Sentencing and Release Framework

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

Our current sentencing and release framework is failing to give victims and the wider public the confidence they should have in our criminal justice system. Too often, we are told, the time offenders spend in prison does not match the severity of the crime. The Prime Minister therefore announced an urgent internal review, focusing on the sentencing for the most serious violent and sexual offenders and the rules governing when and how those offenders are released. The review also considered changes to sentencing for the most prolific offenders which could help break the cycle of re-offending.

Based on the findings of the review, we will be bringing forward proposals shortly for a comprehensive package of legislative reform. This will include amending the automatic release point for the most serious sexual and violent offenders.

Under the current system, which dates back to the Labour Government in 2003, the majority of offenders receive a standard determinate sentence and must be released automatically at the half-way point, to serve the second half of their sentence in the community on licence. We want to stop this practice for the most serious violent and sexual offenders, who have committed offences such as rape, robbery and GBH with intent, so that they spend much longer in prison, protecting the public and giving greater confidence to victims. We shall therefore legislate to amend the automatic release point for the most serious sexual and violent offenders—where the offence carries a maximum life sentence—from the half-way point to two thirds of the sentence.

As part of our package of reforms, we also plan to bring forward proposals for community penalties that offer an appropriate level of punishment, while tackling the underlying drivers of offending.

Our proposals to reform the sentencing and release framework complement the raft of initiatives we are taking as a Government to fight crime and protect the public from its devastating consequences. As we continue to develop policy and before legislating, we will consider fully the impact of the proposals and have due regard to the requirements of s149 of the Equality Act 2010.

[HCWS1842]

Justice

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Ministerial Corrections

[Chris Ruane]

Many hon. Members mentioned the £80 million that was raised through the sale of Holloway. That huge sum of money could transform the number of women going into prisons across the United Kingdom. That would save the Government money in the end, too, so it would be a win-win situation. Will the Minister say something about that before he concludes?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about that. As the Prisons Minister, I am responsible for a very large estate, and it would be difficult to hypothecate that money in the way that hon. Members desire. Having said that, some of the funds that were raised have provided a women’s centre there, and the money is being ploughed back into the estate anyway. It is being used to make our prison estate safer, more decent and much better. It is difficult to hypothecate that money purely for these particular purposes.

[Official Report, 24 July 2019, Vol. 663, c. 635WH.]

Letter of correction from the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland):

An error has been identified in the response I made, as the then Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). The correct answer should have been:

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about that. As the Prisons Minister, I am responsible for a very large estate, and it would be difficult to hypothecate that money in the way that hon. Members desire. Having said that, the purchasers intend including a women’s centre as part of their development site, and the money is being ploughed back into the estate anyway. It is being used to make our prison estate safer, more decent and much better. It is difficult to hypothecate that money purely for these particular purposes.

Female Offender Strategy: One Year On

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

Of course, Mrs Ryan. I am grateful for the reminder, because the mover of the debate, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and I served on the Justice Committee together for some years. I pay tribute to her for this debate and for her work.

I will just address the remarks by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), for whom I have very high regard. I think he is a little unfair when he suggests that all the work that needs to be done under this strategy, or the progress that he envisages, could have been achieved in just one year. Those of us who have worked closely with the criminal justice system for many years know that the best and most sustainable reforms take time. We are dealing with a developing cohort of prisoners—men, women and children—who have differing needs and who need to be managed sensitively. It is not an easy task.

In saying that it is not easy, I am not shying away at all from the nature of the responsibility that I and the Ministry of Justice have to get this right. That is why, in the strategy, there was a refreshing frankness about the need to acknowledge the issue and to get not only the language but the approach right.

[Ms Karen Buck in the Chair]

Today’s debate has been, in great measure, mature, sensible and evidence-based, and I welcome the contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is right, by the way, in his figures when it comes to sentenced women offenders; about one third of them are in custody because of offences of violence against a person. He is correct about that. He is also right to remind us that justice must be equal, and that there will be plenty of occasions when, regardless of the gender of the individual before a judge, that person will have to go to prison for serious offences. I think the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), a former Prisons and Home Office Minister, acknowledged that.

We should not shy away from the reality facing judges and magistrates: there will be times when custody has to be the option, bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence. What I want to see from the criminal justice system—I speak at a time of change; we have an interregnum in my Department—is a system that is smart, not just in the use of resources, but in the administration of justice and our penal system, in a way that means that, when people have served their punishment and are released from custody, we end up with fewer victims of crime, not more. That is what reducing reoffending is all about.

There have been a lot of important pieces of information today; I agree with hon. Members who made the point that most custodial sentences for women are short. In 2018, 77% of custodial sentences for women were less than 12 months, compared with 62% for men. Over the same period, 55% of female offenders were sentenced to a custodial sentence length of up to and including three months, compared with only 35% of male offenders. To balance out the correct statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley cited, last year just over one third of immediate custodial sentences for women were for shoplifting offences, compared with only 11% for men, and the average custodial sentence served was just under two months.

I went to Eastwood Park women’s prison a few weeks ago, and the average sentence length there is about 10 weeks, which is not enough time to do much with a convicted prisoner or to do meaningful work, other than to provide as much support and help as possible for women who are often in a very difficult position. We must all understand the point about vulnerability and the evidence base about the female cohort in order to get this strategy right.

Female prisoners are more than twice as likely as male prisoners to report needing help for mental health problems. The figures are stark: it is 49% of women and 18% of men. About 60% of female offenders have experienced domestic abuse. Female prisoners are more likely to have been taken into care, experienced abuse or witnessed violence in the home as a child. Clear evidential facts rightly underpin our strategy.

The figures relating to custody for non-payment of television licences are, I am glad to say, low. Four women were admitted to custody for non-payment of television licences in 2018, and in the same year three women were admitted to custody for non-payment of council tax. It is important that I put that on the record for balance. Sadly, too many people in our country are living in very straitened circumstances, and plenty of people in those circumstances do not end up in the criminal justice system. We must be very careful when we talk about the cycle of poverty and what it means for offending. Having represented many women in very difficult circumstances as counsel, I know the challenges that many of them face. The lives that they have led are not lives that anybody here would choose to lead. I have seen it for myself. Eastwood Park was familiar to me because some of my clients served sentences there. That is why I was particularly interested in seeing its excellent mother and baby unit and talking to the women, some of whom were in for longer periods. Their experiences and what they had to say were profoundly interesting. Some of the younger women I met were in for only a very short period, but even to my unclinical eye some were clearly vulnerable.

The strategy recognises those facts. It recognises the range of women’s need. In setting out the three-pronged aims, it reinforces and embeds what Baroness Corston found in her groundbreaking report of 2007. The aims are that fewer women should come into the criminal justice system in the first place, that fewer women should serve short custodial sentences, and that we should create a positive environment that supports the rehabilitation of women who need to be in custody.

Hon. Members have spent much time rightly examining the work that has been done. Some criticism has been made of the £5 million multi-year funding. Of course, that is not the only part of our response to support women who are themselves victims or in a cycle of offending. I am sorry that an hon. Member who intervened in the debate but is no longer present found the system to be unduly bureaucratic. We must ensure that the way the funding is spent is based on sound evidence, and that it has a positive effect. That funding is being rolled out effectively, sustaining and enhancing 26 services to develop new women’s centres and to pilot innovative specialist services across England and Wales.

I make no apology for piloting initiatives. We have to get this right. The Government were rightly criticised for jumping the gun when it came to transforming rehabilitation and making assumptions that sadly could not be sustained. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar)—who sadly could not be with us today because he is addressing the House on an urgent question—and I feel very strongly about that. This is also about the work that is being done more widely.

[Chris Ruane]

Many hon. Members mentioned the £80 million that was raised through the sale of Holloway. That huge sum of money could transform the number of women going into prisons across the United Kingdom. That would save the Government money in the end, too, so it would be a win-win situation. Will the Minister say something about that before he concludes?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about that. As the Prisons Minister, I am responsible for a very large estate, and it would be difficult to hypothecate that money in the way that hon. Members desire. Having said that, some of the funds that were raised have provided a women’s centre there, and the money is being ploughed back into the estate anyway. It is being used to make our prison estate safer, more decent and much better. It is difficult to hypothecate that money purely for these particular purposes.[Official Report, 9 September 2019, Vol. 664, c. 6MC.]

Hon. Members asked many questions, and sadly I do not have all the time in the world to deal with them. I want to talk briefly about the important work of Lord Farmer’s review and the vital issue of family ties. Women are more likely to be primary carers than men when entering the system. Of course, the innocent children of those relationships are the ones who suffer. We are very grateful to Lord Farmer for his review, and we will take his work forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is right that the fact that someone might be a carer should not always be a reason for a court not to go down a particular sentencing path. Judges have to have discretion, and it would be bad sentencing practice for one issue to trump everything else.

I will try to deal with the questions asked by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. I feel very strongly about pre-sentence reports, and I have asked questions of my civil servants. There is an improved new checklist to make sure that the probation officer is asking the right question about women offenders, and we will roll it out nationally. Part of my aim is to see PSRs used more widely throughout the criminal justice system. I will write to the hon. Lady on all her other questions, because I appreciate that she needs time to respond.

Vanessa George: Early Release from Prison

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for securing the debate. I am grateful to him for his remarks. He has approached this issue very constructively, because he seeks a higher degree of justice for the constituents he represents. That is absolutely right and proper.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) for his contribution. He rightly reminded us that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) is not with us today, they have worked with people affected by what were heinous and wicked crimes.

I well remember the commission of these offences because my children were of that age at that time. I think there are very few of us, either in the House or outside it, who do not remember our revulsion and shock when we heard about these appalling acts. It was a shocking abuse of trust. It was a series of offences that left us all shocked. The remarks of Mr Justice Royce, the trial judge, summed it up very well. I have read the transcript of his remarks and obtained at least one version of the indictment to understand fully the offences to which this offender pleaded guilty. There were 11 in all: five counts of sexual assault, one count of making 124 indecent images, and five counts of distributing a range of indecent images of children, not alone but with others. That brought home to me the dangers of the internet for the first time and how this level of abuse can be magnified by people who stop at nothing to satisfy either their own dreadful compulsions or the lusts of others. It is a particularly horrible case.

Vanessa George was sentenced in December 2009 and received what was then still available to the court: a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—an IPP, as we call it—with a minimum term of imprisonment at seven years. The judge calculated the seriousness of the offending to mean this: had George contested the trial, she would have received a determinate term of 21 years. The judge, as the law requires, had to give her credit for a guilty plea of one third, so she would have received a determinate term of 14 years if she had pleaded guilty. The calculation of the seven-year term was in accordance with the law as it then stood.

It is important to understand that, because from my reading of the judge’s remarks and my understanding of the indictment, it seems to me that the full extent of the criminality was reflected in the indictment. There do not seem to be any other offences that were left to lie on the file. I have conducted a preliminary investigation, which I will conclude, and if there is any change in that position, I will write to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.

