Prison Safety

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I apologise that—with your permission, Mr Stringer—I have to leave before the end of the debate so I will not be here to hear the closing speeches. Members of the Justice Committee, and indeed anybody who has met me for longer than 10 minutes, will know that very few things could drag me away from a debate on prison safety, but I am afraid a meeting about the Boundary Commission and boundaries is one of them. I thank hon. Members for their indulgence on that score.

Serving on the Justice Committee is an enormous privilege and most of the time it is a pleasure. However, as is clear from the passion of Members’ contributions today, it is not always a pleasure, because we have heard some very disturbing facts and figures about safety in our prisons. I am not a stranger to the Prison Service, having conducted litigation on its behalf for many years—it is nice to see some former clients in the Box today. I know that the Prison Service is staffed by many dedicated individuals, who work hard to ensure that people in their custody are safe, and to rehabilitate them. I also know that the spotlight has never shone so brightly on what is happening inside our prisons.

Although our predecessor Committee felt that the Government and the National Offender Management Service had underplayed the seriousness of the situation, our Committee does not now feel that is the case. This year, the former Prime Minister and former Member of Parliament for Witney gave strong leadership in his speech on prisons. Both the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and the former prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), were aware of and open about the appalling state of prison safety.

The reform programme is bold and motivated by all the right reasons. In our report we praise the considerable efforts made by the Ministry of Justice and NOMS to alleviate the situation, but political will is very far from being enough. The previous Secretary of State’s response to our review was characteristically robust; he acknowledged the extent of the problem and found an extra £10 million to deal with aspects of it.

It has to be said that, in its short time in post, the new prisons team has made it clear that it is fully live to the issues. In its response to our report, it says that prison safety is the Department’s top priority. The new Secretary of State told us last week that the position was unacceptable, and the Department has confirmed that legislation will be put in place to continue the reforms set out by her predecessor.

So with all this light, why is the situation getting worse? In my view, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) was right: the ratio of staff to prisoners is critical. I also agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)—despite the boundary changes, I will not call him the hon. Member for Wormwood Scrubs.

This is not a time for a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about whether the size of the custodial population matters, but it is clear that unless we are going to pour new resources into our Prison Service, we have to reduce numbers if rehabilitation is to be effective. I do not say that through a wish to be soft on criminals; rather the opposite. It is in all our interests for those in prison to be changed to stop them offending again. If the upshot of that is that tough diversionary sentences have to be used as an alternative to prison, effort should be put into piloting them. Restorative justice, as the Committee said in a previous report, may well have an important part to play.

[Alex Chalk]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of our problems as a society is that we have not quite solved the problem of how to generate a community penalty that is sufficiently robust that gives members of the public genuine confidence that it is a proper punishment? As soon as they feel that community penalties are a proper punishment, there will not be such an imperative to send so many people to prison.

[Victoria Prentis]

My hon. Friend is right. He will remember that, on our excellent Justice Committee trip to some restorative justice schemes in the United States, we saw some really good new alternatives to prison that we are extremely keen to see taken up and piloted here. They may well be part of the solution, but public opinion will have to be brought along with us. If results can be shown to be good, I am confident that public opinion will come along too—even in Shipley.

I do not see how it is possible to run safe prisons, let alone rehabilitative prisons, with insufficient staff. Prison officers have only limited time to give to supervision and to building up the relationships that we know help people to change. It is often difficult to find sufficient staff to move prisoners to the classrooms for desperately needed education. We have heard examples of wings where only one officer is now on duty when there were previously two. A body-worn camera, while welcome, is not the same as two sets of eyes. There is concern that lack of patrolling perimeter fencing is making it too easy to smuggle contraband.

We applaud the Department’s efforts to recruit more staff, but experienced officers take years of training and greater efforts must be made to retain them. The former prisons Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), has covered that issue fully; I emphasise his point that it is the net gain in numbers that should always be considered when looking at staffing levels.

The second reason, in my view, for the continued decline in safety is the exponential increase in the use of new psychoactive substances. The prisons and probation ombudsman says that 61% of prisoners use them regularly and that they have overtaken tobacco as the currency of choice inside.

During an excellent session at Reform earlier this summer, a prison officer told us about an inmate who had been found unconscious in his cell. Four officers went inside to assist him and all four of them needed hospital treatment for secondary inhalation. These drugs are not cannabis as some Members of the House may have known it; they are cannabinoids and they are very dangerous mind-altering substances, which are doing extraordinary damage to our prisoners.

