Court Closures

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate. We have already heard powerful speeches on the subject. Let me say at once that I do not rise specifically to raise any constituency points, because the excellent magistrates court in Bromley continues in operation and is busy. I am concerned, however, as Chairman of the Justice Committee; the matter of closures has been raised in our discussions in this and the previous Parliament on a number of occasions. Although we are not dealing with a specific inquiry into the matter, it raises its head when we look at other important issues.

In fairness to the Minister, who I have always found to be a model of courtesy and openness in his dealings with me and the Select Committee, I must say that a balance has to be struck. Court closures have gone on through most of my life, first as a practising lawyer and then as a Member of Parliament. I cut my teeth as a young barrister going to courts in Essex villages, such as Castle Hedingham, Halstead and places of that kind, which sat perhaps once a month. They are now gone. I cannot say that at the end of the day the quality of justice was permanently and wholly undermined by those closures.

[Albert Owen]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

Let me just make my point. We need a sense of balance. I think the hon. Gentleman is about to make that point, and he might well say some things later on with which I shall agree.

[Albert Owen]

I am certain that that will be the case. The hon. Gentleman is right that there was a big review of courts and some court closures in the last Parliament. At that time, only a few years ago, the Government told us that the remaining courts were needed in the community. Nothing has changed. It is just the Government’s attitude that has changed; when it comes to local justice, nothing has changed at all.

[Robert Neill]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, particularly in respect of rural areas. In fairness, though, there were court closure programmes under Labour Governments just as much as there were under Conservative Governments, so it is not an issue over which any one party can claim advantage. The hon. Gentleman made a very fair point about access to justice, but it is not the case that one particular party is more or less committed to it. The issue is how to balance what is largely a centrally funded service with local needs. That is what we need to deal with, and it has been raised as an issue in the Justice Committee.

It is fair to acknowledge that the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was quite right when she referred to the comments of Lord Bingham of Cornhill. I have often thought that his book, “The Rule of Law”, should be made compulsory reading for Members of both Houses, not least because, although written by a distinguished lawyer, it is remarkably concise. It is worth bearing in mind that the common law doctrine of accessibility, to which the hon. Lady referred, grew up at a time when there were far fewer courts, distances between them were much greater, public transport was virtually non-existent and journeys took much longer. Everything has to be put into context; it is not a matter of absolutes; it is all about getting the balance right, as some hon. Members have said.

I repeat that there were court closures under Labour Governments, and the most recent set of closures occurred during the Parliament of 2010 to 2015. The Justice Committee was interested in the effect, because part of the argument has been the need at a time of pressure on the public finances to get maximum value for money. That is understandable, as is the fact that there has been a decline in the use of courts, particularly magistrates courts, because of the reduction in crime. I am told that use across the magistrates courts estate decreased by something in the order of 43% during that previous Parliament. That is not the whole picture, but it is fair to put it into the balance. I remember some magistrates courts being in poor condition—old, ill equipped and without the facilities to deal with the necessary separation of witnesses, victims and legal advisers, to which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) referred. So not all closures are bad. There has to be a process of renewal and, sometimes, of consolidation.

[Mrs Moon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Neill]

I will, just this once.

[Mrs Moon]

I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but my point is this. We have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on the project, and on making it viable for the future. Is it not nonsensical, having spent that money, to waste it by closing courts?

[Robert Neill]

I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but I will not go into individual cases, because that is not the job that the Select Committee has sought to take on.

In October 2015, following the 2010 to 2014 closure programme—the court estate reform programme, as it was described—during the previous Parliament, the Committee took evidence from Natalie Ceeney, chief executive of HM Courts and Tribunals Service. We asked, in particular, what progress had been made—[Interruption.] I hope that that is not my clerk or someone ringing me up. I think it is worse when it happens in court, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can only apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is worse when it happens here. For the moment, however, we will ignore it, and allow the hon. Gentleman to continue his excellent speech.

[Robert Neill]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honest truth is that it is worse anyway.

As I was saying, we wanted to know what progress had been made in the selling off of the courts that had been closed as part of the 2010 to 2014 programme. We were told that, as of 23 October last year, 10 court buildings remained unsold. It would be helpful if the Minister could update us. If courts are to be closed, it is important for them to be disposed of in a timely manner, given that one of the prime arguments for closures is the need to secure economies and value for money. There is certainly no virtue in continuing to spend money on mothballing unused buildings.

I agree with other Members that the issue of physical proximity and journey times is not unique to rural areas. When the last Labour Government were conducting court closure and amalgamation programmes in London, I made the point, as a London Assembly Member, that a journey in peak time from south-east London to, say, Wells Street—where a great deal of family court work was, at the time, being centralised—was likely to take an hour or an hour and a half, and that, if care or family cases were involved, that would impose an onerous and probably unfair burden on people who were in a difficult, perhaps vulnerable, state. Such issues do apply to urban areas as well.

The issue of longer travel times has been raised with the Committee, particularly in the context of our current inquiry into the role of the magistracy. There is a balance to be struck between the efficiency of the system and the localness of justice. Earlier this week we took evidence from the National Bench Chairmen’s Forum, which does what it says: it is the body representing the chairs of benches. The forum expressed concern about the issue. Interestingly, a representative of one of the benches in north Wales made exactly the same point as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) about the difficulty of getting mobile and other coverage in very rural areas. In fairness, it was not suggested that the problem was insuperable, but the point was made that if courts were to be amalgamated in such areas, it was important to get the technology right and in place first.

The magistrates expressed a fear—not only in oral evidence but in written evidence, which is available on the Committee’s website—that courts would inevitably be concentrated in more urban areas, that there would inevitably be a temptation for magistrates to be drawn from areas in the immediate proximity of the courts, and that rural areas would consequently be under-represented areas on the benches. I think that that is an important and legitimate point. It was also pointed out to us that larger benches—and some benches now contain up to 1,000 magistrates, or thereabouts—placed much greater burdens on the chairs of those benches. It was suggested that we should think about what support could be given to those chairing very large benches with considerable workloads in administrative matters that were not previously envisaged. Again, I do not think that the problem is insuperable, but we must ensure that that support is provided.

On the basis of the evidence that we heard, it is fair to say that members of the senior judiciary are much more positive about the opportunities that arise from the use of digital and other modern technology, and consider that it can alleviate some of the pressures that arise from court processes. On 23 February, the Lord Chief Justice gave evidence to us about digitisation in the courts service. He praised the approach taken by HM Courts and Tribunals in building its digital case system unit by unit rather than on a monolithic single contract—and I think it right to give praise where it is due—but he was also alert to the need to deal with digital exclusion.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, while recognising that there was much value to be gained from the use of IT to overcome some of the access-to-court issues, also made the point—with which I think we would all agree—that the Government’s track record on IT projects was “not exactly shining”. Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division, said that a digitised divorce service would provide real opportunities to reduce the burdens on people at a difficult time in their lives, but he was “disappointed” by the lack of progress so far. The Senior President of Tribunals, Sir Ernest Ryder, had “reservations” about the Department’s capacity to deliver the modernisation programme, and that is a point that I particularly wanted to make today.

I think it worries many of us that, while a number of fairly senior practitioners in the field say that they have no problem with the modernisation programme and— in some instances—accept the rationale for estates rationalisation, a greater move towards digitisation, the use of video conferencing and so on, there is doubt about whether either the Ministry of Justice or HM Courts and Tribunals Service has the necessary technical and professional capacity to deliver on those issues. That concerns me as much in relation to the estates disposal programme as in relation to the digitisation programme.

There is now a very good family law centre in east London, which is part of the combined family court that we now have at Canary Wharf. It opened in December 2014 and is working well, but its opening was delayed. It was apparent to us that the delay was partly due to the fact that the estate managers who were dealing with the project on behalf of the Government, in house, had spent the better part of a year pursuing a site in the Canary Wharf area that was never realistically going to be available at an acceptable rent or on acceptable terms. The commercial property operators with whom they were dealing were understandably running rings around them.

Government Departments and agencies often do not have the level of direct commercial expertise in tough, hard money negotiations that they need if they are to deliver the courts rationalisation, disposal and, subsequently, renewal programme. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is being done to strengthen the technical, managerial and professional expertise that is available to the Government. I hope he will also concede that the process need not be carried out in house, and that, in some circumstances, it is very proper to buy in specialist advice from the legal and property sector to ensure that the Government get the best possible deal and the changes are made in a timely manner.

The Magistrates Association and the judiciary have drawn our attention to the possibility of overcoming some of the pressures caused by a loss of local connection, which are of legitimate and genuine concern, by using satellite courts to hear cases that may require less security than those that are heard at a main magistrates court. It might be possible to use a public building, closer to the locality where the offence had been committed. I can think of circumstances in which it would not be too difficult to make use of, say, a town hall or a civic centre. Intelligent listing can be done now that more digital listing is being used, and it could be used in cases that were unlikely to have custody requirements or a large number of witnesses. In cases involving a summary-only offence and in which the witnesses were likely to be local, it should be possible, with sensible management and support for the bench, to get magistrates from that locality to hear the case. We ought to explore more ways of doing that.