That is an important distinction between this case and the John Worboys case. Hon. Members will recollect that Worboys had been made subject to a similar IPP sentence and the Parole Board had directed that he was to be released on licence in January 2018, but in March the High Court quashed the decision and ordered the Parole Board to take a fresh one. It did that and concluded that the public could be protected only by keeping Worboys in closed prison conditions. As a result of that important case, the Government introduced a number of new safeguards to ensure that the mistakes made then should not be repeated. We need to view the Parole Board’s decision to direct the release of George in the light of those safeguards and, indeed, the more robust system now in place as a result of the action taken by the Government.

I will answer as best I can the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The new regime came into force on Monday of this week—22 July—just after he and I spoke about the case. That does not have a retrospective effect, but it will affect cases from now on. I also assure him that, from what I am told, there was no attempt by the legal team to try to expedite the hearing to avoid the new rules.

An oral hearing in the George case took place over two days. The first date was 21 May. On 2 July, another day was set aside for the Parole Board to hear statements from the victims who had been identified and to take fully on board their concerns and position. After that two-day hearing, a decision was made. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first question about the review is that because it predates the change, the only course of conduct open to me or the Department is a judicial review, and I have to say that on my examination so far of the procedure, I do not see the sort of flaw that would justify a court giving permission for judicial review.

I think the hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about when it comes to the test that has to be applied for judicial review. In reaching any release decision, the parole board must follow a detailed process. It must comply with the statutory rules in place, which include the panel considering a dossier of evidence sent by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. New checks were introduced by the Government on that procedure after it was discovered that, in the case of Worboys, the dossier had not included the important sentencing remarks to which I referred, because that will tell the Parole Board, as it did in this case, what the judge took into account in terms of the sentence. In the case of Vanessa George, the judge rightly took into account her refusal then to reveal the full identities of the children she had abused. He made specific and important acknowledgement of that. Just as he took into account her guilty pleas, he tempered that with what was obviously an aggravating factor at the time. I confirm that those remarks were very much in the dossier in this case.

There were also deficiencies in the Worboys case to do with the reports themselves, which did not deal in sufficient depth with the considerable evidence of wider offending, even though Worboys had not been prosecuted for all the offences he was alleged to have committed. It was then that HMPPS issued guidance to report writers on how such evidence should be addressed. Indeed, as I have said, it seems that, on my reading of the indictment, there is not evidence of wider offending in this case.

We know that an oral hearing was held, and I confirm that at that hearing a representative of the Secretary of State was present. Unlike in the Worboys case, in the George case all the report writers recommended release.

I have spoken about the victim contact scheme. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was a problem there, in that because of the lack of identification, we did not have a statutory basis on which to operate. However, the National Probation Service did offer the victim contact service on a discretionary basis to the 18 parents who responded to the initial contact in 2009 and said that they wished to be kept informed of developments. Eight victims responded to further contact, of whom six submitted a victim personal statement. Representations were also made about licence conditions, which would be imposed should George be released, including an exclusion zone for the entirety of Devon and Cornwall, which has been agreed to. Further, the panel has left it open to any other victims to make representations regarding licence conditions should they wish to do so in future. I invite the hon. Gentleman to ensure that that happens—we have spoken about it already—and I will do everything I can to facilitate the process. I absolutely understand the widespread concern about the decision, but as I have explained, on the information that I have been given, it seems that there are not the grounds for me to make a legal challenge.

Before the hon. Gentleman comes back, let me say a little more about how the offender will be managed in the community. George is barred for life from working with children. She is on the sex offenders register for an indefinite period. She will be supervised by the National Probation Service, working with the police via the multi-agency protection arrangements, and there is an extensive set of licence conditions. If she fails to comply in any way, and in such a way as to indicate a heightened risk, she will be recalled; that means further incarceration behind bars.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the position with regard to the victims code. I readily agree to the suggestion, and I am sure that the new victims’ commissioner, Dame Vera Baird—I know her well—will be interested to speak to him and to victims to feed into the important process on strengthening the code.

The question of remorse is a subjective one. That, in my view, is not really where the Parole Board should direct its attention; it should look to the question of acknowledgment and whether it can be satisfied on what it hears that the offender has really started to acknowledge, or has acknowledged, the gravity and impact of her offending. Remorse, frankly, is a subjective matter, and I would be very concerned if that became the only or major criterion by which a Parole Board assessed the risk of an offender. It has to be about risk rather than mere words that can be said in a hearing.

With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has received at least some answers to his important questions.

[Luke Pollard]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. Is the Minister giving way?

[Robert Buckland]

I have finished.

Question put and agreed to.

Prison Service Pay Review Body

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I am pleased to announce that the Prime Minister has appointed Tim Flesher CB as chair of the Prison Service Pay Review Body. This appointment is for three years, with Mr Flesher’s term commencing on 1 August 2019 and ending on 31 July 2022. This appointment has been made in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments.

[HCWS1800]

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of health and safety for prison staff.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

Keeping our prisons safe, both for the dedicated staff working in them and for the men and women in our custody, is our top priority. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service continually assesses the risks to staff in our prisons, putting in suitable measures and controls. The effectiveness of those controls is monitored locally and nationally, and through joint audit work with prison unions.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but it must be of concern to the whole House when the Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that violence against prison staff is at a record high. There were almost twice as many assaults in 2018 as there were in 2010. Does the Minister agree that everyone working in our prison system, whether as a prison officer, an educator, a nurse or anything else, should have an absolute right to a safe workplace, safe from violent assaults? Will he support the joint trade union “Safer Inside” campaign to secure that objective?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and he is right to alert us to the day-to-day bravery of prison staff in whatever part of the prison estate they work. A lot of work is going on to improve how prison staff interact with prisoners, and the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 allows the courts to impose greater sentences to deal with assault. I will look very carefully at the proposals that are being set out tomorrow and work with Members across the House to ensure that we rise to the challenge of prison violence.

[Liz Twist]

Sexual assaults against prison staff have soared by 360% since 2010—a shocking statistic that the Government should be ashamed of. Does the Minister agree that the recent attack that saw a prisoner ejaculate over a female officer should be treated as a sexual assault —and a serious sexual assault at that—and be prosecuted as such?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point. While I think it would be invidious of me to comment on a particular case, I can see the force of her point. That is quite clearly a very serious assault and there are aggravating features in there, which make it particularly distressing for the worker involved. As I said, a lot of important work is going on with regard to body-worn cameras and we need the roll-out of PAVA spray to help protect prison officers who, let us face it, are doing such an important job that is all too often unheralded.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

The use of psychoactive substances is regrettably on the rise in prisons and has an effect on behaviour. What are the Government doing to tackle that?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, the service has started research on the effects on prison staff of second-hand exposure to psychoactive substances, in particular across 10 prisons. That testing programme will be extended. We have also established a drugs taskforce, because the best way to deal with the risk is to minimise the use of drugs in prisons. That is a tough challenge, but one that the whole service is working towards.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Teachers, nurses, cleaners and many others are a vital part of our prison workforce. However, alongside prison officers, they are exposed to the dangers of the prison estate, which the prisons inspector just today has stated contains too much violence, drug use and inactivity, and frankly remains in a state of emergency. Staff have the right to work in a safe environment that is free from violence, abuse and danger, but violence against staff is reaching record highs. Will the Justice Secretary commit today to meeting the teachers I met earlier, and who are in the Gallery to hear his answers, to ensure the safety of all our staff in our prisons?

[Robert Buckland]

I am always interested in meeting staff from across the prison estate, and that includes the teachers who are here today. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight Peter Clarke’s important report. That report contains significant findings relating to the ongoing challenges, but it also celebrates the professionalism, the caring and the well-run safe, calm parts of our prison estate that exemplify a successful history and pattern of working. I was delighted to be able to attend the prison officer of the year awards last week to acknowledge some of the outstanding service given by prison officers and other employees in HMPPS.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to encourage divorcing couples to reconcile.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

23. What steps the Government are taking to increase opportunities for prisoners to access work before they are released.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

A year ago, our education and employment strategy set out plans to transform the way prisoners develop the skills they need to secure employment on release, and in addition our new release on temporary licence framework aims to increase the number of people these opportunities are available to by allowing more prisoners to access it sooner and for longer.

[Dr Johnson]

I pay tribute to companies such as Timpson that are leading the way in employing ex-offenders. Which other companies is my hon. and learned Friend working with on this issue?

[Robert Buckland]

I am delighted to say that large companies such as Greene King from the catering and hospitality sector and Wates from the construction sector are now working with the new futures network that was set up last year to bring more employers, large and small, into partnerships with prisons.

[Mark Pawsey]

Futures Unlocked is a charity in my constituency with a community café supported by Warwickshire police and crime commissioner Philip Seccombe. It gives work experience to people who have just completed a prison term and has just been awarded the Queen’s award for voluntary service. That is a great example of opportunities that can be offered after release, but what can be done beforehand?

[Robert Buckland]

I join my hon. Friend in supporting Futures Unlocked and extend my congratulations to it on receiving the Queen’s award, and my hon. Friend is right to talk about what can be done beforehand. It is about building confidence, and that is why the new futures network that I mentioned, which brokers partnerships with employers to provide opportunities before release, will be crucial if we are to extend the benefit of this scheme and reduce reoffending.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

There is still some reticence among certain companies to employ ex-offenders. The Minister has highlighted some of the real success stories in the private sector where companies have specifically hired ex-offenders in a very effective way. What is his Department doing to showcase those success stories, to ensure that more companies follow this important goal?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about changing the culture. A number of companies are quite openly employing ex-offenders. Also, the Ban the Box initiative, which is all about encouraging companies to employ people with previous offences and removing the tick-box exercise, is supported within the Government and increasingly in the wider business community. I attended an event with the creative industries only three weeks ago to highlight that important initiative.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

But the Minister will know that what prisoners need is not only to have been prepared and had training while they are in prison but to have the full monty when they leave. They need housing, an opportunity to work and the full support of a good probation service, as was said by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Justice Committee. Does the Minister realise, however, that when people who are found not guilty following a miscarriage of justice come out of prison, they get nothing?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman refers to miscarriages of justice. The prison system is there to deal with the prisoners in front of it, whatever might have happened with the case or proceedings they were involved with. However, he is absolutely right to talk about the need for housing. I am particularly interested in the £6.4 million initiative from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is working with Bristol, Leeds and Pentonville prisons to support released prisoners into accommodation. I am sad to say that there is a correlation between the lack of secure accommodation and the return to offending.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that this sort of practice has been going on for some years in prisons such as Magilligan Prison in my constituency and that it is replicated in other prisons? Does he agree that the practice should be shared right across the United Kingdom and that it will, we hope, lead to a reduction in reoffending rates?

[Robert Buckland]

I am interested to hear the example that the right hon. Gentleman gives in the Northern Irish prison that he represents. The through-the-gate service, which deals with employment, housing and benefit support, is crucial if we are to reduce reoffending, and the Government are investing an extra £22 million a year in prisons in England and Wales. I am working actively with my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to improve early access to universal credit.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

7. What steps his Department has taken to tackle legal advice deserts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

11. What assessment the Government have made of the role of the voluntary sector in tackling reoffending.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

The voluntary sector has a pivotal role in supporting rehabilitation and helping offenders to turn their lives around. I want to expand that role, including in the delivery of local and specialist services by smaller organisations. We have committed to tender up to £280 million of contracts for unpaid work, accredited programmes and rehabilitation interventions in the future model.

