in this House.

One of the real issues was touched on by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd—the numbers. Some of us from a group in Tyneside met one of the Justice Ministers just before Christmas, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked through this issue. What is clear is that nobody really knows how many people from the forces are in jail. A gentleman called Colin Back works on rehabilitating the forces to get them back into work, and he has done work in the south-east of England. He reckons that we could be talking about almost 12% of this population, which is hugely more than the official figures suggest. So as part of the review and the ongoing work, we need to get these figures to see how big the problem is. If we can get a fraction of those people out of that situation, that would be the right thing to do, not only for them and for us, but for the economy. If these people are in work, if their families do not need special support and if there is no family break-up, we will not have probation on the side and prisons that are too full—everybody will win, and that is the great beauty of it.

I am really pleased that the commission has been set up. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is exactly the right man to lead on it, and I ask him to come over the Pennines as quickly as he can. He will be made to feel welcome in the north-east, because people there have lived through this, and although I am telling their story, I can never relate to it in the way they can. These people have been given a lifeline and they want us to help them, and we should do so. Part of that is about supporting these provisions. If the Government decide not to support them, I ask them to do the work regardless.

[Mrs Moon]

I will be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am aware that the Minister needs to wind up. I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for tabling the new clause, to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for the work he has done and to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). On the work the hon. Gentleman is going to undertake, may I urge him to ensure that whatever we bring forward and whatever is recommended, appropriate research is done and data collected to sit alongside it? What will be important is to learn a huge amount from this, not just about the number of people who will need the support of the veterans courts, but about the effectiveness of having specialist courts that will advise on the most appropriate way to prevent reoffending.

One question that has been raised was how we are going to define “a veteran”. The importance of reservists has been mentioned, so I will not go back over that in the way that I had planned. We have to recognise that post-traumatic stress disorder and mental health conditions relating to service do not necessarily happen on return. I know that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is very aware of that, but we must ensure that we clearly identify who will be eligible for veterans courts. We must not just discount people because their service took place years ago. It was suggested that an 18-year-old who had joined the services but not completed basic training might not be suitable. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the research on suicide carried out by Professor Nav Kapur at Manchester university, because it shows that the highest number of people who have served in the armed forces and are likely to go on to take their own life are found among exactly that group? Often that is because they have been failed by society because they have gone through the care system and, yet again, they feel that they have been failed.

In collecting that data, can we please look at how many of those people who go on to reoffend have gone through the care system? That is critical information, because we know for a fact that many people who end up in the criminal justice system have served time in our care system and have already been failed by society. Let us use this opportunity constructively and creatively to look at how we can tackle reoffending and to ensure that we offer the best way forward to reducing it. We have an opportunity to be not punitive or negative but constructive and creative. I look forward to the work that will come forward. If I can help in any way, I look forward to doing so.

Mental Health (Police Procedures)

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I look forward to this debate under your excellent chairmanship, Mr Brady. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this debate on a most important subject and I am pleased to see the interest, that the turnout here today shows.

The poor quality of life and of the services available to people struggling to live with mental ill health has been the subject of previous debates in the House. This debate relates to police involvement with people with mental ill health, particularly during times of mental health crisis. Mental health crisis, as defined by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, is

“when the mind is at melting point”.

It may involve an immediate risk of self-harm or suicide, extreme anxiety, panic attacks or a psychotic episode. How we treat the most vulnerable in society lies at the heart of our values. We made a decision not to hide away the sick and disabled, as we had hidden them away in the past in asylums and institutions, but we still have a long way to go in granting them equal status in society and equal access to justice.

The Mind report “At risk, yet dismissed” shows that those who suffer from mental ill health are three times more likely to be victims of crime. Shockingly, 50% of people with some form of mental ill health have experienced a crime in the past year, and severely ill women with mental ill health are 10 times more likely to have been assaulted. Crimes are less likely to be reported and prosecuted, because people with mental ill health fear being dismissed or disbelieved. Sadly, the evidence shows that more often than not they are. How does the Minister plan to improve police understanding of mental ill health and ensure more accurate recording of such crimes, and will he give a commitment to greater investigation and prosecution for such offences?

Another reason for not reporting is fear of police powers in relation to mental ill health. Too often, between 5 pm and 9 am during the week, at weekends and on bank holidays, police officers are the only first responders available in a mental health crisis, despite the fact that they lack the medical knowledge, skills and training to resolve and manage the crisis. They respond not because there is a real and immediate threat to members of the public, but because mental health services are understaffed, under-resourced and overstretched, and lack facilities.

For example, Miss P, who is 23 and a size 8, is a sweet, loving young girl who has suffered mental ill health for most of her life. She finds it difficult to build relationships and she is lousy at keeping appointments. She does not drink alcohol, except when she is in mental health crisis, and when she does, she turns into a violent and abusive person. Local mental health services concede that she needs a specialist placement, but they cannot find one. In the past five years, police have been called to 130 incidents and attended court to give evidence for 81 offences, resulting in 18 terms of imprisonment. The gaps between her prison sentences are becoming briefer—days, not weeks—and her self-harming and suicide attempts are escalating. The cost to that young girl, her family, the police, the courts, the probation service and the Prison Service is huge. I am told that it approaches £1 million, all for one young girl.