The Government have criminalised possession of these substances, but a great deal of resource needs to be put into testing these drugs and searching for them if we are ever to hold back the tide of them. Blocking mobile phone signals, which we now have the ability and the powers to do, is surely a good step to consider, while we fight the organised providers of these drugs. I hope that the body scanner being trialled in Wandsworth works and that this device can be rolled out very speedily to other establishments. The Committee looks forward to hearing further details about it.

As others have already said, it is now for the new team of Ministers to put the flesh on the bones of the reform programme. I am grateful for the taster that we have had of that programme in the Government’s response to our report. In my view, prison reform is not a place for dogma, and there is considerable consensus across the House and on our Committee about what needs to be done. Forgive me for saying so, but we have a captive audience and it should be possible to pilot the best schemes, and to assess quickly the extent to which new ideas work. Historically, a shameful lack of data have been produced by the Ministry of Justice, but slowly that issue is being addressed. Nevertheless, the new ministerial team needs to be very vigilant about it.

To add to the list of those reforms currently under way, which are set out in the Government’s response, I would also suggest focusing on improvements to assessment on entry to prison, and asking new prisoners about previous head injuries and traumatic experiences surrounding bereavement, all of which are proven, as we know, to indicate a greater propensity to self-harm. Those prisoners who are recalled should be properly assessed, however many times they have been inside prison before, as we know that they are particularly vulnerable.

Busy prisoners are safer prisoners, and real resource must go into both education and employment. Almost half of prisoners lose touch with their families, yet it has been shown that those prisoners who maintain family relationships through visits demonstrate a 39% reduction in reoffending. Better visits, Skype and in-cell telephones should be seen not as “nice to have” luxuries for lily-livered liberals or prisoners but as a useful tool in the fight against future crime.

Of course, all these ideas need testing and evaluation, and the Daily Mail and Shipley will not like them all. I accept that it is difficult to push through major reforms at the same time as managing a dangerous and—quite frankly—unstable situation, but unfortunately the Department does not have time on its side.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and to follow such experienced and learned speakers from across the House. I will concentrate on courts and tribunal fees. I am grateful for the opportunity to have served on the Select Committee that produced this report, and I wholeheartedly endorse the report and its recommendations.

I want to focus not on the more newsworthy aspects of the report such as employment tribunals, but on the structure and remission of fees. It is critical that fees do not impede access to justice. Fees are useful, and indeed necessary, for two reasons. First, they help to pay for the justice system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) reminded us. Secondly, fees can be used effectively to deter frivolous and vexatious claimants. As ever, as has been said across the House this afternoon, getting the balance right is key. The introduction of fees before employment tribunals has clearly had an enormous impact on the number of cases issued, and it was right that we focused on that.

I know from speaking to many of my fellow barristers that fee increases have had a significant impact in other areas, particularly that of professional negligence. It is not the welfare of my fellow barristers that concerns me; it is the welfare of individuals such as those injured when medical treatment goes wrong and who cannot issue claims. That should be a matter of concern for us today.

The Justice Committee looked closely at fee structure and fee remission during our inquiry and received evidence from senior members of the judiciary, the Bar Council and the Law Society, among others. One suggestion to alleviate the deterrent effect of the increases was to allow fees to be met in a series of staged payments throughout the course of a claim. At first glance, staged fees seemed to be a good idea, but the suggestion was not universally supported by the evidence given to us by senior members of the judiciary. Both Lord Dyson and Sir James Munby were hesitant when questioned by the Committee about the concept of staging fees. Lord Dyson said specifically that it was not a proposal that he had previously thought about. He agreed that it was an interesting idea but voiced serious concerns about how fee staging might be used by respondents to put pressure on claimants at various stages of the litigation.

One solution, suggested by Sir Ernest Ryder, could be to adopt the Scottish civil justice model of requiring a respondent’s fee to be paid alongside sequential fees for claimants. This, he said, would level the playing field and place the risk more fairly on both parties. As the evidence did not point us clearly in one direction or another, the Committee’s proposal in this area is a tentative one. A graduated or sequential schedule of fee payments could be a positive step, but we feel that a pilot scheme should be carried out in the first instance to evaluate the best way to operate such a system.