[Nigel Huddleston]

There are indeed many brilliant charities and voluntary organisations that help ex-offenders get back on their feet, including in my constituency the likes of Caring Hands in the Vale, which is led by the brilliant Diane Bennett, and other organisations that work throughout the country, such as The Right Course, which is led by Fred Sirieix. What practical help can the Government give to such organisations?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the excellent work done by those two organisations. In fact, more than 10,000 people work for voluntary organisations that are involved in criminal justice, and I want to involve them more closely. I have mentioned the dynamic framework, but we will also have a £20 million regional outcomes fund to pilot innovative programmes. The new regional probation model will allow local approaches at a local level.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

12. What recent steps the Government have taken to support veterans in the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

T6. Following the debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, can my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State tell me when he will be able to bring forward a Bill to increase the penalty for those who are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee and to all hon. and right hon. Members who took part in that important debate yesterday, and to the families of the victims of that dreadful crime. It is my wish, and the wish of the Government, to bring forward the necessary legislation to change the maximum sentence from 14 years to life imprisonment as soon as humanly possible.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Last week I exposed the fact that the number of homeless women going to prison has almost doubled in the past four years. What is especially shocking is that almost half of all women now going to prison are homeless. This is an appalling indictment of our broken justice system. Prison is all too often the very worst place for people who desperately need help to tackle the underlying problems of homelessness, poverty, mental ill health and substance addiction that led to them being jailed in the first place. Is the Minister concerned that our prison system is targeting the poor, the marginalised and the vulnerable?

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will the Minister update us on the sale or transfer to the Isle of Wight Council of Camp Hill prison? Is he aware of the importance of the site to the Island and to public housing on the Island, and does he understand the frustrations of Islanders, who see yet another bit of land being land-banked by either developers or Government Departments?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. I am as anxious as him to ensure that that land can be put to good use. I wrote to him last month. We have commissioned a demolition survey of the former Camp Hill prison, and I will meet him when the results are available later this month. I will also visit the Island to see the prison estate and to talk about the matter directly with the Island council.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

T2. Since the Corston review into women in the criminal justice system in 2007, over 100 women have died in prison. INQUEST has recently published an update on its report, “Still Dying on the Inside”, which sets out the tragic and often avoidable circumstances around the deaths of women in custody. What concrete actions has the Minister taken to resolve this crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

IPP prisoners are those imprisoned indefinitely for public protection who have been found guilty of serious violent and sexual offences. In 2011, 300 were released. In 2017, 616 were released. How can the public feel safe when more than 10 of these people a week are being released on to our streets?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend asks an important question about sentences of indeterminate length for public protection. I assure him that the Parole Board applies the most rigorous of tests before release. Indeed, the number of recalls to prison pursuant to that regime is about 1,000 prisoners. We still have 2,500 within the estate subject to that regime. There are counterweights that suggest to me that some prisoners have been there for too long, but I hear what he says.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. I have an urgent topical question for the Secretary of State. He has always been very good on victim support, and he will be relieved that my question is not about miscarriages of justice. Brake in my constituency works with victims of road crashes and road injuries. It is a very good and unique group, but I have heard that it is losing its grant from the Ministry of Justice. Why would that be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. I look forward to meeting the Prisons Minister next week to discuss HMP Nottingham. One of the major challenges at the jail is drugs. What is the latest update on the roll-out of body scanners at this prison and others?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his continued interest in and concern for the welfare of prisoners and staff at HMP Nottingham. I look forward to updating him in detail next week. Among the issues we will discuss is that of drugs and how to eradicate them.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I was delighted last Friday to present long-service awards to more than a dozen prison officers and staff at Long Lartin Prison in my constituency. Will the Prisons Minister join me in thanking them for their service, often of more than 20 years? What is being done on the recruitment and retention of prison officers?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking such an interest in his local prison and taking part in that scheme. I mentioned the prison officer of the year awards. The importance of those awards is to recognise the outstanding service of prison officers and other staff within the estate. In terms of retention, we are improving the way in which we train and support prison officers, particularly the newest recruits, and the number of prison officers has increased by 1,500 in the year to date.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

T10.   The work of our youth offending service in Sunderland is vital, yet since 2011 it has lost almost half its funding. If the Secretary of State is serious about diverting young people away from crime, will he look again at the current funding situation? We can and should be doing much more to support our young people, their families and the wider community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

The Prisons Minister has been good enough to keep me informed of developments at HMP Bristol in Horfield and of the urgent notification status. Will he agree to visit the prison with me, hopefully in the next couple of months, so that he can see for himself the challenges there are and how we can support the prison and the next governor to provide a safe regime?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her continuing interest in HMP Bristol. The response to the urgent notification will be issued this week, and I will indeed visit the prison with her in the coming months to ensure that the necessary progress is achieved.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

In his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the Minister seemed content with youth offending services, yet every day we see the results of the Government’s neglect of those services. Assuming that he has learned from that failure, what advice will he offer his successor to sort it out?

Dangerous Driving

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, but a greater pleasure to thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for opening the debate with a sensitive and sensible speech. She used her experience in the law to helpfully give us a pen-portrait of the evolution of driving legislation in England and Wales. She was right to draw the House’s attention to the way the law has evolved in this area.

When we take the steering wheel of a car or a vehicle, it means that we assume a responsibility to any passengers in the vehicle, to other vehicle users, to pedestrians and to wider society. Driving law rightly criminalises what we would regard as unacceptable behaviour. It also rightly draws distinctions between types of behaviour. I readily accept that the law gets into difficulty where we have a combination of extreme culpability and blameworthiness in the manner of driving, and the extreme level of harm that can be caused by that degree of bad driving. We now call it dangerous driving; the hon. Member for Warrington North referred to it as reckless driving, as it was known prior to the 1991 reform. I have grappled with that difficulty—not just as a Member of Parliament, serving my constituents, but as a professional and a member of the criminal Bar, having been called upon to prosecute these cases, as well as in my latter incarnation as Her Majesty’s Solicitor General.

Before coming on to those examples, I add my own tribute to the families of the victims of these horrendous crimes who have come here today, have supported petitions calling for reform and have, with extraordinary dignity, exemplified all that is good in our society and positive in our world, despite the horrendous experiences they have gone through.

The offence of causing death by dangerous driving is a particularly unusual, sensitive and difficult scenario because all of us, in this room or outside, could suddenly find ourselves in the same situation as the families here today and the thousands of others who are not here but share the same experiences. Suddenly, without any warning, they are drawn into an entirely different world: a world of police and criminal justice, of procedure, of court proceedings that they never expected they would become involved with in a month of Sundays. That can only add to the sense of loss, grief and suffering that the families endure, and continue to endure—often for many years after the incident itself. It is a set of circumstances that all of us struggle to put into words and to come to terms with fully. I still struggle now, even though it is probably a quarter of a century since my first direct contact with a family who have suffered in this way.

Frankly, there is nothing that a court or this House can do to right the wrong that has been done to such families. Having said that, merely acknowledging that is never going to be enough. That is why we, as parliamentarians and legislators, must do all we can not just to mitigate the circumstances or to try to create a degree of justice, but to send a wider message to society that the system supports those who suffer, works in their interest and at least tries to deliver the highest degree of justice.

I was struck by the conversations I had this afternoon. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Warrington North and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for allowing me to come and meet the families. It was extremely useful and informative, and I felt the better for having heard what they had to say. I pay warm, meaningful and deep tribute to them.

To directly answer the question put by the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), I should say that the Government have not changed their view about the need to reform the law of causing death by dangerous driving. It is our settled intention to increase the maximum penalty from 14 years to life imprisonment; the issue is when. I want to do this as soon as possible; I would like to see legislation done in a swift and effective way.

My offer to right hon. and hon. Members here and across the House is to work together, to ensure that any Bill that is introduced can be dealt with as speedily and expeditiously as possible, without—with the greatest respect to hon. Members, who have the right to amend any Bill they see before them—a plethora of amendments and other issues that could impede or slow down the process of legislation. That is my request and my offer; I would very much like to work with Members of the Opposition on that, in order to achieve our common goal.

[Liz McInnes]

The Minister has struck an unnecessarily adversarial tone. It is very clear that there would be cross-party support for this. It was welcomed in October 2017; he does not need to concern himself that anyone in the Labour party—I am sure I speak for the SNP as well, in this case—would try to do anything to impede the progress of such a Bill. We just want it to come in as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I certainly was not suggesting in any way that hon. Members of any party would want to impede such a Bill. The point that I seek to make is that we can achieve this with broad and deep consensus. I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point and embrace what she says; having listened carefully to her speech, I know that she comes at the issue with entirely the right and appropriate sense of inter-party and intra-party co-operation, and I am very grateful to her.

[Judith Cummins]

The point that speaker after speaker has made is “When? Not how, but when?”

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s contribution in her speech and intervention. I ask the question “How?” simply because it can very often be an issue for all of us, so ignoring it and trying to pretend that it is not an issue would perhaps be an easy way out for me as the responsible Minister.

I want to get on with this, and I know that all hon. Members present, as well as those with an interest who cannot be with us today, want to get on with it. I accept that we owe that not just to the families of those who have already been bereaved, but to future potential victims. I say that—I hope with sufficient force—because I have seen from my case experience as Solicitor General the problem with the current maximum.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), who quite rightly mentioned the appalling case in her constituency. I became very familiar with that case because I dealt with the unduly lenient sentence reference myself; I felt that there was such a strong public interest to be served that I appeared before the Court of Appeal as Solicitor General and presented the case myself. I am glad that in that case Sir Brian Leveson, the then president of the Queen’s bench division—he has just retired, but during his long and distinguished career he took a keen interest in these cases—rightly increased the sentence to 10 and a half years.

I argued on behalf of the Crown in that case that there was justification, in cases of causing death where there were multiple fatalities, to depart from practice and to impose consecutive sentences. I felt that would be an acknowledgement of how, in cases of such seriousness, that was the only sufficient way for the court to reflect the gravity of the offending. The Court of Appeal did not accept my submissions. Therefore we are back in the position where, without an increase in the maximum sentence, the totality of the offending cannot be adequately reflected when, for example, there is more than one fatality, the driving conduct was particularly aggravated or there is aggravation because of previous convictions.

Therein, perhaps, lies some of the answer to the concerns expressed by families: that the total criminality is often not reflected by the level of the sentence. Sentencing precedent and guidelines allow that to be done when the principle of totality of sentencing is applied. Even though a charge is recorded on a particular offence that might not have merited a separate penalty, the offending should and must be taken into account when assessing the totality of the sentence. That might include having no insurance. Driving offences of that nature should be reflected in the overall sentence passed on the lead offence, which would often be the most serious matter.