When the Minister sums up, I hope he will address this critical question: how much longer will we expect our police services to process vulnerable people through the criminal justice system due to mental health, underfunding and failures?

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on securing this debate. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, as a result of the work done by her and others, the Select Committee on Home Affairs will be looking into this issue, with a possible report next summer.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the study by Nottingham university, published in May this year, which shows that 56% of custody officers suffer from depression and anxiety? It is not just the victims of crime, but the officers themselves. Is it not right that the new College of Policing should carefully consider the issue of training?

[Mrs Moon]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes excellent information available to the House. I am delighted to hear of the study to be made next year by his Committee, which is highly regarded across the House. He is right to focus on mental ill health among police. It is little surprise, given the amount and range of incidents with which we require them to deal. That is why we must ensure that the police are called to attend only incidents that they can deal with and that they have the skills and capability to manage, so they do not go home at the end of their shift feeling guilty and bereft about an incident that they may perceive they dealt with badly. My right hon. Friend made a most helpful intervention, and I thank him.

The Centre for Mental Health states that police are the first point of contact for a person in mental health crisis and that up to 15% of police incidents have a mental health dimension. Other people have told me that mental health interventions occupy up to 30% of police time. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recognises that in some areas police cells are the routine place of safety, under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, when a mental health crisis requires urgent assessment and management. Many of those detained come from socially deprived backgrounds, and some black and minority ethnic groups are over-represented.

The Royal College reports considerable geographic variation in the use of police cells. During 2012-13, five police areas recorded more than 500 uses of police-based section 136 places of safety, while four areas recorded 10 or fewer uses, and one had zero. The difference was that the latter areas had better health-based services and facilities. Will the Minister undertake to talk with the Department of Health about the urgent need for commissioning boards to provide an adequate number of staffed health-based places of safety in every part of the country? At present, 36% of all places of safety under section 136 are thought to involve police custody. In 2011-12, an estimated 8,000 to 11,000 orders were made, with 347 involving under-18s. Will the Minister ensure that accurate figures on how often and in what circumstances police officers are called to deal with mental health crises are available, so that we can get a clear picture of the problem?

People held by police under section 136 are, as I have said, the most acutely vulnerable. One study found that in 81% of cases involving police-based places of safety, the person was self-harming or suicidal. The Independent Police Complaints Commission found that 35% of deaths in police custody involve people with mental ill health. Alarming reports from Inquest show that a number of those deaths are linked to police restraint techniques, and that 65 people took their lives within two days of leaving a police place of safety. Between 20% and 30% of people held on section 136 detentions in police cells were subsequently sectioned.

The impact on time and costs associated with police engagement in mental ill health has never been calculated accurately, but it is clear that, in a variety of ways, health service costs are being passed to the police services. It is common for police officers taking people in mental health crisis to accident and emergency or medical-based places of safety for an assessment to be told, “There’s no bed available”, “The person is too drunk”, “They are under the influence of drugs”, “They are aggressive”, “They are a child”, or, “They have a learning disability”, all of which condemn that person in crisis to a night in police custody. How much longer can we allow these informal exclusion criteria around drugs, alcohol, aggression, children and learning disabilities to continue?

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making all the points that are in my notes—although I was intending not to speak in the debate, but merely to intervene. That is exactly what local police officers have said to me. They feel uncomfortable about the police having to perform that role and becoming the place of safety of last resort. Several parents of adult sons who can be difficult and dangerous have come to me. They are reluctant to call for help when they feel that they are under threat or that their son may threaten other people, because they do not want them to be in the police system—they do not want to criminalise them— but they know that there is nowhere else they can refer them to.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes an excellent case for ensuring that crisis intervention teams are available with the skills and capability to understand and manage mental health problems. These are not the skills that we provide our police officers with; this is the skills base that we provide our mental health nursing professionals with, which is why specialist crisis teams in mental health services must be expanded and made generally available.

Places of safety in bridewells remove police staff from the front line, as they supervise and monitor vulnerable, at-risk individuals and arrange mental health assessments. The Health and Social Care Information Centre found that, even where a place of safety was health based, in 74% of cases transportation was provided by police, not the ambulance service. The police were providing an ambulance/taxi service.

More than 40,500 patients absconded from mental health units in the past five years. Again, police officers are expected to find and return these individuals, even when they pose no risk to wider society. Then there are calls to respond to understaffed mental health units where a patient’s behaviour is deemed to be unmanageable. These are not tasks for police officers. To quote the Police Federation:

“Police officers should not be called to mental health premises to assist in the restraint of aggressive/violent patients. Mental health professionals are trained in the control and restraint of mentally ill patients and have powers to sedate them, whereas police officers are trained to subdue, restrain and arrest violent people.”

