Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Madeleine Moon and Elfyn Llwyd

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.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Madeleine Moon and Elfyn Llwyd

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

Later on, I shall speak to my amendment that partially deals with this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman might wish to join us in the Lobby if I press it to a Division.

I want to be as quick as I can, because other hon. Members wish to speak and we have a lot of work to get through. If the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) is tempted to press amendment 74 to a Division, I will encourage my colleagues to follow me into the Lobby.

I should like to speak briefly to amendments 91 to 102, 83 and 103, which are in my name. I listened carefully to the Minister when he referred to amendment 91. He said that the words “or other intimate” are not necessary, which I accept. They probably are otiose, and therefore that point has been dealt with. I dare say that much of what the Justice Secretary will say tomorrow on self-defence will also be otiose, but that is another debate for another day.

Amendment 92 would broaden the definition by removing the words “physical or mental abuse” and replacing them with

“any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether physical, mental, financial or emotional)”.

The Minister knows that many people wrote to right hon. and hon. Members and we heard lots of evidence on a subject that has exercised many in the Chamber this evening just as it exercised those in Committee. I have begun to question whether pre-legislative scrutiny is worth anything, because if we get hundreds of pieces of evidence from informed bodies, people at the sharp end and practitioners, and then decide to do little or nothing about them, the process is brought into disrepute.

Amendment 93 would insert the words

“or where an allegation is made that B has been abused by A or is at risk of being abused by A”

to line 4 of page 103. Paragraphs 10 and 11 to schedule 1 provide for legal aid for the alleged victim in family cases involving domestic violence or child abuse. However, they do not provide for aid for the adult against whom the allegation is made. The amendment would bring the alleged perpetrator back within scope. That might sound strange, but I shall explain the thinking behind it in a moment.

Amendment 96 would insert the words:

“Civil legal services provided to an adult in relation to proceedings for financial relief in respect of a child who is the subject of an order or procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)”,

and amendment 97 would add the words:

“Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings in which the court is considering giving a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child’s circumstances)”.

In responding to points made earlier, the Minister said that the section 37 investigation could well amount to nothing. However, such investigations are not taken lightly. They are always instigated on basic evidence, and caring for that child is not a routine matter, but an extremely important one.

Amendment 98 would add

“Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings arising out of a family relationship involving a child in respect of whom a court has given a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child’s circumstances); and “family relationship” has the same meaning for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as it has for the purposes of paragraph 10”

to line 39. That would bring within scope both proceedings leading to an order under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 and all subsequent steps in family proceedings after a section 37 order has been made. It would also ensure that the person against whom allegations of abuse are made is brought within scope.

Amendments 100 to 102 are consequential amendments. Their purpose would be to amend paragraph 13, which provides legal aid to child parties in cases that come under the relevant parts of schedule 1, but not to adult parties. That provision will result in unrepresented adults being forced to cross-examine expert witnesses and, in many cases, even the child concerned. The amendments would therefore bring adult parties in such cases within the scope of legal aid provision.

Amendment 103 relates to the director of the Legal Services Commission. We debated in Committee the role of the commission, the independence, or not, of the director in arriving at decisions and the question of whether those decisions will simply be cost-driven. The amendment is designed to deal with those issues. It states that

“the Director must determine that an individual qualifies for civil legal services where the services relate to a matter falling within paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and—

(a) the individual has been admitted to a refuge for persons suffering from domestic abuse;

(b) the individual has obtained medical or other professional services relating to the consequences of domestic abuse, or

(c) an assessment for the purposes of possible mediation of a family dispute has concluded that the parties need not engage in mediation as a result of domestic abuse,

and in this subsection ‘domestic abuse’ means abuse of the kind to which paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 relates”.

The intention is self-evident.

I declare an interest at this late stage in my remarks. I practised family and criminal law for 15 or 16 years as a solicitor and for an equal number of years at the Bar, so I have some understanding of how the family courts work and would therefore gently admonish the Minister: the word “custody” went out of favour about 12 years ago—but that is by the bye. My background in this area of law leads me to believe that these changes might well have a devastating effect on families and, even more importantly, children. Both, of course, are closely interrelated: if it is disastrous for the family, it is obviously additionally disastrous for the young child as well. What is more, I believe that the Government’s decision to press ahead with a weakened definition of “domestic abuse” will result in many women—for it will be overwhelmingly women—entering into court proceedings alone and without legal aid funding.

[Mrs Moon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is that we are coming from different directions? For Opposition Members, the priority is the protection of women and children who have been abused, who are facing abuse and who live in fear of their lives. For Government Members, the priority is saving money.

[Mr Llwyd]

I have to agree with the hon. Lady, and I would pray in aid another point about the more general civil cases where litigants in person will be 10 times more prevalent in courts than they were previously. That is simply to save money, but actually it will not save money. Instead, it will increase pressure on courts and court time and will be a complete disaster—a dog’s breakfast. It is worth remembering that 40% of magistrates and county courts have been closed and that the Ministry of Justice was looking for a 40% decrease in its first budget—that is rather convenient. However, I have no doubt that she is right, and it grieves me that money comes before the welfare of young children. We are talking about knife crime, juveniles going on the wrong side of the law and so on, and the Bill will do nothing to address that. Instead, I fear that it will make matters even worse, although I hope that I am wrong.