I want to deal with each, in turn, of the excellent contributions that we have heard today.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I wanted to intervene before the Minister moves away from his general points. I pay due regard to his expertise as a former Solicitor General, to his explanations about complicated interpretation and definitions, and to what he said about the Court of Appeal not accepting what the Government were trying to do. However, given that he accepts that there would be unanimous support for Government legislation on this issue, can he give an indication of how long it will be before the Government come forward with proposals for legislative scrutiny?

[Robert Buckland]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date. That is a matter of bitter regret to me, but today’s debate will be used as an important platform to indicate the degree of concern, impatience and anger that people now feel about the delay. It certainly reinforces me in my determination to get the matter sorted out. As I have already mentioned, my ministerial and professional experience has led me to the firm conclusion that to deal with the full criminality of the gravest crimes under the definition in question, judges need that space—the ability to use their discretion.

Before I deal with individual speeches, it would be right for me to dwell for a moment on the important submissions that hon. Members have made to me, the accounts that family members have given me of their experience of the system, and my concern on hearing about aspects of the use of the victim personal statement. It would be invidious for me to intrude on proceedings where I have not read all the evidence, or seen the transcript, but I would be concerned if the reason for the editing of a victim personal statement was that somehow it would upset an offender. That seems a wholly irrelevant and inadequate explanation to give to anyone, legally qualified or not.

Surely what should drive proceedings is relevance. Having read hundreds of victim personal statements, lawyers and court practitioners are well able to distinguish when an opinion given in the statement might take matters no further; but a real sense of the effect on a victim comes through a well written and well prepared VPS. Since the introduction of the system, police officers have become better and better at drawing out from a victim or their family the sense of loss and bereavement—the whole effect of the crime on their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Those documents are important and must form a key part of the decision making in sentencing.

I was heartened to hear some families’ praise for the way individual judges dealt with each case with sensitivity, care and precision. We are fortunate that almost universally we are well served by our judiciary, who find such cases particularly difficult. I have spoken to many of them, and they feel at the end of a case a sense of inadequacy about what cannot be undone, and what cannot be restored to the families and loved ones of those who have died.

I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston, who made a significant contribution to the debate, not just for her speech, but for her persistence in working with my predecessor, and with me, to ensure that her constituents’ point of view and cause are heard. Her contribution today was particularly important in that respect, and I thank her for it. She asked several questions—in particular about manslaughter. She is absolutely right to talk about the existence of that offence, which has long been part of our criminal law and remains an available option for prosecutors in certain circumstances. Those circumstances would involve cases of the highest gravity. Case law is clear that manslaughter would be charged where the facts disclosed a very high risk of death to another person—a type of offending at the very high end of culpability.

That is why the offence of causing death by dangerous driving has been a very important addition to the criminal law. It has made the test somewhat more straightforward, as opposed to that used in manslaughter. I can therefore see huge merit in marrying up the sentence level—a maximum of life imprisonment—with the advantages provided by using the test for causing death by dangerous driving. Those sorts of offences should not become some sort of legal minefield or maze. They are difficult enough for everybody involved without adding those extra complications. That is why, although the offence of manslaughter is, of course, available and is used, we must understand that it is hedged around with particular tests that mean that it is not always the most straightforward case to prosecute.

I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) about a particularly harrowing case involving his constituents, to whom I pay tribute and who, as we heard from him, have been through unimaginable pain. He asked about the terribly distressing circumstances involving the death of a child yet to be born. He asked me to consider what can be done to reflect the loss of such a child in traumatic circumstances. He rightly anticipated the argument that I would put to him, that there is a danger in changing the law relating to the position of unborn children. Consequences for the autonomy of mothers and the ability to take otherwise lawful action must be considered carefully before attempting to change the law.

However, that is a matter that I would be happy to discuss further with my hon. Friend; it seems to me that the real issue is how to take into account the full harm and the full sense of the impact upon a family in those circumstances. We come back to the matter of harm; paragraph 3 of the current sentencing guidelines, which are now some 11 years old, says of causing death by driving:

“Because the principal harm done by these offences…is an element of the offence, the factor that primarily determines the starting point for sentence is the culpability of the offender.”

That gives us a clear indication of where the law starts from on these matters.

[James Heappey]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for his reply, and I welcome the opportunity to meet him to discuss this further. I simply reflect on the fact that, whatever the sentencing guidelines may say now, three years and seven months for life-changing injuries to mother and daughter, and for the loss altogether of a 26-week-old baby as yet unborn, suggests to me that the current guidance is nowhere near adequate, or does not apply well enough in those sorts of situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes an important point; I am perhaps illustrating in my response the struggle, the tension and the difficulty that exist here in fully reflecting the harm and the loss caused as a result of that particular course of driving. That is why I am firm in my conclusion and the Government’s conclusion that to deal with those very serious offences, which come to the top in terms of not only culpability, but harm, judges need more headroom.

I have already thanked the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) for her important contribution. She quite rightly talked about a case involving her constituent and his family. I thank her for drawing to our attention a powerful example of how the current law is not providing the degree of justice that so many families look to the system to provide. I look forward to working with her on this issue in the months ahead.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) made an important and interesting contribution to the debate, talking about the position on road safety. He rightly reminded us that there is no room for complacency on this issue and that, while this country is among the safest in the world when it comes to road traffic incidents, there are still far too many incidents that are simply avoidable.

It is important to note that, although the hon. Gentleman says they have plateaued, road deaths have continued to fall over the past 12 years—the reduction in fatalities was some 39% in the years since 2007—but I accept that that is almost always as a result of other initiatives that have been taken, rather than better driver awareness. We have safer infrastructure measures; we have new vehicle technologies; we have better hazard perception testing; we have better trauma care, where lives are often saved that would not have been some years ago; and, yes, we have a sense of shifting social attitudes, which I am glad of—we all welcome it.

Hon. Members have referred to the fact that when it comes to drink-driving, what would have been acceptable a generation ago is no longer acceptable at all within society. That is all welcome, but we still experienced more than 26,000 deaths or serious injuries on our roads in 2017, of which 48 were young children. Too many of those incidents involved criminal behaviour, whether dangerous or careless driving, or failing to stop at the scene, and every avoidable death is one too many.

It is hard to see how the criminal justice system can ever adequately compensate for the loss and grief felt by families in these dreadful circumstances. Since 2012, however, we have seen a greater proportion of drivers who have caused fatalities through careless or dangerous driving being sentenced to immediate custody; it increased from 53% in 2012 to 60% last year. We have also seen an increase in the average length of custodial sentence for those offences.

Clearly, the courts are in some measure reflecting societal attitudes and the change in attitude that we have seen toward those serious driving offences. That is reflected by the number of people who signed the petition that prompted today’s important debate and the fact that, as we have heard, the consultation that took place was one of the most significant undertaken in recent years, because the number of responses was considerable.

As a result, not only was this proposal put forward, but two other key proposals were accepted. The first was to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs from 14 years to life imprisonment, and the other was to provide a stronger response to offences of careless driving resulting in serious injury. We propose to deal with that by introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. It will sit alongside the existing offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which was introduced in 2012.

I confess to a sense of frustration at the incremental nature of the way we deal with driving offences. If I were able to wave the proverbial magic wand, I would like to see a thoroughgoing codification of the law to make it readily and easily understandable, but I recognise that I cannot do that and that time is not on our side. Therefore, the incremental approach is the best way forward if we are to achieve real change for society, and for the families and victims who have been affected.

I was talking about the contribution of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, and I was particularly interested in his discussion of Brake’s helpful and important work in this field. I have probably partially answered his question about a review. Tempting though it is to use that as a cloak for inaction, that would not be good enough. I bear in mind what he says about the sentencing gap caused by the gradation between careless and dangerous driving. I do not have an easy answer about that.

Returning to what the hon. Member for Warrington North said, I do not advocate introducing an offence of reckless driving—a subjective test offence, which might better reflect the gradation in individual driving standards, but which could make the test more difficult in terms of actually proving an offence. This is a vexed question that needs to be debated properly, and I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse for raising it. I do not want it to be used as a reason for further delay.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) made an important and powerful contribution on the case of Jacqueline Wileman, which she has put to me before in the Chamber. I am grateful to her for having brought Jacqueline’s family to meet me some weeks ago. What they said to me was powerful, informed, measured and dignified, and I pay tribute to her constituents for playing their part in adding to the swell of pressure rightly being brought to bear today. I thank her again for campaigning in this area.

That was an important case because the prosecutors used the principle of joint enterprise to bring to book those who were not actually driving but who were part of the course of conduct in that heavy goods vehicle. That sensible use of the law will hopefully send a wider message to prosecutors that, just because an individual might not be at the wheel, it does not mean that he or she is not responsible for what happens in the vehicle and the consequences of those unlawful and criminal acts. I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) made a distinctive contribution in which he rightly talked about the number of people disqualified from driving. He asked about discretionary disqualification. It was certainly always my understanding, from practice, that to achieve an exemption under a discretionary disqualification, one had to show exceptional hardship above and beyond the ordinary inconveniences of not being able to drive. If that test is not being applied stringently, that is a matter of concern to me. It was intended not to be some cheap get-out clause, but to reflect those exceptional cases where there might be real hardship—usually not to the driver, but to people who might depend upon that person.

The hon. Gentleman made a general point about impunity and rightly prayed in aid the important work of local voluntary groups in speed watch schemes. I am a qualified speed watch operator, and I have joined many local groups in my constituency to patrol roads of particular concern, with some good effect, I am glad to say, where the behaviour of drivers has changed, with greater forethought given to the quality or otherwise of their driving, particularly in residential areas.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about consequences and how to better use the information obtained from devices in speed watch schemes to improve conduct and enforcement. That information is usable, and I am happy to talk further on that with him, and perhaps with some of our local police and crime commissioners, to see how we can achieve further crime reduction in our neighbouring police constabulary areas. I readily take up that invitation for us to work together.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) rightly drew the House’s attention to the work of the Scottish Government on reducing road casualties and on dealing further with the offence of driving while over the alcohol limit. I am glad to say that, on the south side of the border, work continues within Government to pursue the strategy set out in the 2015 road safety statement, which drew together a number of important safety measures. That statement resulted in a number of successful bids to the safer roads fund from right across the country; increased penalties for drivers who use handheld mobile phones while driving; and—I think rightly—learner drivers being allowed to go on our motorways, thereby obtaining vital experience before qualifying, rather than leaving it until after qualifying, which I always thought was an odd way to train new drivers.

That road safety statement is refreshed and improved upon periodically; this work is ongoing. As always in the sphere of criminal law, before and after devolution, much we have learned from the Scottish criminal justice system has been used here. While I cannot make any commitments relating to drink-driving legislation on behalf of my colleagues from the Department for Transport, we watch with great interest the effect of those changes on behaviour within the population. I note the figures that the hon. Gentleman cited on the reduction of drink-driving incidents, which I found extremely informative.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister mentions the road safety statement, which was welcome and made a difference. It is refreshed occasionally, but that is now overdue by at least six months. The Department for Transport was supposed to produce it, and the reshuffle has delayed it even further. Perhaps he can have a quiet word with his colleague at Transport to find out when it will arrive.