We have also suggested to magistrates and to the bench forums that we should look at some of the existing learning in the local government world. Some of the issues that confront magistrates servicing rural petty sessional divisions are not dissimilar to those confronting district councillors in rural areas. Some local authorities have done significant work on online decision making and on finding ways of setting up delegated local area committees. Those would not be dissimilar to the satellite courts that I have mentioned. There is experience in other areas that the judicial world could learn from, and I urge the Minister to encourage his Department as well as those in the judiciary and the magistrates to take that on board. This applies to the legal profession as well. The Committee has received the representations that other Members have referred to, and there is scope for sensible co-working between lawyers on some of these issues.

I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, I hope, for your forgiveness. I hope that when the Minister replies to this important debate he will be able to respond to these points, which have struck a chord across the board among members of the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate. I am pleased to speak in it, and I wish to speak up for the principle of local justice and the vital importance of the courthouse in Stockport for my constituents. I welcome last month’s decision by the Ministry of Justice to keep the Stockport courthouse open, particularly in the wake of my campaign with the Ministry of Justice and having had many productive conversations with the Minister.

As many hon. Members have said, a key principle of our justice system, one that underpins both the magistrates courts and Crown courts, is that justice should be delivered by one’s peers. By extension, that gives rise to the requirement for local justice to be administered by local people within the local area. Those principles have given rise to the patchwork of jurisdictions and local courts that make up the current structure of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Those principles, under the current courts system, also give rise to the important practical benefits that help to deliver justice effectively. They provide a shorter distance to travel for the relevant parties in cases, including defendants, victims, and witnesses, many of whom are often accompanied by their families and friends to court, and for the magistrates, clerks and staff of the court. They also give rise to smaller benches having a local identity and a social or team aspect. Finally, the distribution of courts not only contributes to local communities, but serves as a catalyst to small micro-economies—we heard about the pies and pasties in Wakefield—and associated services, as well as to the legal professions that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned.

Out of respect for those principles and practical benefits, I also opposed the proposed merger of the local justice area of Greater Manchester, which was considered in a public consultation by the Ministry of Justice at a similar time to the one on courthouses. I made the separate case to the Ministry that in the event of any changes to that local justice area, not all the business of any new merged LJA should be conducted in the Manchester city courts, but rather a significant proportion should still be conducted in courts across Greater Manchester, including that in Stockport.

I made the case some months ago to the Ministry of Justice to urge that Stockport’s court should remain open and retain at least a significant proportion of its current magistrates court and county court functions. Stockport court has 47 staff and was running at only 54% capacity in 2014, with annual running costs of £879,000. Please allow me to explain why I felt the way I did. The first reason was that those impacted by the proposed closure would be the court users, including victims and witnesses in the magistrates courts, and those involved in small claims, bankruptcy and evictions in the county court. All those are groups of vulnerable people who need the security and convenience of local services, at what is an already stressful time for them. The closure of Stockport courthouse could have severely restricted access to justice and may have ended up being a false economy by simply shifting the operating costs to other areas.

[Robert Neill]

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend mention that Stockport court is not to be closed. That was particularly welcomed by members of our Committee, because it also houses a very successful problem-solving court, which has been recognised by the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor as one area where we could do much more to combine jurisdictions and get a much more effective use of judicial capacity and better outcomes.

[William Wragg]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises an important point about the innovative work being carried out in the Stockport courthouse building, and I am grateful to him for drawing that to the House’s attention. The closure of the court would have left the town without a court and would have meant that my constituents would have had to travel to Manchester in the quest for justice. That would not only have seen them incurring additional expense, but it would have had potentially negative impacts on vulnerable people, and disabled people in particular. Any such closure could also increase the amount of defendants not turning up for hearings, thus wasting the resources of the court and meaning that more arrest warrants would be issued, with consequential impacts on police resources.

Moreover, from a local economic perspective, if the closure had gone ahead in its proposed form, all cases would have been heard in Manchester and there would no longer have been a magistrates court between Chesterfield and Manchester. The Chesterfield and Stockport case was something my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) mentioned. In addition, the closure of the Stockport court would have had an impact on not only the employees of the courthouse, but local businesses, particularly those in the legal profession.

I understand that in the context of the wider pressures on public finances some savings have to be made somewhere, and I acknowledge that the Minister has a very unenviable task in the difficult decision he is facing. I also have sympathy for other local courts in surrounding areas, many of which can equally apply these same arguments. Other local communities have strong allegiances to their local courts, and I am particularly sorry to hear that the courts at Bury, Oldham and Trafford are earmarked for closure. However, I think there was a stronger case in Stockport’s favour, in particular, because it is one of the most heavily used courts in the area. The stated aim of the reforms to the HMCTS estate is to reduce surplus capacity by closing courts that are unused or underused, or that are simply unsuitable for the services that we now need to provide in them. During the 2014-15 financial year, Stockport magistrates court was utilised at approximately 54% of its capacity—that was the highest level of occupancy of any of the Greater Manchester courts. In addition, Stockport courthouse is a high-quality building, only recently having been refurbished in 2010. I therefore cannot see how the closure of Stockport magistrates court could reasonably have been deemed as a cost-saving exercise.

The Government announcement that Stockport court will now not be closed is good news for people living in Stockport and the surrounding areas, including my constituency. I made a submission to the Ministry of Justice as part of the consultation process, and also attended meetings with the Minister, along with my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), to whom I pay particular tribute for the amount of work that she did, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson). I am pleased that we were able to take this cross-party approach and work co-operatively with one another. I am pleased that our arguments were listened to by the Government, in what I felt—I know others may disagree—was a genuine consultation exercise, particularly given the Minister’s intervention in that process.

In summary, I feel that Stockport courthouse should remain open, and I am pleased that my view has been vindicated. Such a decision is important in order to preserve the long-standing principle of local justice being administered by local people within the local area; to provide practical benefits for both the parties in legal cases and the court staff; and to ensure that the court can continue to contribute to the local community and economy. It is also important because the court currently provides a relatively high level of occupancy compared with that of many other courts in Greater Manchester and surrounding districts.

I further urge that the continued operation of Stockport courthouse be incorporated into whichever future model of local justice area structure for Greater Manchester the Ministry of Justice decides to pursue. Can the Minister shed any further light on that matter today? I also welcome the fact that, as part of this reform package, the Government are investing more than £700 million over the next four years to update the court and tribunal estate, installing modern IT systems and making the justice system more efficient and effective for modern users.

As I said earlier, I have sympathy for other local courts in surrounding areas and other areas around the country, and I am glad that many colleagues have been here today to stand up for their local courts. Perhaps somewhat cheekily, may I say that in a week characterised by a refreshingly open attitude on the part of the Government to showing their listening mode, I hope that the Minister will be able to hear some of the important pleas of other right hon. and hon. Members here this afternoon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

There comes a point when we have to start taking decisions and agree to disagree. This whole programme started before last year’s summer recess, and we had a lengthy consultation period. I have had numerous debates and met more people in the House than I can remember. There has been a huge dialogue, but there must be some recognition that we have listened and made changes in a huge number of cases. That may not be the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I am afraid we must agree to disagree.

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) raised concerns about the effectiveness of the administration process that will see this programme through. I will be keeping a sharp eye on proceedings, and if he has any concerns about his local area, I will be more than happy to try to arrange a meeting with senior people at local level, so that he has the comfort he wants.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke of the wonderful work that magistrates do in our courts. I can only echo those comments and say that many magistrates recognise the need for reform.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke about the very useful work of the Justice Committee and brought his own expertise to the House. He also questioned the reliability of the IT projects we will be undertaking. I emphasise that we are taking a staged approach. We will not be putting all our eggs in one basket and we are bringing in expert advice from outside to assist us.

[Robert Neill]

Will the Minister also deal with the question I raised about what happened to the 10 courts closed under the previous programme that remain unsold? If he does not have that information to hand today, will he at least write and place it in the Library?

[Mr Vara]

What I can say is that the 10 has now been reduced to nine, and there are offers in place for some of the remaining courts. Others have had genuine difficulties because of joint occupation with other parties. We hope to transfer the remaining courts to the Homes and Communities Agency, which is dealt with by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke about her personal experience. I was sorry, as I am sure were other colleagues, to hear about the assault that had taken place on her. I very much take on board the points she makes about domestic violence. I emphasise that we are improving the system by which witnesses and victims give evidence. At the moment, they have to go to court and go through a terrifying experience. With a video conferencing facility, they can go to a place that is closer to their home and in much more pleasant surroundings, rather than the awesome and austere environment of a court.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) for his comments confirming that this has been a genuine consultation. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made a very powerful speech, raising an important point about digital infrastructure. I take on board what he says. We will certainly be making sure that the infrastructure is in place to support the court reform programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke about low-level offences, such as TV licence offences. He sought assurances that perhaps they could be dealt with in courts that are closer to the area. Our thinking is that such low-level offences can probably be dealt with online where people plead guilty, which is the majority of cases.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd gave a very powerful speech, raising concerns about access to justice. I assure her that we are very mindful of rural areas and want to make sure we get this right. My constituency has a rural element to it, so I know where she is coming from.