I turn now to fee remission, and I shall again take employment tribunals as an example. To be successful in an application for remission, a claimant must first pass the disposable capital test and then the gross monthly income test. The claimant has to fill out a separate fee remission application for each court or tribunal fee. While taking evidence, we were given statistics about how many pages claimants had to fill in. The forms are clearly not simple. Thompsons Solicitors pointed out that the guidance booklet itself was 31 pages long. Major changes have been made with the introduction of a new, supposedly user-friendly way to deal with fee remission, which has now been rebranded as “help with fees”. There has clearly been some improvement but complexities remain. This is possibly symptomatic of the much wider problem of litigants in person not having a great deal of understanding of the system in which they have to operate. The situation clearly needs to be kept under review.

The Law Society has spent a considerable amount of time looking at fee remission in general and has called for the Ministry of Justice to introduce a system for regular re-rating of the remission thresholds to take account of inflation. It has also suggested that a further review of the affordability of civil court fees and the remission system should take place and that simplification in all areas should be considered. The Committee endorsed those proposals. Personally, I think that there is a lot of merit in the suggestion of enabling automatic remission for all basic rate taxpayers. That would simplify the system enormously. Fee structure and remission may not seem at first glance to be an obvious cause célèbre for reforming lawyers, but without structural change our justice system becomes less accessible and less affordable for those who need it.

Homicide Law Reform

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Justice, on his prescience in calling for this debate. It is a very important subject and has been for many years now, and it seems to me that the time is right for change in this area.

As a constitutional lawyer, I do not always keep up with the intricacies of criminal statutes and sentencing. In preparing for today I was slightly surprised that the definitions of “murder” and “manslaughter” had not moved on substantially since I was a student many years ago. We were taught that the law was outdated and not really fit for purpose; very little has changed. The Law Commission in 2005 declared that:

“The law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations. Some of its rules have remained unaltered since the seventeenth century, even though it has long been acknowledged that they are in dire need of reform.”

Sadly, that is even more the case today than it was then.

I next came across the effects of the law on murder in my work for the Government Legal Service, when the Prison Service was a major client throughout my career. At the start of my time there, the concept of whole-life tariffs was being tested in the Myra Hindley case. I became fascinated by psychopathy—though clearly not a practitioner. I learned that, though truly psychopathic murderers crossed my desk often, those cases, while newsworthy, were happily extremely rare and made up only a tiny proportion of those in our criminal justice system.

Just over 80 whole-life tariffs have been given since 1983 when they were introduced. Those guidelines are clear, judges seem to apply them sensibly, and there is also the right of political appeal where necessary. That system seems, to me and to the European Court of Human Rights, to work reasonably well, and is a good example of judicial discretion in action.

Later on in my career I was often called on to act for the Parole Board in cases of judicial review. There were frequent challenges to the legality of decisions of the Parole Board to refuse to release life-sentenced prisoners, who had often been accused of murder, either because they had not fully admitted their guilt or because they had not been able to do courses that would demonstrate that they had overcome their offending behaviour. Many of the young men imprisoned for murder were boys who had got tanked up in the pub and used a broken glass to inflict serious damage on somebody they did not like the look of.

Glassings in those days usually attracted sentences of around 10 to 12 years, but the variations in the availability of offender behaviour work meant that it was difficult to predict the length of time that anybody would serve. That has not got any easier with the pressures on the Prison Service currently, but we now know that the average length of a sentence for murder has risen from 13 years, which I think was measured in 2004, to about 17 years, which was measured recently. In those circumstances, it is more important than ever that we sort the law out.

I am in no way belittling the crushing effect of murder on the families of the victims. However, those sort of crimes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham so clearly explained, are very different from the pre-meditated, sadistic murders carried out by psychopaths which passed my desk. It is important that the law recognises that. Many years ago, the Law Commission published a report in which it proposed changes to homicide sentencing. Its most radical suggestion was explained very clearly by my hon. Friend—in brief, it was to split the offence of murder into first and second degree murder, which itself can be categorised as voluntary or involuntary. After that, partial defences to murder of “diminished responsibility” and “loss of self-control” could be taken into account.