[Robert Buckland]

My colleague will hear that. I am told that the statement is due later this year, so they had better crack on with it.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It was due at Easter. It is now summer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

The point is made and understood, which I can say because I can make promises on behalf of my colleagues. I am sure they would do the same for me.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), whose measured and sensible remarks drew together the debate in an informative way. He rightly reminded us that this issue goes beyond party politics and should bring people together in a constructive tone. That is certainly what I want to do, with him and other Members, to make the sort of progress that all our constituents expect.

I bitterly regret that I am not able to give hon. Members that all-important timescale, but the force of the speeches today leaves me and the Government in no doubt about the high priority placed on this much-needed reform—in fact, I would say it is the highest priority. The force of the argument put forward reinforces my sincere wish and drive to bring forward this reform at the earliest possible opportunity. Let us work together to do that.

I once again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for the part they have played in making this a wide-ranging and reflective debate. I hope it struck the appropriate tone not only for the families of those we have lost, but for everyone who rightly wants to see that higher degree of justice for offences of this appalling nature, because they are committed against us all.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward; as a former member of the legal profession, you will have a particular interest in this important issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing the debate. I know that he has long had an interest in such issues, and I have debated them with him before in my former capacity as a Law Officer. It is a pleasure now to be able to address the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members as Minister of State for Justice.

We can all agree that the sentence of imprisonment for public protection has long been a source of great concern. I well remember the introduction of that type of sentence, pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The provision came into force in 2005, and initially it was used quite often.

The sentence was applicable to and used for a range of offences, including serious assault, threats to kill, arson and a range of other offences that we have heard about today; those are, of course, serious, but I do not think that the courts at the time envisaged what the full consequences would be. Indeed, there is a Court of Appeal authority, from the case of Lang, which, importantly, limited the ways in which IPP sentences could be used. It had an immediate effect on the range of uses of the sentence. There was legislative change in 2008 after another Court of Appeal case in which serious concerns were raised about the system’s ability to cope with the relevant cohort of prisoners. Quite rightly, in 2012 the sentence was abolished by the Government under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

The IPP population consisted of many dangerous offenders who often had committed serious violent or sexual offences. At the time there was evidence before the courts of troubling escalations of behaviour, prior to the offending that led to an IPP sentence. The policy that underlay the imposition of that regime was twofold—first, the punishment of offenders, but also a specific public protection function was part of the underlying policy introduced by the Labour Government, who for the first time enjoined sentencers to consider future risk. That was unprecedented: the issue had not been approached in such a way, and it introduced a clearly delineated function that was to be exercised in the form of a determination of dangerousness. Judges were asked to make a decision based on the information and evidence before them—either a pre-sentence report, a psychiatric assessment, or the serious nature of the offence itself—and determine whether an offender was dangerous enough to merit an IPP.

That was the law and policy at the time. We rightly now look back on that with concern and the wisdom of 15 years’ experience, and realise that it has led to some of the cases we have heard about today, and many other cases that we have dealt with in our constituency casework. That was the reality of the situation facing the courts then, and although I hear the view expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members about the possibility of changing the law to effectively re-sentence those offenders, we must take some care. It could be done—there is no immutable bar to passing legislation that would have a retrospective effect, but there is a sensitivity in cutting across the original sentence and the finding of the court. It will be difficult for a fresh sentencer to put themselves entirely in the position of the sentencing judge at the time of the offence, which is why I hesitate before accepting the strong views put forward by hon. Members.

[Alex Chalk]

The Minister makes an entirely fair point, but he began by acknowledging that there are people in custody who have served time far beyond what the original sentencing judge anticipated. My constituent has served 13 years after an IPP with a four-year tariff. I recognise the difficulties with re-sentencing, but should we not be concerned when people are in custody for far longer than the original sentencing judge had in mind?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend has considerable experience of criminal practice, and he has dealt with many cases of great seriousness. He is right to draw to my attention the specific case of his constituent. We can deal with this problem in other ways, and I will outline those to the House as I develop my remarks. Indeed, I hope specifically to answer the queries that have properly been raised by right hon. and hon. Members.

[Robert Neill]

May I supplement the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)? The Minister refers to the difficulties of putting oneself in the position of the sentencing judge, but no one is likely to have been better placed to understand those difficulties than the former Lord Chief Justice, when he made his observations in the course of a judgment in the Court of Appeal. We know that there are circumstances—for example, when a sentence is reviewed for other reasons—when the court will, for reasons of good public policy, embark on that difficult exercise. Although this issue must be borne in mind, there is precedent for demonstrating that it is not an insuperable obstacle.

[Robert Buckland]

I agree that in the appellant procedure there will often be that check and balance, but this is slightly different. This would be a change in the law and legal framework to alter the position from the one that applied when the offender was sentenced, to the position now. Whether we like it or not that is a departure, and we must be careful to avoid setting inadvertent precedents.

We must be able fully to reflect on the assessment of risk that was made by the learned judge at the time of sentencing. In other words, how does a court properly assess the length of a determinate sentence—that, presumably, is the aim of right hon. and hon. Members—and decide whether or not to take the further step of imposing a life sentence, which might be appropriate in some very serious cases? I do not pretend that these issues are easy, but neither is it a matter that the Government should do nothing about. Other measures we are taking are already yielding significant results, not just in reducing the number of prisoners held under this regime, but by ensuring that more eligible prisoners can be considered as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), Chair of the Justice Committee, mentioned the remarks of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who spoke not just about changing the statutory provision, but about changing the test for release, which is important. I think he would concede that the test for the release of prisoners held under this sort of regime must be as consistent as possible, bearing in mind the different classes of prisoners who are held in custody either on minimum terms or subject to parole.

We must take great care not to create too many different tests that could mean that one group of prisoners could be treated in a different or more favourable way than another group. I do not say that the argument has no merit, but there are difficulties in creating potential inconsistencies. It is beholden on me, both as a lawyer and now in this position of great responsibility, to ensure that the unforeseen consequences that occurred with this policy making do not repeat themselves thanks to any change we may make.

Let me develop the point about the ways we can best support prisoners to show that they can safely be released—that is the solution that stares us in the face regarding so many people in that position. As the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) laid out well, ensuring public protection from violent and sexual crime must be paramount, and our continuing efforts to rehabilitate prisoners subject to this regime are bearing fruit. We have seen a dramatic fall in the IPP prison population over the past years, and the figures cited by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), and others, are correct. It is a dramatic fall, although I accept that there is still a significant cohort, and we must also not forget that a number of IPP prisoners have been recalled—I will come to that in a moment. However, progress is being made in the right direction.

In January 2016, more than three years ago, a joint HM Prison and Probation Service and Parole Board action plan was drawn up to deal with IPPs. Initially it was primarily focused on improving the efficiency of the parole process, because at that time there was a significant backlog in listing oral hearings for IPP and life-sentence prisoners. As a result of receiving additional resources and changing some of its processes, the Parole Board and the public protection casework section of the Ministry of Justice made progress, and their combined effect was to eliminate that backlog. Simply having a more efficient system resulted in a significant improvement to the pace with which IPP prisoners were released. Following those improvements, the plan was expanded to include a greater focus on those prisoners who, even with a much more efficient parole system, needed additional support to reduce their own risk and secure a release decision from the board.

What was done? A central case file review, by senior psychologists, of IPP prisoners who had not made the anticipated progress achieved considerable success. Out of 1,365 completed reviews, 233 prisoners in these most challenging cases achieved release, with a further 401 achieving a progressive move to open conditions. We have put in place enhanced case management for the most complex cases, so that a multidisciplinary team can work together to remove barriers to progression.

The joint IPP action plan has also overseen further improvements to the process and, perhaps most significantly, we have opened three new progression regimes, building on the success and the outstanding reputation of the first such regime, which was established at Warren Hill. Those sites operate a staged regime of increasing freedom and responsibility, allowing evidence to build on offenders’ ability to manage their own risks. The rate of release from a progression regime is higher than the average release rate across all Parole Board hearings, which is something that, I think, all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome.

As comprehensive as the plan and the opportunities it provides to IPP prisoners is, the decision actively to engage with efforts that promote rehabilitation, and so demonstrate that there can be safe release back into the community, must ultimately be for each individual prisoner. In my view, that is why Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service change programme, in delivering a new offender management model, is fundamental, not only for IPP prisoners but for all offenders. With increased staffing, and the introduction of the key worker role in all prisons, staff will be better equipped, and given more time, to work with individuals who may not be engaging in the way they need to do to reduce their risk.

We are aware that some prisoners may well have become demoralised, with no fixed date of release and the prospect of a further parole hearing currently not holding much hope for them. Here, the key worker will need to get alongside the prisoner and build hope from the foundation of a strong relationship, encouraging them to grasp the opportunities that are available.

[David Hanson]

It is not unreasonable to ask at what stage that process will be completed for prisoners currently serving IPP sentences.

[Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman asks that question again, and I take it fairly and squarely. The answer must be that it will be on a case-by-case basis, because each prisoner has an individual story and set of needs, and that does not merit a one-size-fits-all approach. Frankly, the cohort we are now dealing with will probably be the tougher end of the spectrum. I think that the right hon. Gentleman conceded quite properly that there will be a cohort of IPP prisoners who may never be released because of the seriousness of the offences and the risk they still pose—I know he accepts that. Therefore, I cannot give him a figure or a timescale, but I can say that the work that is going on has shown a vast increase in the pace with which we have achieved release and resolution. The model we are now adopting will, I believe, lead to even greater engagement.

As the months go by, the right hon. Gentleman can, of course, hold me to account, and if there is no progress he will rightly ask me the questions and I, independently, will ask civil servants why the initial progress has not been maintained. As a member of the Justice Committee, he will hold me to account for that.

I want to deal with more of the figures we were looking at. We have rightly heard about the overall unreleased IPP population. About 200 of that cohort of 2,400 have yet to serve their minimum tariff. As I said, we have made progress in reducing that population. In 2017-18, the Parole Board progressed to open conditions or released about three out of every four IPP prisoners who appeared before it.

As I was saying, the cohort becomes increasingly challenging, which will require increasingly intensive rehabilitation. Rehabilitating, and assessing the risk presented by, these prisoners, many of whom, sadly, have committed serious sexual offences against children, is particularly challenging. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) opened his remarks by referring to that sort of horrendous offence and the need for public protection. It should be acknowledged that some IPP prisoners may never be released because the risk they pose is just too great for safe management in the community.

We are working to reduce the incidence of self-harm among IPP prisoners as part of our prison safety programme and here, again, the key worker will perform a vital role. Additionally, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is improving the process for people at risk of suicide or self-harm. We have improved prevention training for nearly 25,000 prison staff and have refreshed our partnership with Samaritans for three years, with £1.5 million in funding to support the excellent listeners scheme, through which prisoners are trained to provide support to their fellow prisoners—peer-to-peer support that we all know works in so many settings.