Criminal Legal Aid

Robert Neill Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I welcomed the comments made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), although they were very brief. I must add, however, that his attempt to criticise what has been described as the Lord Chancellor’s sensible decision was opportunism, pure and simple. He obviously has a selective memory. I remind him that in 2009, when Jack Straw was Justice Secretary, he abandoned the criminal legal aid best value tendering scheme at a very late stage, just before the 2010 general election. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman’s grumbling to his boss at the time, and Jack Straw certainly does not recall hearing his voice. This needs to be put into proportion.

Let me now deal with the hon. Gentleman’s questions. When we embarked on the dual contract process, we had the support of the Law Society; the hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on that. We have said that we will suspend the second fee cut for a year. We will then work with the professions, and will form a definite view in due course. As for the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, the hon. Gentleman knows only too well—because I have said it many times at the Dispatch Box—that a review will take place within three to five years. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering away, as he is wont to do on a regular basis. He says, “How much money?” He knows full well that all shades of Government, both Conservative and Labour, if they listen to people and feel that a decision needs to be changed, will make that change. Just as the Labour Government made decisions to change policies, we have made such a decision. I do not recall previous Governments wasting time and effort in trying to make calculations when they have made a change of direction.

Our decision has been welcomed by the profession, and we are pleased about that. We now want to look forward and move ahead.

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

The intelligent lawyer and the intelligent decision maker are alert to the dictum attributed to Keynes: “When my information changes, I change my conclusions.” Surely the Lord Chancellor should be commended rather than criticised for doing that on this occasion.

Will my hon. Friend give us some more details of the particularly welcome initiative to involve the professions themselves through the proposed advisory council?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Lord Chancellor should be commended. Mark Fenhalls, QC, the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said yesterday:

“It takes courage to make such decisions.”

Perhaps the hon. Member for Hammersmith will reflect on that sentiment.

The Lord Chancellor has his advisory board, and he will be working with the profession to ensure that as we progress further, the public will benefit, and the taxpayer who funds the legal aid budget will gain the maximum possible value.

Prisons and Probation

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak in this very important debate. I recognise the serious tone that has been adopted by hon. Members thus far.

I particularly commend the Lord Chancellor for his immensely impressive analysis. He was spot on both about the cause of offending and about the way forward. I commend his analysis to my hon. Friends not just as thorough and thoughtful, but, from my point of view, as profoundly Conservative. As he rightly observed, none of us has a monopoly on understanding the need for prison reform.

The issues are intractable. When I started to make prison visits as a young barrister some 30—nearer 40—years ago, institutions or facilities such as Wandsworth, Holloway and Wormwood Scrubs were already unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose. They have not got better since, and the pressures have become greater. The pressures of overcrowding and of contraband entering prisons existed then—contraband has long been an issue; what has changed is simply the nature of the technology of the contraband and the means by which it is brought in—so these are long-standing issues.

The Lord Chancellor and his team deserve credit for addressing such issues, and particularly for having the imagination to replace our ageing Victorian prison estate when it is virtually impossible to carry out serious rehabilitative work, and given that dealing with the very real mental health and psychological issues of many prisoners is and should also be a top priority. Now that he has set out a vision, I hope that the Lord Chancellor will very swiftly give the House detailed proposals on how we can move forward.

The Justice Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry concentrating on young adult offenders, which is a particularly difficult subset of the prison population. The inquiry is influenced by the excellent review by Lord Harris of Haringey; in fairness, I should say that his work was done at the request of the previous Lord Chancellor in the coalition Government. The Government have responded to Lord Harris’s review, but I would argue that its detail—it goes beyond purely the specifics of young offenders to draw many other lessons—deserves a more detailed and substantive response than has been made so far. Much that is of general application can be taken from the review.

Safety in prisons is a critical issue. I do not doubt the quality of our prison staff. In the course of our inquiry, the Select Committee has visited Holloway prison and the young offenders institution at Aylesbury, where excellent people are working. My concern is that the senior management of NOMS do not always give the impression that, in their operations on the ground, they have worked through in practice the assurances they have given us in the Select Committee or elsewhere. It is important that NOMS has a genuinely flexible and responsive management system. There is scope for further review of the way in which NOMS delivers its laudable objectives in practice. I am sure that the new chief inspector, whom we look forward to having back before the Select Committee in about three months’ time, will have a strategy on that matter that he will want to discuss with the Lord Chancellor.

The Select Committee was particularly struck during the inquiry by the evidence we took from the families of young people who had died in custody. It was profoundly moving and demonstrated that there have been repeated and needless failings in some areas, such as sharing information and acting swiftly and decisively on information that could have been addressed. Those things can be put right through fairly basic measures.

There are successes and failings in the prison estate, but neither the successes nor the failings are unique to either privatised or publicly run prisons. We need to be realistic and not simplistic about that. We welcome the evidence that the prisons Minister and the chief executive of NOMS have given to us, but we think that there needs to be a specific programme, with action plans, to tackle violence and self-harm in prisons. I agree that there must certainly be more of an emphasis on rehabilitation.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was right to refer to the pointlessness of continuing with the so-called indeterminate public protection sentences. Yesterday, I was at the same event as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), where that point, among others, was made powerfully. We could start work on that swiftly.

We should recognise that a structured life and meaningful work are important in prison. Perhaps we should see whether we can remove some of the legal constraints that prevent meaningful and paid employment. Perhaps it would be right for prisoners to do work that is taxable. The money that they earned could be set aside for them and their families upon release. The Lord Chancellor’s vision points in that direction and I hope that he will give us more detail on how that might be achieved.

Finally, it is important that we have a robust inspectorate to ensure compliance. I wish the new inspector well. I hope that the protocol that was referred to when the permanent secretary and the outgoing chief inspector gave evidence to us recently will be put in place swiftly to ensure that resourcing and independence are not an issue in the ability of the inspectorate to deliver its important work.

All in all, this is an important and thoughtful debate. Those who believe in genuine reform and not in simplistic sloganising, and those who have spent much of their working lives in the system will welcome it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

One important area in which both service can be enhanced and value for money achieved is through greater efficiency both in the courts estate and the courts system. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Ministry has sufficient in-house capacity to deal adequately with major issues such as court restructuring, where negotiations have to take place at high commercial contractual levels, or will he bring in outside expertise where necessary?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already explained some of the back-office savings that we are making not only to deliver better value to the taxpayer but to find the savings to reinvest. He is right to say that, where we need to engage with the private sector—or the voluntary sector for that matter—to take advantage of their ingenuity and innovation, we will do so.

Prisons and Secure Training Centres: Safety

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these questions in a serious and sombre way. He is absolutely right to say that the allegations involve children and that we have a duty of care towards them. We must ensure that those who are in our care are treated appropriately and responsibly. “Panorama” informed the local authority on 30 December and appropriate steps were taken by the local authority to ensure that an investigation could be initiated. Of course, Kent police were also informed at the same time, and because a police investigation is necessarily taking place, we have to respect due process.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the allegations that he has listed are very serious, but they are allegations, and it is important that we give G4S and those involved the appropriate time and space to respond in a way that is congruent with the seriousness of the allegations. It is because I take the allegations seriously that I do not want to rush to judgment or do anything that could be used to enable those who might be guilty of serious offences to wriggle off the hook.

I had the opportunity to meet the editor of “Panorama”, as well as the programme’s producer and the director who was responsible for this investigation, on the eve of the publication of the allegations in The Times and elsewhere on 8 January. It was as a result of that conversation that I had discussions with members of the Youth Justice Board and that we took the steps that I outlined earlier in my statement. It was also as result of that conversation that the roles of the YJB monitor and of Barnardo’s, which also visits the establishment, were enhanced to ensure that the safety of the children at that centre could be guaranteed to the best of our ability.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that G4S has, in a number of other ways, at times in the past, let the Ministry of Justice and those in our care down. It is also important to stress, however, that there are other institutions run by G4S that continue to do a good job, and it would be quite wrong to make a blanket allegation against the organisation of the kind that I know the hon. Gentleman did not make but that others might be tempted to.

The hon. Gentleman was also right to make reference to the remarks of the outgoing chief inspector, Nick Hardwick. I thank Nick Hardwick for the superb work he has done. His candour and honesty in that role serve only to underline the scale of what we have to do to ensure that children and young people in custody and everyone else in prison are in a safe and decent environment, and nothing will stop us making sure that safety and decency are at the forefront of the changes that we bring to our prison and secure training centre estate.