What is important is that those proposed changes would allow sufficient discretion for judges to choose from a far wider range of sentences. Yes, it would be more difficult for the public to understand at first, but with a concerted effort—possibly in a fictional context—our fascination for murder and serious crime would soon mean that the situation was clearer than it is now. After all, many of us have learned a great deal about coercive control recently, though happily not in a fatal context, through the goings on in Ambridge. Am I the only fan of “The Archers” in the room?

[The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

Yes.

[Victoria Prentis]

Sorry. I, too, have real concerns about the law of parasitic accessory liability, or joint enterprise. We have heard much about the joint enterprise law in recent months following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Jogee case that

“foresight is simply evidence (albeit sometimes strong evidence) of intent to assist or encourage”.

The ramifications are far-reaching. In the Supreme Court’s words, the law has taken a “wrong turn” for more than 30 years. No longer must young adults out to rob or perhaps to drive a getaway car, but with no thought of killing, end up with life sentences through the actions of their colleagues. We must confront the problem of the breadth of behaviour and culpability encompassed by the offence of murder.

Progress has been virtually non-existent since 2006, despite further consultation undertaken by both the last Labour Government and the coalition Government. So much is changing in the areas of prison reform and rehabilitation of offenders at the moment; both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are filled with reforming zeal. I can see that the Minister is smiling at me—surely this is the moment to make long-overdue changes to the law of homicide as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is another member of the Justice Committee who is more talented than me. Yes, we should concentrate more on sentencing guidelines as a Committee and as a Parliament, because these matters are of great importance to our constituents. They are the ones, at the end of the day, who feel that the law comes into disrepute with some of the sentences that are handed down. I do not think we should leave it to unelected people to determine sentencing guidelines. We should be taking a greater role in those guidelines, absolutely.

I have an open mind about what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham proposes, and I hope that the Government will look at it, because I think there are some merits in what he said. I would certainly not rule out supporting some of the changes that he articulated. We should not rush into this either. There are other things that we should think about. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury mentioned the fact that the average minimum tariff for murder had increased from 13 years to 17 years. I was not entirely sure, if she was making a point about that, whether that was a good a thing or a bad thing. Most of my constituents would say that the increase in that tariff is a good thing.

[Victoria Prentis]

Just to clarify, I was making the point that that was the reality of the situation; that sentences for murder were getting longer and that it was important for judges to have the full range of sentences open to them so that they could match the sentence to the offence.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think most of my constituents will be pleased to know that the average length of the minimum tariff given for murder has gone up. I suspect that if I were to do a straw poll of my constituents, most of them would be shocked that the average minimum tariff for the crime of murder was so low. I suspect most people in the country would be shocked that the average minimum tariff for murder was as little as 13 years in the first place. This is one of the great disconnects that we have with the general public at large; they expect murder sentences to be much tougher than that.

One of my notes of caution, therefore, for my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham is that his proposal might be used as a mechanism to try to weaken sentences for murder. That would fly in the face, I suspect, of what the public want to see. If somebody’s agenda is that penalties for murder at the moment are too harsh and this is a way of weakening them, that would be a terrible development. One of my notes of caution is that this does not get hijacked for all the wrong reasons by some of the penal reform groups that seem to have a view that nobody should be sent to prison at all. That is my first note of caution.

My second note of caution, and the reason why we need to tread carefully, is that in the cases that my hon. Friend alluded to, most people would accept that somebody’s life had been taken with some form of malice aforethought. At no point should we belittle the fact that somebody has had their life taken away with malice aforethought.

Safety in Custody and Violence in Prisons

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I visited HMP Wormwood Scrubs a week or so ago. We have an excellent new governor in the prison, who has a good record and I believe has the best possible chance of making sure that it improves on those issues. There are 15 officers over and above the benchmark level within Wormwood Scrubs. The drive to greater governor autonomy will help to deal with a number of the issues. The Government are currently consulting on sentencing issues.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the interest he has in prison security, and, indeed, for the action he has taken on it; the Justice Committee shares his interest. Today I met the prisons and probation ombudsman, who told me that on current estimates 61% of inmates take psychoactive substances. What consideration has my hon. Friend given to enlarging smoke-free zones in prisons, and to what extent does he feel that that might help with the problems?