Working to address broader mental health issues in the IPP population remains important. Since last April, we have a new national partnership agreement for prison health. Mental health services are available in all prisons. Turning for a moment to the issue of women IPP prisoners, I am glad to say that they have a dedicated senior psychologist providing a specific progression pathway, and support from a multidisciplinary team to deal with some of the mental health challenges they face.

The commissioning of mental health services by NHS partners is based on a local assessment of health needs, and the services are provided to prisoners on the basis of individual need, which, when we think about it, has to be right. The one-size-fits-all approach does not work, as we know, when it comes to mental health. Independent professionally trained clinicians carry out assessments, and no one is refused access where there is an assessed need. We are well aware that many of those serving IPP sentences experience mental health difficulties, and part of the action plan aims to ensure access to appropriate treatment. An example that I mentioned earlier is the case file reviews carried out by senior psychologists. Alongside those who have been released or moved to open conditions, 54 of those reviewed have been transferred to secure hospitals, where they can receive the best treatment for their needs.

The issue of recall has properly been raised. With regard to the test of recall, it is important to reiterate that it is stringent when it comes to IPP offenders. They can be recalled only when their behaviour and the nature of the licence breach indicate a causal link to their original offending and that the public are at risk of further serious, violent or sexual offending. That is a different, and more stringent, test for recall than that which exists elsewhere in the system.

Work is being done to ensure that recall is properly focused only where it is necessary to protect the public, and efforts are being made to keep offenders on licence in the community wherever possible. Those efforts include the creation of new guidance for probation officers on licence variations of alternatives to recall, and on best practice in the management of offenders on licence, to improve their compliance and prevent the risk from escalating.

A new power to release IPP prisoners on the papers is being used for those on recall. The Parole Board has introduced a quicker, 48-hour turnaround time to consider licence variation requests from probation, to support continued management on licence in the community. We are investigating the rise in the number of IPP prisoners on recall, to see how that rate can safely be reduced and, citing the hon. Member for Ashfield, to get the balance right between the need to protect the public and the need to rehabilitate offenders.

A number of cases were raised with me. I agree that that of Wayne Bell is concerning and I understand that he is now receiving treatment for his mental health issues in an appropriate setting, which is welcome. The troubling case of Tommy Nicol was properly raised. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), met with Donna Mooney, Mr Nicol’s sister, earlier this year. We remain in contact with her at an official and, I very much hope—although I am a new Minister—a ministerial level. We have another meeting with her planned for the autumn. It is a particularly tragic case, but I assure right hon. and hon. Members that we will continue to work with her to address the concerns that she raises with such dignity and clarity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who sadly has been called away, asked about the work led by the University of Southampton. We are very much aware of the work of Professor Harry Annison, who works in partnership with the Prison Reform Trust and has already given us an important insight into the impact on families of their loved ones serving IPP sentences. I am looking forward to seeing the conclusions of the next stage of his work, which is currently being supported by IPP and family leads from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. With regard to the entire IPP population and the action plan, although I am not able specifically to indicate the number currently subject to that action plan, I assure the House that it is having a wide-ranging effect and will continue to be implemented.

I have lived with the IPP regime for much of my professional and political life. I am profoundly grateful to the hon. Member for Slough for having raised this issue today, allowing us to debate it in a calm and considered way that reflects the genuine concerns of the families of people who are subject to that regime, but also understands the enduring and important function that the justice system plays in protecting the public from serious and violent offences. I believe that the best approach is for us to continue our successful efforts to help those offenders rehabilitate, and redouble those efforts whenever necessary and whenever an offender wishes to engage. That will provide the best chance for those prisoners to become once again law-abiding members of the very communities that we are seeking to protect.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 1 April, be approved.

The purpose of this draft instrument is to include inquiries established under the Inquiries Act 2005 as “excepted proceedings” in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. That will enable those types of inquiry to consider the spent convictions of individuals. This legislative change was requested initially by Sir John Mitting, chair of the undercover policing inquiry, and I will pause now to pay tribute to his predecessor as chair, the late Sir Christopher Pitchford. Sir Christopher was a distinguished member of the Bar, a High Court judge and Lord Justice of Appeal, who sadly died in the middle of this inquiry. He is much missed by all of us who knew and respected him as an outstanding lawyer of his generation.

Sir John stepped into the breach and is conducting this lengthy and serious inquiry. The reason for the request he has made is that information on individuals’ spent convictions is important for the purposes of the terms of reference of the inquiry.

The inquiry is examining undercover police operations conducted by English and Welsh police forces from 1968 onwards, including whether the police were justified in launching undercover operations against a group. To give full consideration to this, the inquiry needs to be able to consider the convictions of members of the groups; however, given the historical nature of the inquiry, many of these convictions will be spent, and therefore not disclosable under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The statutory instrument will give Sir John’s inquiry the ability to consider spent convictions. The change is vital for the inquiry to successfully fulfil its remit, and hon. Members will be aware that there is a high and appropriate level of public interest in this inquiry. Although the undercover policing inquiry is a particularly clear case of an inquiry where spent convictions are relevant, the amendment will allow any inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to admit evidence of spent convictions and cautions, but—this is important—limited only to where that is necessary to fulfil the terms of reference of that inquiry. It is likely that other inquiries may in future need to consider spent criminal records.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I appreciate his reassurance that the test is of necessity. Can he assure me that the same approach is intended to be taken by the chairman of the inquiry, as, for example, will be taken by a judge in determining the test of necessity and also relevance to the topic matter of an inquiry? Relevance is the normal test in court. Can he assure us that necessity will include that as well?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Justice Committee and a barrister of long standing at the criminal Bar. He is absolutely right to talk about the test of relevance. It is not the purport of any inquiry ambit or the function of any inquiry chair to adopt a floodgates approach to the disclosure and use of spent convictions. In the other place, the noble Baroness Barran put it very well when she set out to their lordships a flowchart of the way in which a particular decision about the use of spent convictions would be taken. She said:

“The first question is: does the individual have spent convictions, yes or no? If the answer is yes, are they relevant? Will they be treated anonymously? If they apply for anonymity, will that be agreed to? Further, even if it is not anonymous, is the hearing held in private or in public? If it is held in private, could the information then be published?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2019; Vol. 797, c. 1792.]

I thought that that was a clear exposition of the framework within which a decision maker would carry out their function when it comes to spent convictions. In other words, that is the sort of filter that I think meets the concerns not only of Members in the other place but of Members in this House.

I was talking about future inquiries, and was saying it is likely that other inquiries may need to consider spent criminal records, as these can be key to determining whether authorities have acted reasonably in assessing and responding to risk. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 affords offenders protection from having to disclose their convictions and cautions, once those convictions and cautions have become what is termed “spent” under the Act. That is the point at which the offender has become rehabilitated. The exceptions order to that Act lists activities or categories of jobs where those protections are lifted so that offenders, if asked, need to disclose their spent convictions.

The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs—positions of public trust, for example, or those involving unsupervised work with children—where more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may be appropriate to mitigate risks to public safety. The exceptions order is not limited to employment purposes, although that is its primary use. The amendment proposed here is not employment-related, but related only to the consideration of evidence of spent convictions and cautions in inquiries that are caused to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Justice Committee has produced a report that recommends “banning the box”, to deal with the issue of spent convictions, and the Government gave a very positive response. There may be occasions when there is a crossover between an individual who might apply for a job in the public sector and somebody who is covered by an inquiry. I just want to get the Minister’s take on that particular point.

[Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very proper point, and I can assure him that the work that his Committee has done and the campaign to ban the box are matters that I and my colleagues in the Department are considering very carefully indeed. I will chart the changes that we have already made to the 1974 Act and the direction of travel later in my remarks, but I would say to him for that in the flowchart that I have outlined, the sort of concerns that he properly raises about an individual’s employment prospects could be raised in the inquiry before the Chair, when the Chair decides whether to publish the information or to retain anonymity. So there will be safeguards designed to protect against the sort of mischief that he properly probes me about.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

May I politely remind my hon. and learned Friend that it is not just employment prospects that will suffer if the box is not banned? There can often be a problem with getting social housing—indeed, any sort of housing—as well as with getting insurance or going to university or college. I welcome this statutory instrument, but it is particularly important that we get this absolutely right and proportionate.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend uses the word “proportionate”, and as a distinguished former Government lawyer, she knows what that means. I think many other people—Madam Deputy Speaker included—will know precisely what it means. It means, in effect, making sure that any measure does not defeat the purpose for which it was brought into force. In other words, it must not become self-defeating, and the response must be in line with the nature of the challenge. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to talk about the wider context. We have to look at meaningful rehabilitation, and we have all seen plenty of examples of individuals who have committed offences and been punished for their crimes and who have been able to go on in later life to make a success of their work and family life and become the sort of citizens we want to see in our society. That is self-evident, and it is certainly the experience that all of us will have had at some point or other.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think the Minister is putting all our fears to rest. Paragraph 7.6 of the accompanying explanatory memorandum refers only to independent inquiries into child sexual abuse. Is that in effect what this is all about, or is it going to be wider than that? I thought that if people had signed the sex offenders register, that was already admissible evidence, so could the Minister confirm that this is not just about historical child sex abuse and tell us what the status of the sex offenders register is?

[Robert Buckland]

I am looking again at paragraph 7.6, and I think its purpose is to illustrate other examples of inquiries that have been set up pursuant to the Inquiries Act 2005. I will go on to explain that, because that does not cover every public inquiry. I will give the House a few examples as I develop my argument. In this case, the ongoing independent inquiry into child sexual abuse is used as an example of a 2005 Act statutory inquiry that may need to consider criminal records in the course of its deliberations. It is therefore a useful illustration of another inquiry that was set up because there was a strong public interest to be served and one would benefit from not having to undergo what would otherwise be a rather cumbersome and lengthy process of looking at the admission of evidence on a case-by-case basis.

As we know, the independent inquiry is taking considerable time, and it would be in the wider public interest for its work to be sped up in this way.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) talked about the register; as he knows, sex offenders are required to sign that on conviction. That public document is recorded and kept just as a conviction would be. From memory, how long an offender has to stay on the register will depend on the seriousness of the offence. Some very serious child sexual offences will, of course, rightly require life registration, so the matter will remain on public record.

The hon. Gentleman was a Member when that Act was passed; he might have a better institutional memory than mine when it comes to the debates that led up to that. My experience of it was as a practitioner and recorder, having to make sure that defendants complied with the requirement. The sex offenders register is not a court order but a statutory obligation that follows automatically on conviction.

I come back to the exceptions order, whose primary use is for employment purposes. The amendment that we are discussing is not, of course, employment related: it relates only to the consideration of evidence of spent convictions in inquiries caused to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005. Although a number of judicial proceedings are exempt from the protections of disclosure—in those proceedings, there is no restriction on considering or basing conclusions on spent conviction information—inquiries made under the 2005 Act are not currently exempt.

Examples of proceedings that are exempt include circumstances ranging from solicitor and police disciplinary proceedings, to proceedings relating to taxi driver and security licences. We feel that the work of inquiries set up under the 2005 Act is necessarily of such public interest and importance that they must have the ability to consider all the evidence relevant to their work. To extend that ability to these inquiries, we must amend the exceptions order.