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

The Secretary of State will know that the Justice Committee is investigating the treatment of young people within the estate, and all those who are looking into this issue will welcome his measured approach. Does he agree that the Taylor review should not only deal with the present issue but have no constraints placed on either the areas it looks at or its opportunity to consider the learning that is now available on the questions of maturity and of the appropriateness of having very young people in the same establishments as hardened and much older people? Will he also tell us when Charlie Taylor is likely to be able to deliver his report?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those questions. I have stressed to Charlie Taylor that he should consider there to be no limits on his review. I know that my hon. Friend’s points will be well taken by Charlie, and I hope that we will see the fruits of his report in two to three months’ time.

State Pension Age (Women)

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points.

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

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. I am glad that she agrees that the need for equalisation is generally accepted and that it is right and proper. Does she think that it might be sensible to urge the Government to look at the sort of 10 to 15-year transitional arrangements that were made in public sector pensions reform? Would that be a constructive way forward?

[Mhairi Black]

As I said, I do not think that anybody here has a problem with the principle of transitioning towards equality. However, we are talking about women’s pensions, and it is important to bring the discussion back to that.

Many constituents who have written to me said that the information in the letters that they did receive was conflicting. They were getting different information. In one case, a constituent was told that they had enough contributions to receive their full state pension at 60, which was a few months away, only to receive a further letter three weeks later telling her that she will not get her pension until she is nearly 66. Many of the letters did not even get to the people they were supposed to reach. Some people were told by MPs and Ministers that they must have given the DWP the wrong addresses, but those women had been living in the same house for more than 20 years, so I find that difficult to believe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

I applaud the hon. Lady. I have had representations from constituents who were in low-paid jobs with huge caring responsibilities for children and other family members when they did not have access to free child care and other things—and we have them to thank. Yet it is those people for whom I believe there has been a breach of trust, as these changes hit them disproportionately. We have a large duty of care to them, but I do not think we are going to fulfil it.

[Robert Neill]

I very much agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying. Will he concede that in other pension reforms, we were anxious as a Government to make sure that there was protection for those who were not able to change their circumstances? This operates particularly unfairly on people such as one of my constituents who has worked all her life but is unable to return to work because of a pre-existing medical condition, so she cannot change her circumstances.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why fairness needs to be applied to everybody, and in this case, there is a cohort of women who are simply not being treated fairly. Our state pension system is funded on the contributory principle. This is not a state benefit for which no prior commitment is involved, yet this group of women who have been paying national insurance contributions over many years in good faith and who have fulfilled their end of the deal face being short-changed retrospectively.

We need to bear in mind many other factors. Fewer than one in four women who qualify for the new state pension in 2016-17 will get the full amount. Right up to 2054, fewer women than men will qualify for the full standard pension. Women are significantly more likely than men to work part time, and to do so for longer periods throughout their working lives, largely driven by caring roles, as hon. Members have mentioned. They therefore tend to be under-pensioned.

I welcome the fact that the new single-tier pension will recognise periods of time spent caring, which will help in the future, and I acknowledge that the Government have made progress on shrinking the gender pay gap—an issue on which consultation is in place. Progress has been made, with more women in work than ever before. We have seen lots of generous reforms—on entitlement to free child care, the national living wage and so forth—but all those are far too late for a generation of women who relied on work without many of the benefits that we now take for granted, while bringing up their families and discharging their caring responsibilities. Because of the number of women who are going out to work, many others have caring responsibilities for grandchildren as well as having to hold down part-time jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Access to justice comes in various forms. An African chief justice who visited me earlier this year told me that he wanted a justice system in which the people living in the villages outside the capital city could access their courts through their mobile phones. That is how the world is progressing, and we have to ensure that we keep pace with it. We will keep the majesty of the court building for those serious cases that require it, but we also need to recognise that modern technology requires different forms of communication, and that access to justice is not what it used to be in the past.

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

The Lord Chancellor’s speech to the Magistrates Association last week was very welcome on a number of counts, particularly his reference to the success of problem-solving courts in New York, such as that at Red Hook, which the Justice Committee has looked at in the past. Will he give us further details of his discussions with the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary on how we can take that process forward? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There was rather too little regard being paid to the fact that we were listening to a question from the Chair of the Justice Committee, a point of which I hope hon. Members will take proper note in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question but I am afraid that is not quite right. Revising the Human Rights Act can be done only by the UK Government. The implementation of human rights in a wide range of areas is already devolved to Scotland, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to focus his efforts in that area.

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

Given the constitutional importance of this issue, will my hon. Friend confirm that the consultation will result in a draft Bill that will be subject to full pre-legislative scrutiny in this House?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee. We will be engaging in full consultation, but I hope my hon. Friend will not mind if I do not trail the precise terms of that at this moment.

Transforming Rehabilitation Programme

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing the debate, as do my colleagues on the Justice Committee. It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman here, because his predecessor but one was a great friend and mentor to me as a young barrister. I am glad that the tradition of an interest in the justice system is being kept on in that constituency.

As Chair of the Justice Committee, I had the pleasure last week of speaking about the progress in transforming rehabilitation to a conference of providers. There were people from a range of providers, including NOMS, the NPS, some of the CRCs, to which I spoke afterwards, and a number of voluntary groups. There was not a word of ideology in the discussion. Although people were frank about some of the work that needs to be done—that work has quite properly been referred to today—I say with every respect that I think the discussion was more nuanced in the picture it painted of the work on transforming rehabilitation, and I think it was fairer.

[Wayne David]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Neill]

I will make a bit of progress first. In the previous Parliament, the Justice Committee published some work, which I imagine some Members have read, that flagged up some issues. I was interested in discussing those issues at that conference and listening to the feedback. Against that background, I will happily give way.

[Wayne David]

If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is no ideological motivation behind the introduction of this system, why does he think it was introduced so quickly?

[Robert Neill]

First, because if one spoke to any sentencer, for example, they would say that the need to have a better approach to those being released from short sentences into statutory supervision was real and pressing. Those people are immediately at risk of recidivism, which leads to lost opportunities for life in every case. Secondly, the need to improve the “through the gateway” services was real and immediate. That is not to say that we should not review and improve the programme as things go along. Of course, that is right and sensible. The Select Committee recognised that point on a cross-party basis, and I think the Minister does, too.

When we drill down into the evidence and talk to practitioners on the ground, although there is recognition that things can be improved, there is also recognition that the scale and objectives of the programme are valuable and, when delivered, represent a real improvement. There is progress on the ground, and we should recognise that as well as the challenges and places where more needs to be done.

[Christina Rees]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I will give way once more, but I need to make some progress, bearing in mind your strictures on time, Mr Nuttall.

[Christina Rees]

I read that the pilot schemes were cancelled. Will the hon. Gentleman give us his opinion on that, please?

[Robert Neill]

If the hon. Lady looks at the Select Committee’s website, she will see that we have published our correspondence with the Minister. I am very grateful to him for his detailed response, which goes into three or four pages of detailed text about the pilot schemes. Rather than taking up time here, it is worth referring hon. Members and the public to that. Because the pilots were cost-saver pilots, the view that was generally expressed was, “It is too early to tell. After all, things such as payment by results won’t come in until 2017.” None the less, there was satisfactory progress, and I think we need to review the pilots in that light rather than taking a sweeping view.

The previous Justice Committee raised several issues, as the Minister recognises. They have been alluded to today, and I hope the Minister can respond to them. One was the issue of IT, which is undoubtedly a real, ongoing problem. To be fair, it was a problem before the transforming rehabilitation scheme was brought in. Public sector IT has been an issue for virtually all my time in public life, but it is pressing because the joining up of information sharing is going to be more and more important, given the dual system between the national probation service and the community rehabilitation companies. It is a critical issue, and I hope the Minister can give us more detail about it.

There was a concern that the laudable objective of statutory supervision could, in the short term at least, place more demand on the system, because if people are found to be in breach, that could put them in a cycle of going back in and out of prison. I would be interested to know, albeit that it is at an early stage, whether the Minister has any evidence about how statutory supervision is working.

The report of the interim chief inspector of probation, which has been referred to, said fairly that there are significant operational and information sharing concerns across the boundaries of the national probation service and the community rehabilitation companies, and continuing frustration with the old case management systems. That was borne out by the practitioners I spoke to, and I hope the Minister can update us about what practical steps are being taken to rectify that issue. On the other hand, the interim chief inspector of probation specifically said that those problems are transitional and can be resolved. He pointed to an urgent and continuing need to support the necessary improvement in the quality of leadership. The point is that those problems are resolvable. To say, therefore, that the system is fundamentally flawed is wrong and not borne out by the evidence. That is not the feeling of those who actually work on the ground.

The issue of the impact on transparency and the local linkages was referred to. A fair point was made about how we deal with the move from the old system of probation trusts to a national system on the one hand, and the CRCs on the other. The CRC people I have met are committed, highly motivated, skilled professionals. I do not regard it as in any way improper to have that sort of private investment in the system. They work well with their colleagues in the NPS, many of whom they have known for years.