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable on these issues as a member of the Select Committee, is absolutely right to point the finger at the terrible damage caused by new psychoactive substances. I agree that rolling out smoke-free prisons across England and Wales will help us to reduce that damage—we know that those psychoactive substances are sometimes smoked openly, with prisoners pretending that they are smoking tobacco. I am with her in wanting to see the roll-out progress, but we will only do that in a measured and safe way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State is not sitting at the very heart of his ministerial team. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not lurking uncharacteristically in the shadows—we would not want that.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

2. What progress his Department has made on ensuring that offenders are engaged in meaningful work in prison.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

6. What progress his Department has made on ensuring that offenders are engaged in meaningful work in prison.

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

We want prisons to be places of hard work and high ambition. That is why we will give governors more autonomy and hold them to account by publishing employment outcomes for prisoners so that we can compare results between prisons.

[Victoria Prentis]

We know how beneficial employment is for the rehabilitation of young adult offenders, in particular. Will my hon. Friend advise the House on specific plans that he has to increase employment in this cohort?

[Andrew Selous]

I know how seriously my hon. Friend takes this issue, and she is right to do so. I point her, particularly for young offenders, to construction, where I think that there are huge opportunities. For example, the National Grid young offender scheme has a 10-year reoffending rate of less than 7%. I was with Balfour Beatty, which employs young ex-offenders, in a prison in North Yorkshire last Thursday. We now have two Land Securities construction academies, comprising dry lining, scaffolding and tunnelling. I am assured that the last two activities have been risk assessed. [Laughter.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes his point in his characteristically powerful way. I would point out that the Labour Government had problems with how the Strasbourg Court operated. They did not implement prisoner voting—I do not remember the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) calling for it to be implemented when he was a Minister—and nor did they implement the Abu Qatada judgment.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that human rights have been part of our law in this country under the common law for many years, and that they will continue to be so after the repeal of the Human Rights Act, perhaps in a more modern and codified way?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a long tradition and pedigree of respecting human rights, dating back to Magna Carta and before that. We protected human rights in this country before the European convention, and certainly before Labour’s Human Rights Act. We shall continue to do so proudly in the years ahead.

State Pension Age (Women)

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Marcus Fysh]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Equality is at the heart of what we are trying to do for women. One of the ways that we are trying to achieve that is by decreasing the gender pay gap. That will be helped by increasing the minimum wage, increasing the availability of jobs and increasing the personal tax allowance. We are pursuing many incentives and programmes that will allow women to participate successfully for a little longer than they may have expected.

The issue at the heart of this debate seems to be the extent to which women were given notice and therefore the ability to plan for their retirement. I am sympathetic to anyone going through a stressful personal situation, but we need to be responsible. It is hard to say who was contacted or who was not, but from what I have seen—obviously, I was not involved in any of the previous decisions—it seems that most people were given notice of the change, allowing them to plan.

I have some advice for the younger generations who might be listening to this debate. I have some experience in the pensions world. The main thing that people have to remember when investing for their retirement is that the earlier they start saving, the more money they will have at the end. That is because of the power of compound interest, which has a tremendous effect.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a wide-ranging speech. Will he join me in hoping that the Minister, in his closing remarks, will address the issue of communication with those who are working now and who hope to retire in the future, so that my hon. Friend’s young daughters and mine will know where they stand?

[Marcus Fysh]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, the very point on which I had intended to conclude my remarks. We have a duty to the young people of this nation to keep their taxes down so that they have as much scope as possible to plan for their retirement. They are already being asked to shoulder an unacceptable burden that was put on them by the Labour party. It would be entirely wrong to reopen a decision that was taken by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition back in 2011.

Cremation of Infants (England)

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Howarth, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under you, and I will be as quick as I can.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing a debate on this important issue. On average, almost 20 very small babies die around the time of their birth every day in England and Wales. This issue is clearly significant for many families, and indeed for society as a whole.

I also have a constituent’s story to tell, which raises a related but slightly different problem. In 2009, my constituent gave birth to a baby girl who, sadly, did not survive. My constituent was told at the time by the funeral directors that there would not be any ashes, because the body of her baby was too small.

Following the media attention on this issue, which has been mentioned by several Members today, and the campaigning by Action for Ashes, my constituent was moved to contact Banbury crematorium in June. She hoped to find out details of their practice at the time when her baby was cremated. Imagine her enormous surprise and distress when she was told that her baby’s ashes were still at the crematorium, some six years on, waiting for her to collect them. She immediately went to pick up the ashes, as any mother would, and there was no difficulty in identifying them or in the crematorium handing them to her.