The draft instrument is necessary to amend the order to enable inquiries caused to be held under the 2005 Act to admit and consider evidence of convictions and cautions that have become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, where it is necessary to fulfil the terms of reference of that inquiry; the word “relevance” again comes very much into play.

We recognise the importance of the 1974 Act, which offers vital protections to people with convictions. We improved those protections in 2014, reducing the amount of time that most people with convictions had to wait before their convictions became spent. As I mentioned in responding to the intervention made by the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), we are considering proposals for further reform to the 1974 Act following the recommendations made by various reviews in recent years, including those carried out by the Justice Committee, on which the right hon. Gentleman serves.

There are demanding criteria for inclusion on the exceptions order. Our proposed inclusion would be the first addition to the order in three years. As I said, the amendment proposed here is not about employment; it relates only to the consideration of evidence of spent convictions and cautions in judicial proceedings—namely, before inquiries caused to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005.

Understandably, their lordships raised concerns in the other place about granting all inquiries the right to consider spent convictions and the effect that would have on individual rights. I want to make it crystal clear that we have proposed to extend this power only to a limited number of inquiries; as I said, we are talking only about inquiries set up under the 2005 Act, so non-statutory inquiries, such as both the Butler and Chilcot inquiries on the Iraq war, would not be covered by this legislation.

This legislation applies only to inquiries where considering spent convictions is necessary to fulfil their terms of reference. An inquiry’s terms of reference are set by the Minister, in consultation with the chairman of the inquiry. That provides an element of individual consideration of whether the exception should apply to each inquiry that ensures that this will not apply indiscriminately. Frankly, considering spent convictions will not be necessary for the vast majority of inquiries. In other words, the measure already has a limited application.

Our view is that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that individual rights—the issue that concerned their lordships—are preserved as far as is necessary. Under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005, inquiries are caused to be held by a Minister when particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern, or there is public concern that particular events have occurred. As such, inquiries by design are held only where they are in the public interest, so any limited interference with an offender’s article 8 right to private life under the European convention on human rights would be necessary and proportionate.

Article 8 enshrines the right to respect for private life, but that is a qualified right. Subsection (2) provides that there shall be no interference with that right except such as is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic wellbeing of the country, or else for the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Section 19 of the 2005 Act has specific regard to these rights, in as far as they ought be protected, but it does so in a way that enables the inquiry to fulfil its terms of reference and consider matters necessary in the public interest. In that way, the 2005 Act directly reflects the qualified nature of the right to privacy.

[Robert Neill]

The Minister is being most generous, but will he help me? He asserts, in terms, that if the inquiry is set up under the Act, it automatically triggers some of the exemptions to article 8. What is the remedy, however, if a person who is to be called as a witness by the inquiry is aggrieved and wishes to challenge the finding of the inquiry chair to admit the evidence of a spent conviction? Would there be a judicial review in the ordinary way?

[Robert Buckland]

There would be a judicial review. That point was considered carefully in the other place. I readily accept and deal full on with the potentially onerous nature of having to bring a judicial review to challenge proceedings. But as I have said, the filter system that any chair would have to operate is considerable. There are safeguards and guarantees in respect of anonymity and publication that provide the sort of safeguard that, if misapplied, would quickly and obviously attract criticism when a higher court came to scrutinise the decision process.

[Victoria Prentis]

Will the Minister help the House? Are the chairmen of these inquiries not nearly always senior judges, who are perfectly able to make the sort of evaluation that he is telling us about?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As she will know, the process of obtaining a senior serving member of the judiciary will be done in consultation between the appropriate Secretary of State or Minister and, usually, the Lord Chief Justice, who will consider availability carefully. Retired High Court judges or lord and lady justices of appeal can also be considered. We are particularly fortunate, as I said at the beginning, to have Sir John and, formerly, Sir Christopher. They were asked to fulfil the role of chair as a result of consultation between Ministers and the Lord Chief Justice.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

If I understand it, this is about spent convictions. As we do not know the nature of any future inquiry in which spent convictions would need to be disclosed, would it not make sense to introduce a statutory instrument when a future inquiry needs such disclosure?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady tempts me down the road of ad hocery, which, as we know, can be a somewhat cumbersome instrument when it comes to issues of this nature. She can be reassured that the narrow nature of this proposed exception means that, first, the type of inquiry is tightly constrained to within the 2005 Act. Secondly, I do not envisage that many of even those types of inquiry will have to deal with the issue of spent convictions. Where they do, there will be a clear process for the chair to follow in assessing relevance, whether the spent convictions should be anonymised and whether they should be published. I would submit that there are lots of safeguards, which I hope will cure her justified concerns.

I am at times, quite properly, an advocate of ad hocery, which has been part of our system since time immemorial, and I agree with the words of the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor:

“My Lords, I well understand the need for this order in respect of the application that has been made, but innovating the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to any extent can be done only as a matter of principle. It cannot be done ad hoc for a particular inquiry. Therefore, what is the principle under which it would be allowable in respect of this inquiry? The answer is that it is required to fulfil the inquiry’s remit. Only that would justify it. The application says, ‘We cannot fulfil the remit we have been given unless we are allowed to examine this matter’.

In my submission, it is extremely difficult to have an ad hoc system.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2019; Vol. 797, c. 1788-89.]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, and I would pray in aid his remarks in support of my argument today.

I was addressing the right to privacy, and I was going to elaborate upon my earlier remarks on anonymity. Inquiry chairs must preserve the anonymity of individuals as far as is necessary to respect their legal right to privacy. The chair of an inquiry has the power under section 19 of the 2005 Act to restrict the publication of information via a restriction notice. The undercover policing inquiry, for example, has invited applications for restriction orders. Individuals can use these orders to seek to maintain their anonymity.

The chairman must apply a strict balancing test under section 19, taking all relevant circumstances, including potential harm or damage to an individual, into account when deciding to make a restriction order. Where an individual is not satisfied that this has been done appropriately, they can make representations to the inquiry and ultimately, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), they can judicially review the decision. Together, we feel these represent a strong system of checks to ensure that individuals’ rights are upheld.

As some inquiries will be obliged to have regard to the rights of those who hold criminal records and to the legitimacy of using such evidence in the course of their duties, our view is that the duties of all inquiries are of sufficient seriousness to justify clarifying that they may take spent criminal record evidence into consideration where they believe it is necessary.

Although we do not think that considering spent convictions is likely to be necessary for the vast majority of inquiries, adding only the UCPI to the exceptions order would set a precedent that may lead to further requests—that is the ad hocery point. Adding those inquiries to the exceptions order now will ensure that more efficient use is made of the parliamentary process, as further amendments will not be required for each specific individual inquiry as and when it arises.

Not proceeding with legislation would prevent the UCPI and other statutory inquiries from admitting evidence of spent convictions, which would mean treating people with spent convictions as though those convictions had never occurred. The worry is that the inquiries would then have to accept a somewhat distorted version of reality. That could ultimately lead to conclusions based in part, or sometimes in whole, on false premises, which clearly would not be in the public interest.

We have to remember the wider purpose of inquiries set up under the 2005 Act, the job that chairs are given, the serious and grave nature of many of these inquiries and the strong public interest that underpins and runs through such proceedings and their purpose. My conclusion is that not doing so would clearly not be in the wider public interest, and I therefore strongly commend this statutory instrument to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

That is precisely right. Someone summoned to give evidence to a statutory inquiry would be obliged to come forward. With all due respect, it seems to me that it is a false point that should not weigh on us.

The second point is that even when people are summoned there is still a safeguard. It seems to me that the safeguard of the application of the test of relevance, in what is after all an inquisitorial process, as opposed to the criminal, adversarial one, is proper and appropriate. I am concerned about the potential cost of somebody having to seek a judicial review, because that process is lengthy and difficult.

[Robert Buckland]

One of the great functions of this debate is to tease out some of the issues. Before public inquiries are published, is there not a Maxwellisation process whereby individuals who might be referred to in a way that is potentially adverse to their interests are notified? Is that not another safeguard?

[Robert Neill]

It is indeed; my hon. and learned Friend anticipates the point I was about to move on to. A series of steps and procedures have to be gone through in relation to a statutory inquiry, and that puts the person concerned on clear notice that the issue may become relevant and may be raised. They then have the opportunity to make representations before the chair of the inquiry. Should the ruling go against them, there is then the fall-back position of a judicial review.

Out of a sense of fairness, and taking an approach of equality of arms, if someone is summoned to give evidence before a statutory inquiry and it is likely that a spent conviction is going to be considered as being admissible and argument is going to take place on those grounds, that person, if they are not otherwise legally represented already, ought to have the ability to be legally represented. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to consider, where appropriate, with those in his Department who deal with matters of legal aid, that that person, if they are not represented either as part of a class or group or because of their own means, should have access to legal aid to argue before the inquiry whether the spent conviction should be admitted. It involves a very small sum of money because in practice it is likely to happen only on a limited number of occasions.

That would be an appropriate additional safeguard from the point of view of equality of arms. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will take that point away. Subject to that request, it seems to me that the safeguards are met. It is better to deal with this matter with one piece of legislation rather than to come back on an ad hoc basis.

I hope that this discussion also reminds us all of the advantage of having legally qualified inquiry chairs. Non-statutory inquiries that do not have legally qualified chairs have sometimes spiralled out of control because the chairs are not adept at dealing with, for example, the admissibility of evidence or case management generally, in the same way as a judge is able to. Perhaps that lesson can be taken away, too, but that should not stand in the way of our supporting a useful and proportionate statutory instrument, having weighed up all the pros and cons, as we have in this debate.

[Robert Buckland]

This might not have been the longest of debates, but I very much hope that those listening, particularly in the other place, will abandon their usual criticism of our House, because it has been a wide-ranging debate. It has included not only contributions from the Opposition Front Bencher—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for her warm words; we served together on the Justice Committee for a lengthy period and her background in law is well known—but important contributions in interventions from the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Through the debate we have dealt with and, I hope, laid to rest some of the objections that have been raised. On the objection that somehow the prospect of the potential disclosure of spent convictions in the limited circumstances described might deter people from coming forward, it has been pointed out that witnesses can be and are summonsed under the 2005 Act inquiry process, so the question of their not choosing to come forward becomes somewhat more academic.

On the issue of challenge, I have already set out the five-stage test that the chair of an inquiry would apply before admitting into evidence and then publishing the details of spent convictions. Under the Maxwellisation process, before publication the chair and the inquiry secretariat will invite representations from people who might be referred to in a way that is adverse to their personal interest, and those people will then be able to make full representations before final publication. That is yet another check and balance in the inquiry system.

Let me say a few words of slight dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said about always needing a former judge, perhaps, or someone who is legally qualified as chair. I pray in aid the independent inquiry into child abuse, which Professor Alexis Jay is chairing expertly. Of course, she enjoys the support of highly qualified lawyers: the counsel to that inquiry, Brian Altman QC, and his team are there to help to make sure that the inquiry keeps very much to the course of relevance, and they look carefully at how proceedings are conducted. Of course, those proceedings are ongoing, so I shall say no more about them out of respect for the independence of that important inquiry and its work.