There is an issue to consider about join-up, and I hope the Minister can look again at how we ensure that the local linkages are not lost. The ability to work closely with other agencies, including local authorities, criminal justice organisations, social services and the health service—many offenders have multiple issues and will require multiple-agency intervention—requires careful liaison at a local level. I would like to know what we can do to ensure that that is recognised within the new framework. We need to bring in local granularity and nuance.

Another issue that was raised was about getting the information to sentencers and the courts, which value input from the probation service. There is a question about whether the CRCs, which deal with some offenders, have, in effect, a right of audience when dealing with sentencers, as the NPS does. What protocols can we put in place to deal with that? Can we ensure that the representatives of the service at court, who advise on sentences—I know from discussions with the judiciary that they are much relied upon—are getting the information across fully, and that it is properly fed back?

I am not pretending that there is not work that still needs to be done. I think everybody would agree that there is. Equally, we should not simply adopt a partisan stance. I am convinced of the Minister’s good will, and I am also convinced that there is real potential that should be taken on board. That is why the Select Committee wants to return to the issue in this Parliament. I hope we can get some balance on the progress that has been made and the work that we still need to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, for what I believe is the first time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this important debate. Probation can often get pushed to one side in favour of discussing prisons, but I believe that the probation service is the key to unlocking the reduction in reoffending that we all want to see.

Many Members have observed that the implementation of the programme was rushed. There were pilots, which Labour supported. One such pilot took place in Wales, and I think I visited every one of them as they were about to begin. It was hugely disappointing to find that the work put into setting up those pilots was to be for nothing, because the models tested in the pilots were not to be implemented by the Government. Therefore, great time and energy and some expense was wasted, but we are where we are.

The Government were warned by experts—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon put this well—that we were losing an opportunity by abolishing probation trusts. They were not stodgy, stuck-in-the-past public sector organisations that did not want to change; they were one of the most entrepreneurial public agencies anyone could hope to find, with dynamic, charismatic chief officers and chairs, and boards with strong private sector representation, which were run competitively. They all wanted to be the best. As has been said, they were all good or outstanding. They were working well and had huge capacity to deliver many if not all of the outcomes that the Government sought to achieve through the ridiculous splitting of the service that they seemed determined to embark on.

I want to highlight the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon about the split being born entirely out of political necessity. The Government knew fine well that they could never win public support for the wholesale sell-off of the service when medium and high-risk offenders were to be subject to supervision in the community—where we and our constituents live. The fear was that those offenders would not be properly supervised, and because the Government knew that was a risk, they invented the ridiculous, artificial split of the service along risk lines, when we all know that risk is dynamic.

Anyone who has ever worked with offenders will know that a low-risk offender does not always stay a low-risk offender. Risk changes. It can change quickly and unpredictably, and the people best placed to make such assessments are probation officers. They have the relationship with the offender and they have proven time and time again that they can spot such changes. When changes occur—they could result from a new relationship, drinking, a mental health issue or losing a job—the triggers must be communicated immediately.

I am getting to be rather fond of the Chairman of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). He is quite an avuncular character, but I would caution him against smothering the Minister with love.

[Robert Neill]

Will the hon. Lady tell me what I have been doing wrong?

[Jenny Chapman]

The point I am trying to make is that the Minister needs to answer some serious criticisms about programme’s implementation. It behoves all of us, from whichever side of the House, to make problems known to him, although I have to give him his due. These are not problems of his making: he inherited the programme, and I like to think that he would not have liked to have seen this nonsense implemented, because I know he cares deeply about what happens in the community and what happens to offenders, and he cares about victims, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on bringing this important issue before the House. I think this is the first Westminster Hall debate he has initiated, and he conducted himself extremely well. I am also grateful to all the other Members who have taken part. I will begin by trying to address as many of the specific points Members raised as I can, before getting on to the bulk of my remarks.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether using oral reports was resulting in more risk. In all cases where a report is undertaken at court, a risk of recidivism assessment—a risk of harm screening—is undertaken.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about FOI requests and transparency. I can tell him and all other Members present—my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who chairs the Select Committee, and others also asked about this—that the Government have committed to publishing management information detailing the performance of the CRCs and the NPS. Members will not have to wait long for the next release of that information. We are committed to transparency, because we have to proceed on the basis of results and how we are doing, and we will take corrective action where necessary.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke very knowledgably in a debate we had on prisons earlier this year, and she has a serious interest in all these matters, which I greatly welcome. She asked a number of questions, but particularly about Askham Grange. The women’s prison estate is the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage). However, I can tell the hon. Lady that any decision to action the closure of Askham Grange will be taken only when the new resettlement model recommended in the women’s custodial estate review has been implemented and we are satisfied that the new arrangements give women the opportunity to demonstrate their suitability for release. Having said that, I acknowledge the outstanding work that is clearly being done at Askham Grange. I also recognise the uncertainty felt by the staff concerned. Where prison establishments have closed, we have always taken good care to preserve skills and keep them in the system, and to give people the opportunity to transfer.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) rightly asked about the Welsh language. The Working Links service directory is being translated into Welsh, which I am sure she will welcome.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) asked whether there was confusion over the allocation of offenders. The pre-sentence case allocation system is based on a score for the risk of recidivism and harm. That score clearly defines whether an offender is to be allocated to the NPS or the CRC, so I do not fully recognise his description of confusion.

A number of Members asked about possible redundancies in the probation service. CRCs are contractually required to maintain a professional and appropriately skilled workforce to deliver the services set out in their contracts. That is being robustly managed by the National Offender Management Service. Furthermore, any probation staff who were employed as at 31 May 2014 will, if they are eligible for voluntary redundancy, be entitled to the enhanced voluntary redundancy terms, as set out in the national agreement on staff transfer and protections, where a voluntary redundancy situation arises. Those terms stand unless otherwise renegotiated in accordance with applicable employment law.

The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), in what I thought was a thoughtful and good speech, rightly made the important point that the reoffending rate has remained too high for too long. He is absolutely right, and I can assure him there is no divide in the Chamber about that: we recognise that fact, and we are determined to do something about it, working first in the prison system and then in the probation service.

In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rightly mentioned the importance of family relationships, and I want to reassure her that I do get that. My enthusiasm for the issue is shared by the chief inspector, who highlights it on page 62 of his annual report for very practical reasons. He notes that the majority of accommodation for those leaving prison is provided by family members, as are a lot of employment opportunities. If we keep those family links strong, it will help in rehabilitation.

The Chair of the Select Committee made a very balanced speech, for which I am grateful. He said he had recently attended a conference on these issues. I am sure he will, like all good Select Committee Chairs, proceed according to the evidence. I would not expect him to do anything else or to give me, as a Minister, an easy time. I know he will continue to hold the Government to account, depending on what happens.

My hon. Friend mentioned problems with ICT. It is fair to say that those problems were there before, and I will say a little in my remarks about what we are doing to address them. I have already mentioned the issue of transparency, which he raised.

[Robert Neill]

In terms of being held to account, the Minister has undertaken to give us updated performance data, which I am sure the Select Committee will welcome. One issue the Committee raised was that, given the commitment to largely local delivery, the new arrangements should not disrupt local partnership arrangements that are working well, particularly where CRCs are covering quite wide areas. Will the Minister make sure that we also have up-to-date data on that, and that the issue continues to be monitored closely, because we clearly do not want things that work well on a multi-agency level to be disrupted?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for raising that important point, which other Members also raised. What I would say to everyone here today and to all those who are listening to the debate, or who will be reading it later, is that the voluntary sector is a precious asset. We do not have a right to it. These people have shown good will, and many of them have given up their time and shown a serious commitment to helping us with these issues. We have a duty to nurture and treasure them, and I want to make sure that we use them as effectively as possible—and sometimes perhaps a little more strategically than we have done. However, I do get the importance of valuing the voluntary sector.

I want now to move on to my substantive remarks, about the reason for introducing the reforms. The reoffending rate has decreased by 2.3 percentage points since 2002, to 25.3% at the end of September 2013. However, the group of offenders with the highest reoffending rates remains those sentenced to less than 12 months in custody. Almost 60% of those adult offenders go on to reoffend within a year of leaving prison. They are the one group that previously remained out of scope for statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community. As many have said and as I am sure we all agree, that statistic is evidence that a new approach was needed. We came to office in the previous Government determined to change that and, as a result, implemented the transforming rehabilitation reforms, better to focus the system on reducing reoffending, protecting the public and providing greater value for the taxpayer.

The key point is that we would not have had the money to introduce supervision for the under-12-month group without the reforms. No Member who has spoken has mentioned that. We could not have done what everyone has called on us to do without putting in a lot of extra money that was not available.

Prisons: Planning and Policies

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Ninth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2014-15, on Prisons: planning and policies, HC 309, and the Government response, Cm 9129.