I understand that this is not an isolated case. I have written to crematoriums, because I understand that there are more babies whose remains are waiting to be collected; their families are simply not aware that their ashes are in crematoriums. Clearly, that is not acceptable—at the very least there has been a major breakdown in communication between the funeral directors, the crematoriums and the families. It is to be hoped that we can use these sad cases to inform debate and to consider how we can prevent such incidents from happening again.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice for meeting my constituent last week, and for the interest and sensitivity that she has shown in dealing with this difficult issue.

It is no longer necessary to have personal experience of the loss of a young baby to understand their importance in the eyes of their parents, grandparents and wider family. With recent advances in medicine, whereby some babies survive after only 22 or 23 weeks’ gestation, the perceptions of the whole of society towards these very important members of society have altered considerably. We may not be good at discussing death, but we all know that it matters how the bodies of these babies are treated.

The Scottish Government accepted all the recommendations of the Infant Cremation Commission and have established a national committee to ensure that they are implemented. I am keen that we learn from that work and move speedily to ensure that the rest of the UK does not lag behind in its provision for infant cremations.

I understand that both the leading professional organisations in the UK have adopted the wider definition of “ashes” to include remains from clothes, coffins and soft toys. This is good progress, but work must be done to ensure that the definition is applied in practice, and that small babies are always cremated in individual trays. A standard definition, and clear guidelines, would really help in this regard.

Clearly, work also needs to be done to ensure that funeral directors, crematoriums and families know exactly what is going on at each stage of the process. Care must be taken to ensure that both parents are involved in decision making. Obviously, many of the mothers who have given birth to these babies are unwell at the time, and enormous stress is placed on the families. It is very important that everybody is very clear at every stage of the process where the body of their baby is.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is setting out the case most sensitively and powerfully. I am extremely grateful to her, as will be my constituents, Mr and Mrs Jones of Wigston Magna, whose son, Nicholas, died over 30 years ago. They have been living for the last 30 years with exactly the sorts of problems, traumas and distress that my hon. Friend is outlining. I am most grateful to her, on their behalf, for what she is saying.

[Victoria Prentis]

The pressures on the couple, dealing both separately and together with the loss of their child, are enormous, as all hon. Members know. Clearly, specialist staff training is needed to make sure that parents are helped in the best way. Many of us, whether we have lost children or other relatives, know that the actions of funeral directors and crematoriums can really make a difference in helping the living survive a bereavement.

Human Rights Act

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very fair point. I hope the Government will include that as part of the consultation. Some of the things that cause offence to many of our constituents might be remedied more easily in a more appropriate fashion. That is an important point.

The Government are committed to basing a British Bill of Rights on the convention, but we need a little more detail about what “basing” means. For example, are there any rights in the convention that it would not be proposed to include in the Bill? That is critical, because people would be concerned about a diminution of protections. On the other hand, are there areas where the current protections might be enhanced? We need that spelled out at an early stage.

What is the timetable? What is the proposed scope and level of detail of the prelegislative scrutiny? The Justice Committee, which I chair, will be most anxious to be involved in that scrutiny, but other parts of the House will also rightly have to have an input. We also need carefully to address the impact across the whole United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom was a signatory to the convention, and the Human Rights Act was a United Kingdom piece of legislation. It is important that we reflect on all those matters.

I am not perhaps as pessimistic about the prospects for constructive change as my right hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps that is because I am a West Ham supporter, so optimism must come naturally to me—something that you, as a Sheffield Wednesday supporter, will understand very well, Mr Betts.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I am glad my right hon. and learned Friend is a optimist—he may need to be in the present circumstances. One subject we may be able to address in making any changes is extraterritoriality, under article 1, particularly with regard to the military. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) may have touched on that when he talked about the possibility of other legislation being the way forward.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that promotion, which is unexpected and undeserved on both counts. I always look forward to the future with optimism as far as those two matters are concerned. Extraterritoriality is an important issue. It has exercised those involved in a number of recent Court judgments, and it is precisely the sort of area where we might find a proportionate and sensible way forward.

I hope we will engage with the profession on these issues, because there is a great deal of knowledge and understanding about this issue. We tend to regard what happens in the Strasbourg Court as a bit of a sideshow, and that would be a mistake, whatever side of the argument we are on.