The Government are absolutely committed not only to maintaining the protections in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 but to looking into proposals for strengthening it. I look forward to engaging warmly with right hon. and hon. Members on that work. There is a strong case for adding the type of inquiry we have discussed to the exceptions order. An ad hoc approach would not be appropriate. I submit that the strong public interest that would be served by the proposal, the narrow nature of the extension, the checks and balances that will exist to protect the interests of those affected and the wider public interest should all drive the House to the conclusion that this draft statutory instrument should indeed be approved, and I commend it to the House.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. How many prison officers took their own lives in each of the past five years.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

We do not hold the specific information requested by the hon. Gentleman. I fully appreciate that the pressures on prison officers can be considerable. However, we are committed to ensuring the health, safety and wellbeing of our staff, and have systems in place where if people are struggling, for whatever reason, including outside-work pressures, they will get the support they need.

[Luke Pollard]

Right across the public sector, the Government do not keep enough statistics on people in uniform who are taking their own lives due to physical and mental pressures at work. Will the Minister agree to meet me and members of the Prison Officers Association to discuss how we can record those statistics and, most importantly, how we can prevent prison officers from taking their own lives?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important and sensitive point. I should add that the prison chaplaincy service provides invaluable support for many prison officers who are struggling. I will meet him about this issue. The current figures record deaths in service. Clearly, the issue of mental health and people taking their own lives has to be addressed.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

May I start by welcoming my hon. and learned Friend to his post? I think this is the first question time that he has taken in his new role.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that we not only pay the highest tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the men and women of our Prison Service, but recognise that the pressures that they face come in no small measure from the difficulty of establishing secure regimes and stability within our prisons? Will he take on board the recommendations of the Justice Committee—in particular, our suggestion for a workforce strategy across the whole of the Prison Service?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I pay tribute to the work of his Committee. We have seen welcome increases in the number of prison officers, and that will help with stability. Retention rates are very important. I will certainly study very carefully the recommendations of his Committee, and work with him and other Members to make sure that we achieve our common goal.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Prison officers do a very difficult job on behalf of the community, but the loss of thousands of staff, leading to the highest-ever number of assaults in prisons last year, has put them under enormous stress. Does the Minister accept that warm words are not good enough in this situation and there needs to be a serious increase in the number of prison staff to alleviate the pressure on officers?

[Robert Buckland]

I am pleased to inform the hon. Lady that there has indeed been a significant increase in the number of prison staff. We are now up to over 4,500 extra prison staff from the low point. I take her point that with increasing staff, more constructive work can be done with prisoners. The key worker scheme that we have now rolled out in the majority of adult male closed prisons, where prison officers work with six named prisoners, is already yielding results and making prisons safer places. I very much take on board the point she makes about assaults.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his new appointment.

One of the issues that adds to the emotional stress on prison officers can be a very long commute at the end of a working day, particularly in London and the south-east in very high-cost housing areas. What discussions is the Department having with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make sure that key worker accommodation is available for prison officers, who are often not that well paid, in high-cost housing areas?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend, as a former prisons Minister, knows this issue very well, and I pay tribute to him for his continued commitment to it. Yes, the question of housing is a difficult one. I am glad to say that recruitment rates in London have proved extremely successful. The extra increments that are paid to certain prison officers to recognise the particular pressures that they are under is a welcome part of the system. However, I will be happy to speak further to him about the issue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will know that in Northern Ireland prison officers have been subjected to mental and physical pressures above and beyond—post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health issues. The Northern Ireland Assembly and Justice Department have been very active in offering support. Has he had the opportunity to speak to those in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Department to find out what is being done for prison officers in Northern Ireland?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am always willing to speak to and learn from experiences in other parts of our United Kingdom, most particularly Northern Ireland. Various therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, are available to prison officers should they wish to seek them. There is also a fast-track referral system, which is particularly encouraged where staff have experienced trauma.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of support for litigants in family courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of violence in prisons.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

Violence against our dedicated staff will not be tolerated. Levels of violence in prison remain too high, but I am pleased to say that the number of assaults from October to December last year decreased by 11% from the previous quarter. We know that positive relationships between staff and prison officers can make a big difference. That is the aim of the new key workers scheme, and 60 of the 92 closed male adult prisons have now completed implementing it.

[Mr Cunningham]

Prison officers work in what their trade unions call one of the most hostile environments in western Europe, with assaults on staff quadrupling since 2010. Does the Minister not think it is a bit unfair for a prison officer at 68 years of age to be forced to manhandle people and physically control them? Surely he could do something about early retirement for them.

[Robert Buckland]

It is important to remember that for many years prison officers have daily faced that sort of challenge. It is unacceptable, which is why I am glad to say that numbers of prison officers have increased. With that important work with prisoners, I strongly believe that prisons will become safer places. Let us not forget the roll-out of body-worn cameras as well: 6,000 have now been provided. I believe that that will not only protect prisoners, but protect prison officers from false allegations.

[Alex Norris]

HMP Nottingham remains a particularly violent place for staff and inmates. The previous prisons Minister made improving this prison a personal priority. Will the new Minister commit to doing the same, and will he meet me to hear some of our local concerns?

[Robert Buckland]

I know from my previous role that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in criminal justice issues in his city. I share the same commitment as my predecessor to reducing violence at Nottingham. A new violence reduction strategy was launched by that prison. We provided funding for physical alterations to set up a new violence reduction landing, and two safer custody leads are now working in the prison to improve physical security. Of course I will meet him as part of that developing progress.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

21. The recent prison inspector’s report on HMP Lewes in my constituency found systemic failure, even after it went into special measures, with an increase in the number of assaults on staff and a quarter of inmates feeling unsafe. What more can the Department do to support the new governor, Hannah Lane, in turning around that prison and making it a safer place for inmates and prison officers?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is quite right to chart the issues at HMP Lewes. I am glad to say that the prison is now fully staffed and performance has begun to improve in the second half of last year, but I accept that things have not recovered to the position that Lewes had been in when the inspectorate made a previous visit. However, the number of assaults has fallen to a level similar to that of three years ago, and work continues to be done. From the centre, both I and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will continue to support the new governor in her work.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Is the new prisons Minister prepared to repeat the pledge of his predecessor that he will resign if there is not a significant reduction in violence in prisons within 12 months?

[Robert Buckland]

As I have said already in this House in an Opposition day debate, I am going to do it my way.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I think we will take that as a no, then.

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

I have been taking part in the Prison Service parliamentary scheme at HMP Swansea, where over only two days I witnessed one dirty protest and two incidents at height. These were handled professionally by prison staff, officers and management alike, but surely the Minister shares my concern that prison officers are now expected to respond to such physically demanding and risky challenges as everyday workplace hazards? Will he meet the POA to discuss the absolute anomaly of our expecting emergency services officers to work until they are 68?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for taking part in that important and valuable scheme. HMP Swansea was the very first prison I went into, nearly 30 years ago, and I pay tribute to the staff there. I take on board the point she makes. I have already spoken to the POA about that very issue, and I will continue a dialogue on that and many other matters.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

How about this as a deterrent to violence in prisons: a prisoner who assaults a prison officer is simply not eligible for early release?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that that sort of conduct and criminality is dealt with in two ways. The first is by the criminal courts. The recent Act promoted by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) covers prison officers, and I pay tribute to him for that. The second is via an internal process by which prisoners face consequences such as privileges being removed and categorisation changed.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment. By now, he will know that since 2010 our prisons have been driven into a spiral of violence and a state of emergency as a direct result of his Government’s cuts, leaving staff, prisoners and the public less safe. Will he answer one simple question: when will our prisons return to being as safe as they were in 2010?

[Robert Buckland]

I think the work being done to recruit extra prison officers and the extra finance and resource given to my Department by the Treasury are allowing us to return to a position of greater safety. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but I have to say to him that my experience of prisons stretches back a generation, and I know that many of the issues relating to prisons take a long time to resolve, but that will not stop me having a sense of urgency when it comes to dealing with problems of drugs, violence and safety more generally.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the role of sport in rehabilitating prisoners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to improve legal protections for prison and probation officers facing charges of gross misconduct.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

The existing process is an internal employment process and is compliant with both employment law and ACAS best practice. It exists to identify where misconduct has occurred and to hold individuals to account. By holding all prison and probation officers to the high standard we expect, we protect the reputation of the entire service.

[Laura Pidcock]

Napo has called for the scapegoating of probation officers to end, especially with the reviewing of cases that have already been covered by a review. It insists that senior managers are driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something rather than to deal with the root cause, which is the unbearable workload pressures caused by mass vacancies. Does the Minister agree that the probation service should take responsibility for structural failures leading to serious further offences, rather than hanging its workers out to dry?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady makes a very proper point, and I pay tribute to the probation officers I have worked with over many years. They are dedicated public servants who use their professional judgment and skill to help assess risk, which is an onerous task. I do not approve of scapegoating. I expect the service to support probation officers who are under pressure, but for cases where there needs to be an investigation, due process then has to take place.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

8. If he will make it his policy to end the requirement for 12 months of probation supervision for people with sentences of less than 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

18. What recent progress his Department has made on recruiting 2,500 new prison officers.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

Our target to recruit an additional 2,500 officers was successfully achieved in the first quarter of last year, ahead of schedule. From October 2016 to 31 March this year, there was an increase of 4,675 full-time equivalent prison officers.

[Eddie Hughes]

I welcome that increase in the number of prison officers. What progress has been made with the key worker scheme in prisons?

[Robert Buckland]

The key worker scheme is an important part of improving support for prisoners, leading to safer prisons. That work has begun in all 92 prisons in the male closed estate, and 66 of them have completed implementation activities and started to deliver key work. Only last week I spoke to prisoners in two of those prisons who are already receiving the benefits of that interaction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

T9. Having worked with his predecessor, it is clear to me that new technology in prisons can help with rehabilitation, so what plans does my hon. and learned Friend have in this area?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Robert Buckland)]

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of technology in rehabilitation, which is why in-cell telephones have now been rolled out to 18 prisons and work is under way to deliver them to a further 30 prisons by March 2020. The introduction of basic computers, with the necessary controls, can allow prisoners to start managing some of their day-to-day tasks ahead of potential release.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T4. The Coventry rape and sexual abuse centre, a voluntary organisation in my constituency that deals with rape and domestic violence, has been going for over 20 years but has struggled for sponsorship support. Will the Minister meet me to discuss funding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

HMP Leyhill is a category B prison in south Gloucestershire. The number of abscondees is reducing year on year, but there remains significant concern in the community following an incident last year involving a school just half a mile away. Will the prisons Minister be good enough to visit south Gloucestershire to see this prison and to talk about the emergency mechanisms that need to be put in place?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am more than happy to visit Her Majesty’s Prison Leyhill not just to look at that specific issue but to see the conditions in that category B prison for myself.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In addition to reviewing the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), will the Minister look at families who host international students and who are put in a position of trust over young people?