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. This debate is a voyage of discovery for many of us, because very few of us were members of the Select Committee at the time the report was drawn up—[Interruption]—apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who will therefore carry the bulk of the burden on the report’s technical detail.

As well as welcoming you to the Chair, Mr Walker, this debate gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor as Chairman of the Committee, Sir Alan Beith. He was not only a very distinguished Committee Chairman, but a good friend to many of us, and I want to put on record how grateful I am for the support and wise advice that he has given me since I took over the chairmanship. I am sure that that will be recognised across the House.

This will not be a long debate. The report itself is not long, but it is important because it touches on key issues relating to prison policy. Interestingly, that has become topical once more with the very welcome comments from the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. I am very grateful to see the Minister for prisons in his place today, and I thank him for the courtesy that he has already shown to our Committee in responding to a number of inquiries that we have made of him.

In essence, I want to concentrate on two issues that the report highlights: first, the size of the prison population, and secondly, the sort of regime and purposeful behaviour that we ought to see in our prisons. It is worth bearing in mind that against the background to this report, the most up-to-date figures, as of 2 October this year—after the report was published—show that the prison population is now 85,973. That is one of the highest rates of incarceration in western Europe, and we ought to pause to think about why that is the case. We know, too, that the National Offender Management Service is operating at about 98% of its usable operational capacity, so things are pretty tight in our prison regime. NOMS is—properly, I think—going through a period of substantial change, with significant modernisation work, and the Department will have to take its share of the necessary savings that we have to make as part of the deficit reduction strategy.

A number of members of the current Committee and I had the chance to visit Holloway prison recently, and I want to pay tribute to the governor and her staff there. Despite the pressures on them, they are clearly doing a great deal to modernise, improve and upgrade their work, and they are getting very good results indeed. There are some very dedicated people in our Prison Service, and it is worth putting that on record.

That need for change, which is recognised at Holloway and right across the prison estate, has two aspects: first, the new-for-old policy, and secondly, the benchmarking scheme. The new-for-old scheme seeks to replace old and inefficient prisons with newer and more efficient establishments. Holloway is a good example of that. I remember, many years ago, as a young barrister, having to go to see clients in the old Holloway prison, which was a pretty dreadful establishment. The work that has been done with the modern building has made things much better. I think the last prison I had to visit was Chelmsford, and we are still dealing there with old establishments and old buildings. We only have to look at Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs and Pentonville to see that the nature of the estate constrains our professionals’ ability to do rehabilitative work. I think that we all very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s comments and his commitment to look at finding the means to replace old estates with something new and fit for purpose. The report flags up that very important aspect of the work.

The benchmarking was described by Phil Wheatley, who was the former director of NOMS, as, in effect, finding what

“the most efficient way of doing everything”

is and then making sure that everybody does it. That is why a series of benchmarks were established—those of us who have been involved in local government will be familiar with the concept and approach.

The Committee agreed with both those matters in principle but raised a number of substantive concerns: first, the rising level of overcrowding; secondly, the fall in prison performance and the extent to which understaffing may be an issue; and thirdly, prisoner and staff safety in prisons. A linkage between all those matters is clear from the report.

Overcrowding is important. It is not adequate simply to say, “Overcrowding is merely about people sharing a cell.” It goes beyond that, as the Lord Chancellor rightly recognised in his recent comments. The current chief inspector of prisons has said that two problems stem from overcrowding. The first is the whole question of physical conditions. Prison is punishment in itself—the deprivation of liberty—and we have a duty to make sure that those who are deprived of their liberty, as a legitimate punishment, none the less have decent conditions in which to live. I know that the Minister is very committed to that, but we need to make sure that that is actually delivered in practice.

The second point is the impact that overcrowding has on access to purposeful activity, and my 25 years or so in practice at the Bar made me very conscious of that. All too often, I saw clients of mine on a merry-go-round, almost. They would go into prison and experience a lack of any purposeful activity while they were there, a lack of rehabilitation, and a lack of follow-up, and lo and behold, they were putting me in fees again perhaps two or three years later. That should not be the case. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) nor I, as lawyers, want to have repeat clients frankly. It is a failure of the system, but we see too much of that in the current circumstances. Overcrowding makes it harder to do the rehabilitative work that is so critical, as the Government recognise. Many prisons have to operate split regimes at the moment, where half the prisoners are locked up in the mornings while the other half engage in activity, then they swap. That constraint is needless and makes it harder to deliver what we want to do.

The figures on the current state of overcrowding have been rising steadily, as has always been conceded. There were some errors in the recording of that in 2013-14, but 24.1% overcrowding seems to be the accepted figure now for that year.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Is it not right to point out that certain exceptional areas of overcrowding can be concealed beneath that average figure? I think—I may be wrong—that, in particular, York and Swansea prisons have a dramatically higher level of overcrowding. To the greatest extent possible, we need to ensure that that is not concentrated too much in individual prisons.

[Robert Neill]

That is absolutely right. I remember going to Swansea some years ago, where there was overcrowding even then, and that continues to be the case. That variation is really not desirable. There is a raft of constraints, and that is why, again, the new-for-old policy is hugely important. HMP Thameside, for example, was almost specifically built with the intention that it should be crowded. It was almost designed on the basis of a lack of capacity—before this Government’s watch, I hasten to add. However, we do need to address some real issues in that regard.

The Government are right to say that there are constraints on reducing overcrowding, because this is a demand-driven activity. We rightly cannot seek to influence directly how the courts sentence individual offenders. There will come a time, inevitably, when it is necessary for judges to pass custodial sentences. I know, as does any practitioner, that they do not do that lightly but, at the end of the day, the Government have to provide the necessary capacity to deal with that sentencing regime. At the moment—the Minister may have more up-to-date figures than me—the National Audit Office puts the cost of eliminating overcrowding at about £900 million. I accept that it is not possible to afford that in the immediate term, but it is important to have a programme that, over time, through capital investment, will bring on the new estate that will make dealing with the issue much easier.

Overcrowding is going to be an issue, but we need to manage and deal with that. That is why the Committee was anxious to see more attention given to overcrowding than has perhaps been the case. I think that the current Secretary of State recognised that in several comments; he certainly did so in the evidence that he gave in the first session of the new Committee in this Parliament.

The recommendation was to develop a broad range of measures to reflect the realities of prison conditions. Frankly, the Government were not willing to take that recommendation on board. I hope that they will think about that. The measurement at the moment may not be realistic in terms of capturing the actuality on the ground. We need not be wedded to any particular formula. There is no magic about the way the measurement is done. It is a question of what the most efficient measure is. I hope simply that the Minister and his colleagues will reflect again on our recommendation, particularly in the light of the Government’s new commitment to rehabilitation. Perhaps that is something we can do, because it is important that we have a measure that is measurable. One piece of evidence that we were given in the previous Committee was that the current system of measurement makes it very hard to measure the improvements and the outputs and inputs.

The other matters on which we concentrated were benchmarking and staffing levels. The inspectorate of prisons uses a four-stage healthy prison test in relation to its benchmarking. The four key figures are safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement. I do not think that anyone would disagree with those. Sadly, there has been, according to the evidence that the Select Committee received, a fall in those standards in the past couple of years. Each year, the inspector of prisons makes their report and provides a percentage figure for the inspected adult prisons and young offenders institutes that have been rated as good or reasonably good. Regrettably, the percentage of prisons so rated has fallen on each of those criteria, particularly in the past year.

Our report, comparing the figures for 2013-14 with those for 2014-15, showed that there had been a number of falls, which it is worth putting on the record. In relation to prisons inspected, the safety rating had fallen from 69% to 42%. The respect rating had fallen from 67% to 58%. For purposeful activity, it had fallen from 61% to 42%, and for resettlement it had fallen from 75% to 53%. It is fair to say that there has been an updating in the latest annual report, which I think was not available to the Select Committee at the time. It now shows safety at 52%, respect at 64%, but very worryingly from my point of view, purposeful activity at 39% and then resettlement at 57%. The linkage between purposeful activity and resettlement is, many of us would suggest, very significant. Although there are improvements on some scores, there is clearly more work to do. The Minister may have to hand yet more up-to-date figures, which I am sure he will share with us.

There is some improvement, therefore, but it does leave, overall—on the information that we have—the proportion achieving good or reasonably good ratings at about 40%. That means that 60% of prisons are not getting into that proper category. That is obviously a matter of concern. I know that the Government share that concern; I am very conscious that the Government are not complacent about the issue, but it is important that we put it on the record and see what is proposed to deal with it to take it forward.

Let me deal in particular with rehabilitative outcomes. I referred to the visit to Holloway by the current Committee. A number of my hon. Friends were on that visit. We were particularly interested to see how the restrictions on release on temporary licence sometimes denied mothers the chance to engage with childcare on ROTL and opportunities to work in the community before release. That is not, I think, for want of will among the staff involved, but it seems that we are not yet there in getting that delivered on the ground. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what more can be done on that.