Inquest, Mind and others have highlighted the risks of police restraint, as opposed to mental health restraint techniques. I welcome the Royal College of Nursing study into restraint techniques. I also welcome the nine pilot street triage schemes operating across the 43 police forces where mental health nurses are either available with police officers responding or available to consult. The schemes are making a huge difference, but we cannot wait until 2015 for them to be assessed and reviewed before we put them in place across the public sphere.

We need suitably staffed hospital places of safety in all areas, catering for all age groups and available 24 hours a day, so that police stations are used only in exceptional circumstances. We also need section 136 to be used less by better, improved mental health services generally—however, I want to focus on removing the police from the equation. We need accurate data—a point I have already raised with the Minister—on the use of section 136 in the police service. The report from the independent commission on mental health and policing states:

“We need to ensure the culture within policing is one that recognises their role in supporting people in crisis and their responsibilities under the Mental Health Act.”

There needs to be a higher level of training and awareness for police officers. The online training that is currently available is just not good enough. Some forces have teamed up with community groups, local health trusts and universities, working with mental health patients, to improve their operation. Best practice from these groups needs to be shared and expanded.

The Association of Chief Police Officers lead on mental health says:

“There should be a reduction from 72 to 24 hour detention time…for a”

section 136

“assessment to take place when a police place of safety is utilised… 72 hours should remain for health based”

assessment. The 24-hour period would

“reflect the detention time limits in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984…To support this, a statutory time limit for assessments to be undertaken by all health professionals”

for those

“in police custody should be put in place. The Pace clock should be stopped for 4 hours while assessments are carried out where there are criminal offences to be faced”,

so that police are not restricted in the time that they have to cross-examine someone. I am confident that I reflect the feeling in this Chamber and the wider House today. No one would be turned away from an A and E department if they had had a stroke or broken a limb, if they had had alcohol or were aggressive. We cannot let mental health services operate to different criteria.

I want briefly to focus on what is a growing area. We need to be sure that we have clear guidance and responses in place for the 800,000 people in the UK diagnosed with dementia. A 91-year-old man suffering with psychotic dementia was living at home with the support of his family and the mental health team. One evening, a neighbour called the family to say he was wandering the street looking for his wife, who had died six years previously. His son went immediately to his father and at around 9 pm called the out-of-hours health service for advice. The doctor took the details and asked whether the son wanted to bring his father to the hospital or whether he wanted the doctor to visit the house, but the son said, “No, it’s okay. I’m on top of things. Dad’s okay. I’ve given him a cup of tea and he’s heading for bed.” By 11.30 pm the gentleman was in bed, fast asleep and his son went home.

At 2.30 am, the family had another call from the neighbour, saying, “The police are breaking into your dad’s house.” Why? Because the out-of-hours doctor decided to watch his back and had sent an ambulance, but it did not arrive till three hours after he called it. The man was fast asleep and the ambulance crew felt they had to get a response, so they called out the police. The police climbed on to the ledge over the front door, looked in and saw the man in bed, fast asleep and said, “He’s fast asleep”. The ambulance crew said, “No, we must see him.” The police broke in, terrifying the man, who was greatly distressed—as can be imagined—so they took him to A and E, because they could not handle the situation. That is an appalling situation. The family tried ringing the ambulance service and the police, saying, “Leave him alone. He’s fine,” but they carried on. He was highly distressed when he got to the hospital, and thought he had done something wrong and felt that he was the criminal. This was an appalling case.

There are good ideas and good practice for when people are missing, for example, or have wandered, including using taxi drivers, Citizens Advice and neighbourhood watch to look out for individuals. Police officers need clear guidance on how not to exacerbate a situation by going in, in uniform, and frightening people who are wandering.

We have lost 15,000 police officers in the last three years. The police must prioritise tackling crime, ensuring public safety and upholding the law. It is not the task of police services to fill gaps in an overstretched mental health service. We need to consider how to respond to the most vulnerable in society. The police must build their partnerships with agencies and organisations best equipped to provide appropriate help and support. I look forward to colleagues’ contributions to the debate, to the Minister’s and the shadow Minister’s responses, and to improved quality of services for those in mental health crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Moon]

I thank you, Mr Brady, for your excellent chairmanship throughout the debate. I also thank my co-sponsors of the debate, because no one could have had better co-sponsors with greater gravitas or greater recognition on both sides of the House for the work that they do in this area. It is extremely pleasant to see in the Chamber at the end of the debate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who has also played a huge part in raising mental health issues in the House.

This is a time of consensus. There is cross-party agreement that we must move forward. We all recognise that the police, the voluntary services, the health service and, most importantly, people who suffer from mental ill health want recognition that it is time for change and for a review of the use of section 136 powers for the 21st century.

I thank the other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) demonstrated her insight into issues involving rural areas and children, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) paid particular attention to military matters. We all look forward to the concordat being published in the new year. Let us hope that between us, across the House, we can ensure that people who suffer mental ill health have the service that they desire and deserve.