The previous Committee called witnesses to find out as best they could what might have caused the fall in standards. The suggestion was that there was an issue about the incentives and earned privileges scheme—that, of course, allows prisoners to access benefits in exchange for responsible behaviour—and about staffing levels. That was the view put by the witnesses. It has to be said in fairness that the Government took a converse view, saying that essentially this is a demand-led matter involving unexpected and more challenging prison population levels and a cultural increase in suicide rates, which I think is accepted and is a matter that we have to deal with. There is no simple, one-size-fits-all answer to all this, but it does warrant our continuing attention and concern.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

The report alludes to some evidence of increased suicide rates in the prison population and other aspects in relation to mental health in prisons. Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of addressing demand and some of the issues that he has raised about rehabilitation is to look wholesale at how mental health is tackled in prisons? As he will know, there is a very high prevalence of mental health problems in the prison population.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend’s intervention is very important. That issue concerned me when I was a practitioner. All too often I saw people with mental health issues, and frankly the estate and the arrangements were not geared up to deal with that adequately. On several occasions, one would find that the case had to be adjourned because the prison psychiatric service was not able to produce some of the necessary reports, never mind the ongoing care that was required. Often, particularly with short sentences, people are released, there are mental health issues, and there is not the follow-up. Everyone accepts that there is a need to do more about this. As I said, I am conscious that the will is not lacking; the issue is finding the best means of achieving our aim. I think that that is a most important point. Again, the age of the estate and the lack of activity contribute to the pressures on what are often quite fragile people. My experience always was that some people end up in prison because they are very bad people, but a lot of people end up in prison because they are vulnerable and fragile and their circumstances have worked out badly. They need some help to be rehabilitated. They are the people whom we can best rehabilitate, but often the facilities are not there to help them in the way that all of us would wish, so it is a very powerful point.

Understaffing of course contributes to those problems. We have seen that it affects the regime. The Government are of course doing their best in relation to restricted regimes and deploying staff on detached duty, but that is obviously not a long-term solution. We need to find a better way around the problem. It cannot be sensible in the long term that, for example, a laundry at Wormwood Scrubs, representing about £1.3 million of investment, was in effect inoperable for a period because there were not the staff there to deal with it. We have seen, for example, the inspection report on Her Majesty’s young offenders institution at Cookham Wood: 36% of boys are locked up during the core day. As the report by Lord Harris of Haringey legitimately and properly highlights, these are young and often vulnerable people. They have to be punished; they have to be detained. That is right to reflect what they have done, but it is very hard to do the rehabilitative work with lock-up for that amount of time. We ought to address that as a matter of urgency.

Detached duty of course involves a degree of movement of staff. That places pressures on the staff themselves. It is necessary sometimes—I do not think that anyone would have an issue with the principle of it—but it is not desirable in the long term, because of the element of disruption for the staff themselves, but also for the prisoners. It is very difficult to build up the relationships that one would wish if one is having to detach staff and send them away from their normal arrangements. Also, of course, other staff have to work harder to compensate. It is actually a rather costly way to deal with the issue in the long term.

We have, however, seen improvements in staff turnover. We were concerned about staff morale and turnover. It is a credit to NOMS that staff turnover appears to have decreased from 15% in 2014 to 8% in 2015—credit where it is due for the work that has been done on that. There is also a recruitment drive to remedy the shortfalls. I understand that the number of officer vacancies has fallen to about 3% below the benchmarking levels. Again, that is welcome, but it is important that we sustain it, and I am sure that the Minister will update us on the work that is being done in that area.

The Committee’s conclusion in its report was that the key explanation for many of the deteriorating performance levels was, in addition to the age of the estate, understaffing. That seems to be being taken on board, but I would like to know what is proposed to ensure that that is further borne down on and that we sustain the reduction in understaffing.

The Committee recommended that the Government should alter staffing benchmarks upwards to ensure that prisons returned to former levels of operational performance. The Government rejected that recommendation, and I would like to know more from the Minister about why they felt that it was not appropriate. I am sure we all agree that we ought to update and improve our statistics and benchmarking, and I would be interested to know the Government’s current view and their proposals for the future. Do they anticipate further upward calibrations in the staffing benchmark, and how do they propose to deal with the problem of restricted regimes?

I will leave my hon. Friends to deal with the question of self-harm. I am conscious that I have already taken 20 minutes to open the debate, and others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will help us on current self-harm figures. According to the figures that we have at the moment, some 2% of prisoners are on the basic regime, 52% are on the standard regime and 45% are on the enhanced regime, which indicates levels of vulnerability that need to be addressed as a matter of some urgency.

Evidence from the Prison Reform Trust highlighted the risks surrounding the first period of custody. I would be interested to hear the Government’s response to that evidence and their view on how we should deal with it as well as with the number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, which remain a concern. Those have risen, as have the number of assaults on staff.

The previous Select Committee quite properly flagged up a number of issues in this report. There is a broader resources problem, in both capital and revenue terms, which needs to be addressed. The Committee concluded that we need to re-evaluate how we use custody, and alternatives to custody, in a cost-effective way that best promotes the safety of the public and reduces crime. That is entirely in line with what the Lord Chancellor said in his evidence to the Select Committee in this Session. I look forward to hearing from the Government precisely how we should take that entirely legitimate and deserving objective forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We need to do better, and I am extremely ambitious and impatient to do more. I assure her that I regularly raise the issue with my officials, and I will continue to do so, because I share her impatience at the scale of the challenge. We need to act at pace to do something about the issue.

That said, work in prisons continues to grow steadily, with 14.9 million hours worked across the estate in 2014-15. However, as I said, I am determined to do much more. Increasing numbers of prisoners are also engaged in learning, but Ofsted inspections confirm that one in five prisons has an inadequate standard of education provision and another two fifths require improvement. That is why the Secretary of State has asked Dame Sally Coates, a distinguished former headteacher, to chair a review of the quality of education in prisons, which will report in March 2016.

The review will examine the scope and quality of current provision in adult prisons and young offender institutions for 18 to 20-year-olds. It will consider domestic and international evidence of what works well in prison education and identify options for future models of education services in prisons. In the meantime, work is already in progress to improve the quality of learning and skills in prisons, including: finding ways to improve class attendance and punctuality; collecting better management information, which is key; improving support for those with learning difficulties and disabilities, including mental health issues, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) raises rightly and regularly; and developing more creative and innovative teaching.

On that point—I have mentioned it before—Swaleside has a good maths and English programme in the physical education department, of all places, that has been particularly successful at helping harder-to-engage prisoners improve their English and maths skills. That is exactly the sort of thing that I am talking about, and we need more of it.

In August last year, we introduced mandatory assessment of maths and English for all newly received prisoners, so we now have a proper baseline measure of prisons’ standards of literacy and numeracy. We have also invested in a virtual campus, a secure web-based learning and job search tool, currently available in 105 prisons to support prisoners’ education.

In addition to education inside prison, the Government also fully support prisoners using temporary release to take up work, training and educational opportunities in the community as well as to maintain ties with families. Although that should never come at the expense of public protection, it is a powerful tool for reintegrating offenders back into the community and preparing them for release. All the measures taken since the ROTL review in 2013 focus on minimising the risks taken in allowing temporary release and ensuring that releases are purposeful. The latest data show a 39% reduction in recorded instances of ROTL failure. We agree that ROTL can be a useful resettlement tool; it is important not to let abuse by a small number of people undermine it. We will review the impact of the new measures in 2016, so we can be sure that the public is protected while avoiding unnecessary restrictions on purposeful rehabilitative ROTL.

I turn to young people and young adults in custody. Although fewer young people are committing crimes for the first time, those who enter the youth justice system are some of the most troubled in our society, and too many go on to commit further offences. The significant reductions in volumes mean that the youth justice system now faces very different challenges. We need to consider whether the structures and delivery models created in 2000 are appropriate to meet the challenges of 2015 and the changes to the public service landscape. We also need to ensure that the youth justice system provides maximum value for the taxpayer. In recognition of the continued significant reductions in the number of young people in custody, as well as the scale of the financial challenge, we will not pursue plans to build a secure college, although we remain committed to improving education for all young offenders.

[Robert Neill]

May I raise one point on young offenders in particular? The Minister is right to highlight the changes that have been made and the reduction. The report from Lord Harris of Haringey highlighted the particular need for work to be done with those vulnerable people at risk of harm in custody. When will the Government make their response to the report?

[Andrew Selous]

We have promised a response in the autumn. We are actively considering that extremely important report, about which I will say a little in a moment if my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, will allow me.

In September, we announced a departmental review of the youth justice system, led by Charlie Taylor, the former chief executive of the National College of Teaching and Leadership. I recognise the importance of clear responsibility for the young adult offender group. We have therefore appointed a deputy director of custody for young people, within NOMS, as senior lead on operational policy on young adults. We are also working to improve the evidence base around what works best with young adult offenders. That includes developing and testing a tool to screen for emotional and social maturity, which should help us to understand need better and better tailor services and interventions for young adult offenders in prison or in the community.

The shadow Minister quite properly raised prison safety. The safety of our staff as they deliver a secure prison regime is an absolute priority. We are tackling dangerous new psychoactive substances, to help drive down the number of assaults and violent incidents. Measures have been taken to help deter prisoners from violence. For example, we brought in, for the first time ever, a joint national protocol between NOMS, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, to ensure that there is a nationally consistent approach to referral and prosecution of crimes in prison. That is a really important mechanism. It is a significant change and will play its part in reducing violence in prisons.

The Serious Crime Act 2015 has brought in two new offences. Unbelievably, it was not an offence to possess a knife in a prison—if you can believe that—without authorisation. That has now changed. We are bringing in a new offence of throwing or projecting any item over a prison wall. The link to violence is very clear; it is mainly drugs that are thrown over the walls, and we know that new psychoactive substances are involved in provoking many violent incidents. That is why such measures are important.

We are bringing in other measures to record and understand the incidents of violence in prisons and the response to those incidents. We are developing a violence diagnostic tool, to enable better analysis at national, regional and local levels, and operational guidance for governors, to advise staff in prison on how they might better manage both potential and actual violent incidents. We are also piloting body-worn cameras in 22 public sector and two private sector prisons. I visited Glen Parva recently and was impressed by what I saw. The staff told me that they felt a lot safer; the prisoners also told me that they felt a lot safer, which is important. We will evaluate that early next year. We do not underestimate the hard work and challenges faced by our prison staff in dealing with serious violent incidents. We will continue to support our staff and help them to maintain safe and secure prisons.

The issue of self-inflicted deaths was rightly raised earlier. Whenever a prisoner takes their own life, it is a shocking and tragic event that is felt round the whole prison. We take our duty to keep prisoners safe extremely seriously. On any given day, prison staff provide crucial care to more than 2,000 prisoners at risk of self-harming. At times, that means someone literally sitting 24/7 outside a cell door, if necessary. We continue to make every effort to improve the care that we provide to vulnerable prisoners and learn from every individual incident.

It is too simplistic to attribute self-inflicted death or self-harm to staffing reductions or benchmarking. Deaths have occurred in contractor prisons, which have not been subject to reductions, as well as public sector prisons. All prisons are required to have procedures in place to identify, manage and support people who are at risk of harm to themselves. NOMS has put in place additional resources to undertake this safer custody work. NOMS is also reviewing the operation of the case management process for prisoners assessed as being at risk—procedures for assessment, care in custody and teamwork, known as ACCT. It is considering the recommendations of the Harris review into deaths of young adults in custody, about which the Chair of the Justice Committee rightly asked.

The Committee expressed concerns about staffing. The prison system has been under some pressure as a result of a rise in the prison population, combined with staffing shortages. That is most notable in London and the south-east, where the economic recovery may have contributed to a higher than anticipated staff turnover. Immediate action was taken early in 2014 to manage those recruitment shortages, including an accelerated recruitment campaign, the introduction of the Her Majesty’s Prison Service reserves, and staff sent on detached duty to the prisons with the greatest shortages. In the 12 months to June 2015, 2,230 new prison officers began training. Of those, 1,820 were new recruits and 410 were existing NOMS staff who have regraded to become prison officers. In the past 12 months to June 2015, there has been a net increase of 420 prison officers. Those officers will go at least some of the way to dealing with the issues of violence and safety that have been raised throughout the debate. We are also looking to recruit a similar number this year with our ongoing recruitment campaign.

There are, however, establishments where it remains hard to recruit. To address that issue, NOMS has looked at a number of options based on evidence, such as turnover, volume of vacancies and reward in other industries. A decision has been made against organisational objectives, Government policy on public sector pay and financial affordability, to improve our reward offer for prison officers at those sites. NOMS has worked, and will continue to work, to support its staff and provide them with the skills and development opportunities that they need to perform their duties with confidence and the necessary skills.

I shall quickly touch on the role of the external monitoring bodies. I wrote to the Chair of the Justice Committee in July, clarifying that the reference in the NOMS original response to the Justice Committee to a review of the independence of all criminal justice inspectorates was made in error, for which I apologise. A corrected version of the NOMS response has now been relayed in Parliament. I assure the House that in the absence of such a review, both the Secretary of State and I remain absolutely committed to safeguarding the imperative of an inspectorate that operates, and is perceived to operate, fully independently of both the sponsoring Department and the organisations in its remit.

The last major point I want to cover concerns our transforming rehabilitation reforms. As the Committee will know, reoffending has been too high for too long, which is why we have reformed the way that offenders are managed in the community. The transforming rehabilitation reforms seek to get the best out of the voluntary, public and private sectors to help offenders turn away from crime. These reforms mean that for the first time in recent history, virtually every offender released from custody will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community, including those offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in custody. We expect the new providers to make real contributions towards reducing reoffending, and we are closely monitoring their progress. The reforms have made substantial changes to how we manage offenders in England and Wales, and I am proud to be part of the team that has made those changes happen.

Of course, there remains much work to be done as we embed these reforms, and I take this opportunity to thank probation and prison staff for their continued hard work. They are doing a magnificent job, and they deserve our congratulation and recognition.

Regarding work, I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). I was interested to hear about the experience in German prisons; the Singaporean prison system also places a very high emphasis on both getting prisoners into work in prison and getting them into employment afterwards. I am grateful to him for making that point.

The hon. Member for Darlington was absolutely right to refer to the tragic death of Lorraine Barwell. It was an horrendous incident and I can assure the hon. Lady that it was taken extremely seriously within the Ministry of Justice; reviews are ongoing and a charge of murder has been brought. The flag on the Ministry of Justice flew at half-mast on the day of the funeral. The hon. Lady’s comments were absolutely right. I myself have said it many times before and I say it again now: prison officers are on the front line, keeping us all safe. We owe every one of them a debt of duty. They may not be in the public eye in the way other front-line professionals are, but what they do is every bit as important. We need to recognise that on every occasion.

Thank you very much, Mr Walker; I am very grateful for having had the chance to respond to the debate. I hope that I have managed to respond to all the points raised this afternoon. If I have not done so, I will gladly write to hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

Thank you very much, Mr Walker.

I am very grateful to all the hon. Members who have participated in this debate, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who is also our Committee’s rapporteur on European issues. He is sort of a de facto vice chairman of our Committee, and I am particularly grateful for the long and continuing interest that he takes in these matters. I have found his expertise immensely helpful.

I am grateful to both the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), and the Minister for their comments. All I gently say to the shadow Minister is that my old pupil master always said that the most effective form of cross-examination was the politest and sometimes that is not a bad policy to adhere to, either as a politician or an advocate. That does not mean that the cross-examination is not pressed home, when necessary. The hon. Lady raised important issues, but I start from the premise that I am a fan of the Minister, and of the Lord Chancellor and new Secretary of State for Justice. I believe that they both want to do the right thing, and I know that the Minister’s personal commitment to prison reform and rehabilitation is very strong indeed.

I am also conscious that when the Government came into office they had to deal with some very significant financial challenges, which any of us who held office at that time had to confront. So I accept that there were pressures, and I also accept the point that we are dealing with very complex issues; very few people indeed end up in prison because of a simple set of motives or factors. Generally, a raft of issues come together and we need to recognise that.

I welcome the reforms that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice is proposing. That is why I, and I think all of the Committee, want to give them a fair wind. Reducing capacity is important, and I think we will press the Government over the coming year or so for more detail on precisely what the plans are to reduce capacity. Will there be an increase both in the build and in finding genuine, constructive and publicly credible alternatives to custody, wherever possible?

Also, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to doing more work on the follow-up of offenders once they are released. There is an awful lot of professional opinion now that questions the value of short sentences in particular, where very often there is no chance to do any real rehabilitative work. In the past, we have seen people released with virtually no supervision at all. Increased follow-up of offenders is certainly a move in the right direction, but the Select Committee will want to keep a very careful eye on this issue. In that context, as I have already done on the Floor of the House, I welcome the appointment of Dame Sally Coates, whose reputation in relation to this matter is a very high one.

This issue is about making things purposeful and the Minister is right to observe that the best rehabilitation of all is work and a sense of self-worth, and if we can try to promote those things in our prison regime that will be hugely effective.

I, too, pay tribute to the work of prison officers, and to Lorraine Barwell and others. Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts know the pressures on custody officers and prison officers, right the way through the system; it is not only in the prison environment that there are pressures but in the court environment and the transfer environment. Those officers all deserve our full support in relation to those matters.

I hope that this has been a useful report and a useful debate, and we look forward to continuing discussion of this matter. As the Minister will know, there will be a further significant inquiry by the Select Committee, on the basis of Lord Harris’s report and related matters. I look forward to the Minister and others doubtless giving evidence to us then.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Ninth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2014-15, on Prisons: planning and policies, HC 309, and the Government response, Cm 9129.